The microscope, the key instrument of Robert Hooke’s experiments, is an important key factor in furthering our discoveries about the mysterious world we live in. Eventually, we believe that his experiments will lead us to discovering the compound of all the different particles we, and all living things, are made up of. With his research, we can unravel the vast mysteries that God has set forth on our planet.
Hooke discovered that this simple instrument, the microscope, could reveal great details on the body of small creatures, his prime specimen being the fly. The perfection found in such small creatures is further proof that our God exists, for only he could create such a glorious creature. Hook himself states that this is these experiments are “certainly the most likely way to erect a glorious and everlasting structure and temple to nature and thus to Nature’s Creator” (Shapin, 153).
Links:
http://roberthooke.com
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/hooke.html
Friday, October 31, 2008
Sex and Reproduction Under the Microscope
Antonio Van Leeuwenhoek is well known for his studies of microorganisms, sex and reproduction under the Microscope. Born in the Netherlands during the mid 16th century, he lived during a thriving period of time in Dutch History. This was known as the golden age, a time of economic, cultural and scientific prosper. Immigrants came to the Netherlands to escape religious prosecution. Amsterdam was bustling with writers, scholars, and wealthy merchants. Leeuwenhoek who was raised in the Netherlands started to perfect the recently invented microscope in the lat 1660’s. He continued to study small organisms, such as fleas, under the microscope. Leeuwenhoek soon discovered that there were millions of microorganisms everywhere. By putting corn meal under the microscope, he sat that it was invested with minute worms. These worms were causing sifters infectious diseases.
Leeuwenhoek is also known for his scientific advances in reproduction. He looked at seminal fluid under the microscope and realized sperm was made up of millions of microorganisms, which were documented as spermatozoa. This allowed him to further understand the process of reproduction, and theorized that the sperm entered the ovum. His scientific discoveries regarding spermatozoa and reproduction enable him to prove the popular belief of spontaneous generation of life incorrect. This was a theory that living organisms could come from non living objects. Such as mice could come from dirty hay. This theory was believed by the majority of people during the 16th and 17th century and was recognized by the church. Even though Leeuwenhoek did prove this theory incorrect he was not a major threat to the church because it did not disprove the theory of creationism. His discoveries were important for two main reasons. First, he was able to find the route of many infectious diseases by discovering microorganisms. Second, he was able to understand what actually occurred during reproduction and prove the theory of spontaneous generation incorrect. Leeuwenhoek is known as the father of microbiology, and was and was recognized by the English Royal Society.
Please look at this amusing video about how the sperm attaches itself to the ovum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc1L61FpAnY&feature=related
For more information on spontaneous generation:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/spontaneous-generation.htm
Leeuwenhoek is also known for his scientific advances in reproduction. He looked at seminal fluid under the microscope and realized sperm was made up of millions of microorganisms, which were documented as spermatozoa. This allowed him to further understand the process of reproduction, and theorized that the sperm entered the ovum. His scientific discoveries regarding spermatozoa and reproduction enable him to prove the popular belief of spontaneous generation of life incorrect. This was a theory that living organisms could come from non living objects. Such as mice could come from dirty hay. This theory was believed by the majority of people during the 16th and 17th century and was recognized by the church. Even though Leeuwenhoek did prove this theory incorrect he was not a major threat to the church because it did not disprove the theory of creationism. His discoveries were important for two main reasons. First, he was able to find the route of many infectious diseases by discovering microorganisms. Second, he was able to understand what actually occurred during reproduction and prove the theory of spontaneous generation incorrect. Leeuwenhoek is known as the father of microbiology, and was and was recognized by the English Royal Society.
Please look at this amusing video about how the sperm attaches itself to the ovum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc1L61FpAnY&feature=related
For more information on spontaneous generation:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/spontaneous-generation.htm
Is space a vacuum? 17th Century style
Our concept is that past the Earth’s atmosphere, in space, a vacuum exists. A vacuum can be defined as a space devoid of all matter and substance, a void per se. Another definition though is that a vacuum is a space in which the pressure is significantly lower compared to the pressure of our atmosphere. Blaise Pascal delved into this very subject and performed experiments which gave our desired proof and result. Pascal first grew interested by reading the results of the Torricelli experiments. In these Evangelista Torricelli wanted to experiment and explain the effects of a pump better, He created a pump that would inadvertently lead to his construction of the first barometer, and leading even further to Pascal’s experiments on our planet’s pressure.
Pascal repeated Torricelli’s experiments by creating his own with a glass syringe and a carefully fitted piston. While covering the open end with his finger he adjusted the height the syringe was submersed in the water, the empty space in the syringe changed accordingly proving to Pascal that nature abhors vacuums no matter what size it may be.
Later Pascal would perform another experiment to confirm the existence of air pressure. He asked his brother Florin Perier to carry the barometer up a volcanic peak. The mercury level 3000 feet above the base of the volcano was about three inches lower. They reached the conclusion that it was in fact pressure weighting down the mercury. From there he could state as one went high enough the air pressure would be lessened enough to allow a vacuum to be formed.
Here’s an article and how a Barometer works:
Palmer, Chad. "How a Barometer Measures Air Pressure." USATODAY.com. 5/20.2005. USA Today. 30 Oct 2008
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wbaromtr.htm
And here’s a simple biography on Blaise Pascal himself and other things he invented.
