A Brave New World Chapter 11

1. Why is Dr. Shaw glad to "have had this opportunity to see an example of senility in a human being." (155)

-Because he is getting to send Linda into eternity by dosing her with a bunch of soma. Typically this isn't permitted because the people usually have things to get done, however LInda doesn't because she is a savage. Therfore, she doesn't belong to a particular caste.

2. Why are people saying behind Bernard's back that, "he won't find another Savage to help him out a second time."

-Well, I think that they envy him slightly. Also, they probably aren't enjoying all of the attention that Bernard is getting, because it is throwing things off from the norm.

3. Why do the Eton students in the Beta-Minus geography room laugh at the religious activities of "savages"? Why do you think it is significant that there are no twins at Eton? Do you think that is still true today?

-Well, they were probably conditioned to laugh at it. It is significant that there are no twins because it is the first time that every one is actually an individual, rather than the exact replica of everyone else. And, as for today, no twin is the exact replica of someone else. But everyone is an individual today, which is what makes this sort of similiar to the fact that there aren't ant twins at Eton.

4. How do children in the World State learn about death?

-Starting at 18 months, they spend two mornings every week in a hospital where people are dying. Toys are kept there, and they recieve a special treat on the day that someone dies. This basically enables them to not be afraid of death. "They learn to take dying as a matter of course."

5. Why do lower-caste workers receive daily Soma rations? Do we do this today?

- Probably to get them to keep working. I think this is sort of like today's society... lower castes get paid minimum wage, but they are still getting paid so that they continue to work. They get extra soma on Saturday, just as some of us may get time and a half for working overtime.

6. Why does John tell Lenina that, "I don't think you ought to see things like that." (169)

-Because he doesn't want her to feel like she isn't perfect because she is not like what she is seeing.

Outline

What similarities and differences are there between Scientific and Historical Explanations?

Opening:

Overview of "what is science, versus what is history"

-Science: can experiment

-History: gathers information from the past

Ways of knowing with science and history

-science: perception, reason, language

-history: perception, language, reason (emotion?)

Mention that there are counterclaims, implications, etc

Body Paragraph 1:

Differences in the way they EXPLAIN things

-science uses deduction

->Framework- we make inferences , assume, educated guess, hypothesis, conclusion

-history uses induction

->bigger picture... why did something happen? oh, because of these certain things going on.

-science can experiment so that they can falsify a hypothesis.

-history gathers information that is already there, and make inferences upon that.

Body Paragraph 2

Similarities between the explanations

-History has two different aspects to it...

-Carr "its not history until the historian says so."

-Positivists "facts are out there waiting for the historians to discover..."

-Science has two subcategories

-Natural sciences: things such as chemistry, physics..

-Social sciences: psychology, etc.

-Both science and history pick and choose their facts.

->Historians choose which aspects of the past are "important."

->Scientists choose which variables are important to look at...

-Both science and history are constantly changing.

->Science: the theory of Darwin... now the idea of creationism?

->History: what actually caused WWII?

-Neither science nor history can "prove" something.

-Science falsifies things.

-History finds evidence to create an idea of what occurred...

Body Paragraph 3

-Counterclaims

-with history, there may be problems with the perception used, the way a person interprets things. language is translated over so many years. however, science is more "solid." no perception issues -> measurements. one pound is one pound, regardless... etc.

-Implications

-science and history have some similarities, and differences, which could affect the way we interpret certain situations

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Abel, Reuben. Man is the Measure. New York: The Free Press, 1976.

-also, the movie from class on Darwin vs. dover school board... but i don't know the name

A Brave New World Chapter 10

1. Why does the director feel unorthodoxy is worse than murder? What does the director want to do with Bernard Marx?

-With murder, only one person suffers, but with unorthodoxy many people suffer. He says that, "murder kills only the individual- and after all, what is an individual?" On the other hand, unorthodoxy threatens the entire society, which is much more significant than only harming one person. The director wants to dismiss Bernard from the center by sending him to Iceland.

