AoK # 2- Natural Sciences : Yixia Gu

I chose the piece ‘Octavian Nothing’, as it provided interesting points on the purpose of Natural Science. Through reading this extract, we learn that Mr. Sharpe and Dr. Trefusis are disputing the best way the boy can learn. Mr. Sharpe puts forwards the point tat natural sciences cultivate a man in rational thinking. This is devoid of any imagination or ‘absurd’ content like those in narratives or literature. These two subjects are also on two ends of the spectrum, one objective and the other more subjective. By comparing training of the child to an experiment, the reader is provided with the impression that science in general is very structured and rigid. There are no extraneous variables such as “talking about jungle animals” or “myths”- everything is either true and there of it is not. That way, the results cannot be biased or subjective. More importantly, through the phrase, only “rational faculties…constitute growth away from his hereditary savage nature.”, promotes the idea that the natural sciences is a fundamental component of society, teaching mankind to develop the skills of reasonable and proper thinking, which in turn cultivates the intellect.

To a certain degree, the natural science to me is an area that requires us to use our logic faculties. All science experiments we conduct need a clear and logical methodology; otherwise the experiment would produce “prejudiced” results, as mentioned in the extract. We also need to have controls to make sure that the only thing that is being tested is the one contributing to the result. It is true that science is to do with rigidity in testing and unbiased subjects, but some of early theories may have had some element of ‘irrationality’. Consider Galileo Galilee for example. When he first proposed the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, and it was this rotation led people to think that the sun was moving across the sky. Although Galileo’s theory was later verified and accepted into the law of physics, people at the time would have thought that he was crazy. In addition, I don’t see how science links in with grammer except for the fact that they comprise of solid rules. However, I do agree with the notion that by learning the sciences, this enables us to be equipped with abstract thinking. This skill of applying abstract concepts to new situations applys to our daily life. If we saw someone snatch their hand away quickly from a hot stove, we would know that it was a reflex, which in biology is a natural response as a result of millions of neurons passing through a reflex arc. Certain concepts in chemistry such as chemical bonding and valency shells can be applied to explaining why liquids boil and solids don’t. This type of knowledge is very practical and flexible.

Natural science (article reactions) - Karriena Wadwani

1. From my chosen text ‘the magazine article’ I experienced a few emotions whilst reading about the different experiments which have taken place. I was amazed to the extreme lengths and dedications these scientists went through, just to prove a point or to gain knowledge.
   
   To the first experiment which was done on the Elephants I could imagine the poor elephant in shock running around and in my opinion I thought that this was a very inhumane just to gain knowledge which wasn’t even necessary. The second experiment which took place was on the plane the mission was to find out “how extreme stress affects the cognitive ability” I found this experiment humorous because its seems to unrealistic to imagine. The experiment to prove yellow fever wasn’t contagious I thought that this was very gruesome because eating other peoples sick is practically punishing yourself and you’d bound to fall sick anyways. A few of the other experiments which had taken place were as amusing and very hard to believe its true.
   
   

AoK 2 - Natural Sciences- Robert Win

The article 'Madness or Genius?' recounts several scientific experiments which were conducted which were considered the most "bizzare".

These experiments were conducted under unusual conditions to derive results which would be unexpected by many, for example, according to sources, in 1954 Soviet surgeon Vladimir Demikhov was able to join two seperate dogs together, froming a live, two-headed dog.

Experiments like these mentioned in the article suggests that Natural Sciences like many things can be manipulated and changed or effected by people. The article also draws a picture about Natural Sciences and how they affect outcomes, as the extract about 'how the assumption of one dieing can affect that persons ability to focus on a specific but none life saving task. The extract states that an experiment were a military pilot was told to tell the 10 military passengers on board that the plane was about to crashland after faking that one of the planes engines had failed. The soldiers were then asked to fill out insurance forms in case they were to die. Later on it was found that the soldiers writting the insurance forms under pressure and the fear of dieing made more writing mistakes than if they were not in any form of mental pressure of that state. The soldiers were later told by the pilot that it was all a lie for an experiment. Here, the examples of natural sciences would be the psychological 'pressure' put on the soldiers and how something we cannot see could have such an affect on ones performance.

The picture that Natural science is a sometimes invisible and modifiable form of science relates and matches to many examples where people are able to take something from nature and change it to ones will. In my opinion natural science was and is the basis of all science as through natural science we would not havebeen able to develop technologies from raw resources to modern machinery and chemistry.

AoK 2 : Natural Sciences –ALYSSA WOOTTEN

What 'picture' of the natural sciences do you get from your chosen text?

