Sample Proseminar Logs

Sample One

Good evening!

09.11.2014

Read Bryson Chapter 1 (approx. 20 minutes)

I really enjoyed this! Bryson is a great author because he employed many metaphors and images to help the reader (me) imagine just how great our universe is. It was a nice refresher on the Big Bang with side stories I had never heard before. It was a great read other than the fact that I was left feeling vastly insignificant afterwards. I guess that's not such a bad thing.

09.11.2014

Read Giere (approx. 45 minutes)

The story of Watson and Crick reminds me that science is indeed a human activity (which emotions, errors, etc.) because I tend to not think of it that way. The flow chart in figure 2.9 is a good model for a "scientific episode" but it also can be applied to any theory in general, not just science. When I look at its' individual relationships the graph looks simple but with all of the components together it can quickly become complex.

09.12.2014

Read Barnes Chap. 16 (approx. 3 hours)

I loved this reading mostly because I love history. It was a lot of information to absorb at one sitting but I tried to focus mostly on the main points you addressed on the schedule. It is interesting to note that science was not practiced at universities for a long time (connections with the Church) so instead societies formed outside the academic community for science. A ton of names are thrown out in this reading so I just kept track of the developments in the scientific community in the areas of: biology, physics, and astronomy. Those umbrella categories gave progress to calculus, geology, geography, anatomy, pathology, zoology, electricity, philosophy, etc. I think the heart of what I got out of this text was on page 693. Barnes said that, "The evolution of science in the seventeenth century profoundly influenced the philosophy of the period by focusing attention on the hitherto unsuspected extent of the universe, the relative insignificance of the earth in the cosmos, the apparent reign of law in the development and processes of the universe, the conception of God as a lawmaking and law-abiding entity instead of a lawless, arbitrary being, and, finally, the recognition of the antiquity of the earth." This quote ties in all of the readings thus far together really well.

09.14.2014 and 09.15.2014

Read Schick and Vaughn (total of approx. 3 hours)

A scientific hypothesis is distinguished from regular hypotheses on the basis of: "A hypothesis is scientific only if it is testable, that is, only if it predicts something more than what is predicted by the background of theory alone" (pg. 173). However, the authors make clear that a hypothesis can not be supported with ad hoc reasoning. The criteria of adequacy looks at hypotheses that are 1) predictive 2) testable 3) parsimonious 4) of broad scope, and 5) integratable or cumulative within a coherent and expanding corpus (body) of theories. (pg. 172). I was fascinated by the discussion on applying these standards to creationism, intelligent design, and parapsychology. Personally, I am a firm believer in evolution and my opinions on these other topics were only solidified further (although I didn't really know that much about parapsychology/ESP beforehand). Altogether an interesting read!

Sample Two

9/15/14 So I am not entirely sure what I should be writing here for my log, but over the past week I have been reading on the anthropomorphization of deities in the Ancient world and the kritik of it by Xeophanes. I am writing a paper on this area and have done some external research, including some of the ways that Christianity represented Christ dealing with His dual nature.

On top of that I am continue with my moral psychology research and have looked into the work of Jonathan Haidt who is currently at NYU Business program, but formerly taught UVA previously. Some of his work is quite interesting dealing with ethical decision making and the role emotion and "rationality" plays. He also has done a lot of work with the way that specific communities form and enforce morals and ethics. I am planning on writing a paper and submitting it to the research conference; the paper will be on the way that ethics form with in a specific community, which I was thinking would be the debate community.

In terms of our reading, one thing that interested me is the way that science and philosophy (and even in some forms of psychological research) differ in method. Science is very much empirical and concrete, while philosophy is more conseptual. What interests me is the unique roll that both fields play in understanding the world. Science, I believe has a limited scope to the world of the physical and tangible, but philosophy allows for a better way of understanding the mind. I think back to the concept of methodological naturalism that the Christianity and Science class touched on and how it integrates and mixes the metaphysical and the physical world. The merging is not necesarily impossible, or even wrong, but I think that, as you have said in class, philosophers get defensive (and scientists get offensive) on what matters more. I think that both are integral to understanding the way the world work. --

Sample Three

I enjoyed reading Science and Its Pretenders by Schick and Vaughn, but admittedly for the vibrant and interesting less academic side stories. I loved the tale of Franz Anton Mesmer and the origin of the word "mesmerize". Side articles such as the "Hollow Earth Theory" and "Did Adam and Eve have Navels?" also tickled my fancy. Regarding the criteria of adequacy, everything made sense and was in line with the Psychology Research Methods class I'm taking now.

The Bryson reading was pretty light and easy. My dad is an amateur astronomer and always took me to star watching events since I was a very little kid, so I've always been interested in space. I liked the idea brought up in the reading by Tryon from Columbia that universes just happen with the right combination of elements and properties and that there have been many universe "attempts" before ours and will be many after ours.

After reading Giere, there were similarities in how the scientific process was outlined to how Schick and Vaughn did. Giere really stressed model making, and whether that model is accurate, and whether the data collected accurately predicts future phenomena. Overall this reading was pretty dry, but all the figures were useful.

In the Barnes reading, I was really inspired by the topic of scientific societies. While similar communities may exist today, I feel like professional boards and panels do not have the same fervor and enthusiasm for their fields as the societies did back then. Their description as being a more informal collection of all types of curious scientists looking to collaborate in their own time shows so much passion.

As prompted by going on the course wiki, I got hooked on Three Minute Philosophy videos that a student posted. That kind of got out of hand... I watched one on Hume, Kant, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Epicurus, Xeno, Pythagorus, Descartes, Locke, Hobbes, Heraclius, Parmenides, and Empedocles. After each of the videos, I looked up the wikipedia pages of the philosopher they were about and poked around for topics I thought were intriguing or especially controversial views the philosopher held.