2. What surprise does Bernard bring to the director?

-He brings Linda in with John, which completely humiliates the director while also making him feel ashamed.

Order in Chaos

The claim that “people need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events,” is relevant to several areas of knowledge. Based upon my own understanding, this claim largely relates to psychology as well as sociology, which both study order when there are extreme amounts of chaos.

In my psychology class last year, we studied social psychology, which is a subfield of psychology that deals with how our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by our social interactions with others. Although this doesn’t appear to directly relate to how people find order in chaos, there are many studies where this was investigated. In my opinion, the most prominent of these studies was one conducted by Muzafer Sherriff, known as the “Robber’s Cave Experiment.” The purpose of the Robber’s Cave Experiment was to test the Realistic Group Conflict Theory, which contains three “stages.” The first stage is the idea that if two groups are competing for scarce resources, there is a hierarchical formation within both groups, which ultimately leads to “out group prejudice.” The second part of the stage is that if these two groups are put in competition with each other for the scarce resources, the prejudice which was formed will begin to show to the other members. These two stages don’t seem to pertain much to the idea of finding order in chaos, however the third stage pertains to it a tremendous amount. In the third stage, it is believed that the presence of super-ordinate goals and the chance to work together to get the super-ordinate goal is able to reduce prejudice. This concept of the Realistic Group Conflict Theory applies to the quote adapted from John Gray even more when it is looked at in the context of the experiment.

In the Robber’s Cave Experiment, a simulated summer camp experiment was created. Boys were randomly placed into two different groups, and they were left for a few days to get acquainted with each other. Once this happened, it appeared as though in each group people were being assigned certain roles, and some were looked at as leaders. Then, the two groups of boys were made aware of each other, which is where the chaos began to happen. Middle school boys who are put in competition with each other are definitely chaotic. In this study, the boys were putting each other down, and doing everything they possibly could to win over certain things at the camp. For instance, one main thing that the boys wanted to have control of was a baseball diamond, because whoever had control over this was seen as the better group. Therefore there was a bunch of chaos because both of the groups were competing as they tried to be better than the other one. However, the camp counselors told the boys that the water supply was covered by a rock, and that there was no way that only one group could move the rock alone. This is when stage three of the Realistic Group Conflict Theory comes into play. The boys attempted to move the rock alone, within their own group. More chaos was created, because the boys started to panic as they thought that they would not be able to survive without having any water. Finally, the boys started to listen to what the camp counselors had told them-that the only way they could get this water was if they all worked together. This is when the boys started to see through the chaos and develop a sense of order. They worked together and were able to move the rock as they put their differences aside. Ultimately, this shows that if the right conditions are created, order can be developed even in the most chaotic situations. However, this only applies to young boys in summer camp, so it is important to look at the bigger issues regarding finding order when chaos is at its highest point.

Recently, in my TOK class, a criminologist who studied patterns in homicides visited to talk with the students. In my mind, when I think of a murder, I think of craziness as well as a lot of chaos. The criminologist who visited covered a few of these points, such as how to hide the body, and the chaos that surrounds this. There are so many things that could go wrong with a murder, that he pointed out to us, which makes the whole thought of killing someone way to chaotic to bother with. However, it seems that when a person is investigating a murder, there must be a lot of chaos as well. There are so many things that a criminologist might not have evidence for, which could create problems, especially if they accuse the wrong suspect of committing the homicide. They are potentially dealing with the future life of someone else, who may actually be innocent. Therefore, it seems that the life of a criminologist may be way too complex to even consider, because there are too many possible variables that ultimately could create problems. This was my opinion on criminology, up until the point where Dr, O’Kane, the criminologist, visited our class.