The text I have gathered a reaction to is ‘Madness or Genius?’, a list of the most bizarre tests ever conducted in name of scientific inquiry. My first reaction was pretty much, wow people can really be genuinely repulsive and do horrible, completely UNESSESARY things in the name of ‘scientific enquiry’. The picture that I’m given is a bunch of scientists in geeky jackets doing stupid things with drugs and such. I strongly disapprove of what they did, causing cruelty to animals and sometimes even to themselves (in the case of swallowing VOMIT). It just sounds and seems stupid. I also find it disgusting that when Vladimir Demikhov (1954) created a dog with two heads, and as if that isn’t bad enough, then the dog(s) are referred to as a ‘creation’, not a living being. When I read this I felt really remorseful for the animal(s), and then I read on to discover it was done 19 more times over the next fifteen years, with the longest lived lasting a month, suffering for an entire month. Good on the Sovient Union for dismissing it. Another experiment I found rather dumb – was by Robert Cornish at the university of California in the 1930s, where he attempted to bring dead animals back to life by tilting them up and down on a see saw. To be honest I found this rather (VERY) out of the ordinary when I first read it, it just seems so bizarre and in our days, right now if someone was to do what he did I would say they would probably get sent to a mental institution to be helped. Most of these experiments are being told to us in this magazine which complied the list together, to show us how science has progressed, and what exactly it has progressed FROM, and the different forms it comes and goes n. This ‘picture’ doesn’t really match my experiences and understandings of natural science. I think this because I didn’t really consider these sorts of experiments being done; I saw it more of a getting dirt and analysing it kind of science. So I was DEF. surprised!

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.

AoK 2 - Natural Sciences - Hey Tou

Reading the ‘Madness or Genius’ article, I was shocked and taken aback from some of the experiments that have been conducted. From this text, I suddenly realize that the natural sciences and the experiments involved in this area are not always what I expect it to be. Here, it seems like science is not always used in the most ‘proper’ way. Some of the experiments mentioned in the article are somewhat absurd and ridiculous. They do not include informed consent or anything about the safety or rights of the participants. More importantly, some of these experiments does not even seem to take into account of the subject’s (whether human or animal) well being during or after the experiment. This is obvious in the experiment of aircraft passengers where they were told they were about to die due to a car crash. Subjects could have had huge problems after participating in the experiment as they were exposed to such extreme circumstances. The consequences of such an experiment could have traumatized them to the extent that they may not even function as usual. I believe that there are definitely other ways to investigate and research about how extreme stress harms and affects cognitive ability. It seems that some scientists have taken ‘experimentation’ of ‘new’ theories or things to such a severe and excessive extent that the experimentation method is completely abused. What the scientists are trying to look for are not even that relevant to real life that it is just illogical to create such experiments.

I believe that the experiments mentioned in the article absolutely go against my understanding of natural sciences. I have always believed that natural sciences and the experiments conducted are ethical and reasonable. People concerned in the experiments should come first over the theory and experimentation itself. The safety of subjects is most important. However, as seen from the article, many of the experiments are pretty meaningless and worthless. Is it really that important to know whether laughing is an innate response to tickling? I was particularly surprised by the experiment on animal corpses placed on a seesaw to bring them back to life. Even though two of the animal did survive, the both still suffered from blindness and brain damage. Is it really worth to succeed in an experiment through the cost of physically handicapping the subjects? I personally think that these experiments are needless, and that they cannot be counted as experiments in the natural sciences area.

AoK 2 : Natural Sciences – Norbert

I have chosen the 'madness or genius' article. Natural sciences are theories that have been proved. However, the variation of natural science in this article has become very experimental. It seems like humans are increasingly using experiments, but in this case, ‘gruesome’ experiments, to test out new theories that we don't really need to find.

These experiments are really not necessary. It is a damage to lives, taking away rights and very gruesome. A dog should not be modified in any way so that experiments can be carried out.

Who wants drink vomit just to find out whether a disease is contagious or not, unless they are some sort of a study freak of human disease, but otherwise it is very unsuitable, it is sick to me, even though I am just reading this off a piece of paper.

Imagine you are one of the soldiers on that plane trying to fill in an insurance policy form as if it really was happening just seconds before your death, and later told it was just a test? How mean is that? Honestly, I think people should not study how these soldiers, no matter how desperate they are.

It is an absolute abuse. This is not natural science in any measure of our imagination. It is not logical to conduct these tests, it doesn't necessarily help if we do, and through our senses we know they are also morally wrong. The person or animal that ate being were being tested weren't told beforehand.

I think it is never appropriate to be tested on without being told or without consent. It isn't even natural science.