AoK #2 - Natural sciences: Chloe Chan

From the text ‘Madness or genius?’ from the Guardian, we can see that science is in fact not as professional as it is perceived to be. The experiments presented in the text are in truth the complete opposite of what science is supposed to represent. Science theoretically is believed to explore the explanations behind something to acquire knowledge and understanding of a concept. However the concepts explored here are not typically asked questions, “Will tilting a dead animal on a seesaw revive it from death?” and are quite unreasonable in the face of science even though the scientific method can still be used. From this we can assume that science is a wide subject which spreads far into other areas, and that science is just about being able to wonder and question things. Also it can be established that science is just acquiring knowledge using the scientific method no matter how odd the idea maybe. Furthermore, this text demonstrates that with having odd queries we may discover something unknown and practical as suggested by the title. An example maybe Vladimir Demikhov where his most outrageous experiment, with creating a dog with two heads, led to successful heart transplants.

Compared to my understanding and knowledge of science, two of the most opposing things of ‘madness’ and ‘genius’ going together is completely different to what I have understood in science. I think this may be due to the large amount of logic and thinking required in science that makes us think that the two cannot go together. From past experience it is clear that the scientific method can be applied to any query like when trying to work out what an unknown object is, and what its functions are by observing it, using past experience to guess what it is, testing it by fidgeting with it etc. The scientific method can probably apply to many areas because of its original use to answer questions through experimenting, concluding and thinking.