When Dr. O’Kane spoke to our class, he started out by asking us some questions, which seemed a bit ridiculous to the class. For instance, he asked us “what day is a homicide most likely to occur on?” Everyone in our class guessed the wrong day- because it turns out that the most common day for a homicide to occur on is Saturday. He then proceeded to ask us questions about our opinion as to what time was the most prominent for murders to occur at… which was between 9 to 10 o’clock at night. These answers seemed pretty basic and it appeared as though anyone could figure them out if given the time. However, the questions began to get more elaborate, such as where would the murder occur if the person who committed the act was a man versus a woman. Surprisingly the results varied. When a man is committing the murder, it most prominently occurs down the street from a bar. However, if a woman commits the murder- it happens in the kitchen. All of these facts do not seem to have a lot to do with my point- that order can be found in chaos; however, in reality the facts are all about finding order in chaos. Criminologists are able to study the patterns that are related to murders, so that they can gather their evidence to persecute the correct suspect. Despite all of the chaos that goes on with a murder, people study simple statistics and find ways to see order so that in the end the chaos of the murder isn’t as prominent as the important facts. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with this point however, which is why it is important to note the counter claims of an argument such as this.

A person can easily disagree with a criminologist who studies statistics, because the truth of it is that these statistics do not stand alone. Somebody could make the argument that not all homicides occur on Saturday nights, between 9 and 10 at night, which is completely true. However, it is important to consider these statistics when studying homicides, because in the majority of cases, these things are true. The implication of this is that if a homicide doesn’t occur on a Saturday during that specific time period, it might be a bit unusual because it breaks the patters of the norm. However, this just results in the criminologist looking even further into why things were different in that specific case. Thus, it is important to remember that order can be seen even when there are large amounts of chaos. Order is what enables us, as human beings, to be able to live as a human being. Everything in our life is made up of order and patterns. Although the order may be hard to see when there is chaos occurring, we cannot forget that we always will have a sense of order in our lives, and no amount of chaos can change that.

Word Count: 1,369

Abel Questions on Scientific Explanation

1. How does science explain a fact? Please use the entire explanation on page 91 and 92.

-Science explains a fact by putting it in a general law, with specific conditions... Therefore, science uses deduction. Every fact is explained by being from a general law. The scientist devises concepts to describe certain things, while also supplying certain laws, which allow us to make inferences about what we want to explain.

2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?

-It is sometimes said that science describes, rather than explains: He says theres is no sharp line that can be drawn between description and explanation. He says that if scientific explanations of why the pond froze and why there was an eclipse are only descriptions, then what would an explanation be?

-It is sometimes said that science explains the strange by the familiar: He says it is usually the opposite, because familiar concepts are usually explained by unfamiliar concepts.

-Scientific explanation is not the same as understanding in the sense in which it is said. He specifically talks about men who say they can understand women. However, he says that this understanding relates more to knowledge by acquaintance than a science.

-A scientific explanation need not be a casual law: He says that it may be a law of simultaneous existence rather than succession. (I don't understand this one at all.)

3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (93)

-He means that everything must be explained by means of a law. If there is a law with a lot of room for leeway then it means that the explanation will be better because there is a lot to the explanation. This probably doesn't make sense, but its like... you have more things to choose from when the law is bigger, to better hep explain your law.

4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (94)

-He means that you can't just go on with a long explanation when there is no need for one. For instance if someone ask where Sturgis is, you could tell them that its on main street in Hyannis, and they would probably find it. There would be no need for the longitudinal and latitudinal directions, although this further explains where it is.

5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (95)

-Because they don't eliminate entities or events from happening in the world, everything that once was happening is still happening. The explanation behind it is the only thing that changes. For instance, when we talked about how the things we touched we weren't really touching, it didn't change anything as to what was happening... instead, it just changed the reason as to what was happening when we touched stuff.

6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?

-Because a system is a whole which determines the operation of its parts... scientific explanations require the operation of certain things to be explained. It can't just be said that there are these molecules, and they make up DNA... the process of DNA must be described so that a person can understand it.

7. Why is the theory of emergence used to explain how anything new came into the world? What counter-claim does Abel provide?

-It is used because it is proposed to remedy the inability of the metaphysics of mechanism. He says that there is no reason why there has to be "logically unpredictable qualities."

8. Why is theory and observation interdependent in scientific explanation?

-Because somebody might argue that they saw different things since theories can interact with the observations which they are based. However, all theories function within the same realm of possible human experience... and therefore they must touch.

9, Why is explanation in science theoretically identical to prediction? How does Abel feel about this?

- Because you know you have explained the last event that occurred "satisfactorily" if you can predict the next one. However, Abel says that a good explanation doesn't always need to have a prediction. He uses the example of drinking coffee. He says that you could explain the reason for staying up late the previous night is due to drinking coffee, however you can not say that coffee is going to make you stay up late again tonight just because it did last night.

10.What does Abel mean when he says: "The growth of science is not a clear-cut, straightforward progression toward a unique, all-inclusive final truth." (100)

-He says this because there are many variables that are involved in science, that could change anything at anytime. Also the events that are occurring in the world at a give time could influence what the scientist decides to study, because he needs to study things that are relevant to current events.

11. According to Abel, what situations are seen by scientists as requiring explanation?

-The information about biological survival in the past. (I think, I'm not positive...)

12. What is the role of the human element in the progress of scientific explanation?

-The scientist has to choose what problem he wants to focus on studying. Also, the way in which a scientist discovers or comes about his new hypothesis also plays a role in scientific explanation. Also, there are extrascienfitic influences, which involved the conclusions that the scientist makes.

13. Abel claims that "Our perceptual knowledge is delimited by our characteristic biological capacities, and there are limits to the completeness of our theoretical structures. But our observations and our theories mutually reinforce each other. The structure of our science is pragmatically justified; it is the most reliable knowledge there is." (105) Does this hold true in history as well?

-I think that the first sentence of this quote is completely true. It reminds me of the checks lab we did when we started learning about history. The facts that we didn't think fit with our explanation, we just sort of threw away. This was because of our biological capacities. It was completely possible that the animals on the checks were important, however because of our biological capacity, and the way we have been taught, we didn't find it important so we threw the information away. Also, history is somewhat justified by the artifacts that we gather from the past... but I wouldn't say it is like a science in that aspect. There are way too many biases involved with history that come into play when studying it to claim that it is reliable. Although there are biases in experiments as well, there are ways of getting around the biases, whereas there isn't a way of getting around them in history. The facts are there, you gather them and interpret them how you feel fit to... you can't control that.

14. In bullet form, and using information from this chapter and chapter 15, please list the similarities and differences between scientific and historical explanations.

-Similarities:

-in science, there is no way of being certain that a person has controlled for all extraneous variables. in history, there is no way of being certain that a person has accounted for all the important information... that they haven't left anything out.

-in science and history, people have to decide on the relevant information that they choose to account for.

-there are facts in each.

-some sciences can have biases, just like history is biased.

-they are both interpretations of events.

-Differences:

-in science, the information that is being gathered is something that is able to be seen right in front of you, whereas with history it is information of the past.

-in science, you are able to falsify things, however you can't really do that in history. in history, you can say that you don't think something happened, but there is no way of being completely certain, because only the important things are recorded in history.

A Brave New World Chapter 9

1. What did Lenina do when she got back to the rest-house?

- She took six half-gramme tablets of soma, and layed down. It says that she "embarked for lunar eternity." It lasted for eighteen hours.

2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?

-He asks to bring Linda and John back with him to England.

3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?

-He is going through her suit case, and he is amazed by her green slippers, as well as the scent of her perfume and her powder. He is fascinated and he says, "Lenina," as though Lenina were actually there. He then goes off to say something poetic, which I think may be from Shakespeare, referencing Romeo and Juliet... "On the white wonder of dear Juliet's hand." I don't know why this is significant yet, but it is showing how beautiful he thinks she is. A savage-like boy is falling in love with a girl from the other world. Maybe it is illustrating that there can be tre love, and the idea of Ford's world doesn't really matter... maybe Lenina is going to fall in love with John, and she will no longer believe what she has been taught through hypnopaedia.