Bellis, Mary. "Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)." About.com: Inventors. About.com. 30 Oct 2008 http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blpascal.htm
Thursday, October 30, 2008
What's New(s) in Science: Immunocomputing
For my What's New(s) in Science, I decided to present Immunocomputing, a fairly new innovation on information gathering. So what is immunocomputing? Also known as negative databases, these bits of code seek to immitate the immune system found in any living organism and use it to gather and "learn" information. This system would have two main parts: self and nonself. In the immune system, cells are given the knowledge of what they should be and use that to protect the host. If something is within the body that isn't considered "self", or nonself, the nonself intruder is dealt with accordingly. Practical applications for negative databases are network security and information gathering. I believe this will be a breakthrough someday, once the technology itself has matured and is finally implemented. The articles below summarize immunocomputing, the first in a very simplistic manner. The second is a bit more technical, but explains the details behind negative databases better.
I feel the implications for this technology will expand rapidy as more and more become knowledgable of it. In health, computing, and biocomputing, knew ways of each are becoming apparent. It is the next big step in human science, and will change our futures for the better.
Esponda, Fernando. "Immunocomputing." Seed Magazine. 10 October 2008. http://revminds.seedmagazine.com/revminds/member/fernando_esponda/
Antoniou, Ioannis. "Immunocomputing." Chaos and Innovation. December 2000. 10 October 2008. http://web.auth.gr/chi/PROJECTSIMCOM/Results.html
Paracelsus and the Philosopher's Stone
The Scientific Idea we are proposing as a worthwhile field of exploration is the theory of the Philosopher’s Stone. The idea behind the Stone is that it is a powerful healing device, and is also capable of turning lesser metals into the purest gold with a touch. We feel the Stone’s ability to create gold is far outweighed by its potential healing capabilities. Theophrastus Paracelsus, a leading alchemist of the Renaissance, stated in one of his writings, “[With the Philosopher's Stone}, I have cured the leprosy, venereal disease, dropsy, the falling sickness, colic, scab, and similar afflictions; also lupus, cancer, noli-me-tangere, fistulas, and the whole race of internal diseases, more surely than one could believe.” (Paracelsus). As preposterous as this sounds, the idea of the Philosopher’s Stone is by no means the dream of some crazy loon. There are references referring to objects of various names that share all the qualities of the Philosopher’s Stone that date as far back to the time of Islam’s Abraham. By following in the footsteps of Alchemy’s pioneers, and adapting their take on the world, we hope that one day the science of Alchemy will be developed and explored enough to transmute a successful Philosopher’s Stone, capable of unfathomable feats of healing. The vastly beneficial medicinal implementations of a true Philosopher’s Stone could improve the standard of living for all humans. It is for this reason that our presentation will attempt to convince an audience of Renaissance men and women that studying Alchemy and the Philosopher’s stone will benefit their lives directly.
Click here to learn more about what was standard medical practice at the time.
Paracelsus, Theophrastus B. The Book Concerning the Tincture of the Philosophers. London: J.H. Oxon, 1660.
Click here to learn more about what was standard medical practice at the time.
Paracelsus, Theophrastus B. The Book Concerning the Tincture of the Philosophers. London: J.H. Oxon, 1660.
Fossils Don't Fall From the Sky
During the period of Nicolaus Steno people believed in magic, unicorns and crystals curing diseases, they had also believed that the tongue shape stones that were everywhere had fallen from the sky. Some also believed that the same tongue shape stones were serpent fangs from where Saint Paul changed serpents into stone. Could any of this be possible? Steno didn’t think so and after having the chance to dissect a shark he realized that their teeth were the same as the tongue shape stones people were finding. To get to the conclusion of what exactly fossils were, Steno did a lot of research and other findings to back his claim. At website http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/histgeol/steno/steno.htm the author goes into detail all of the findings and works of Nicolaus Steno.
He claimed that fossils would be the key in figuring out when the world was created. It was also key in figuring out the kinds of organisms that may have relocated to different regions and the organisms that may be extinct. We are trying to prove that fossils are important and that they did not fall from the sky and that they do not grow in rocks. In a particular article, it states how religion gets involved with geology: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Steno/
Fossils are important and will help us build our knowledge and understanding of how the world functions and who/what have wondered the world.
Works Cited
Remer, Lorraine R. "On the Shoulders of Giants." Nicolaus Steno. Earth Observatory. NASA..
He claimed that fossils would be the key in figuring out when the world was created. It was also key in figuring out the kinds of organisms that may have relocated to different regions and the organisms that may be extinct. We are trying to prove that fossils are important and that they did not fall from the sky and that they do not grow in rocks. In a particular article, it states how religion gets involved with geology: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Steno/
Fossils are important and will help us build our knowledge and understanding of how the world functions and who/what have wondered the world.
Works Cited
Remer, Lorraine R. "On the Shoulders of Giants." Nicolaus Steno. Earth Observatory. NASA.
William Harvey: Breakthrough in Blood
William Harvey is quoted, "I have first to dispose of certain observations that bear on the circulation of the blood as discovered by me. Scarce a day has passed since the birth of my circulation of the blood that I have not had something said to me for good or evil of my discovery" (Willis). Which I found on an online book located here.
This is one place in his works in which Harvey speaks of himself as the only discoverer of the circulation of the blood through the heart and body. This discovery is pivotal to the knowledge of human biology, specifically the pulmonary and circulatory systems during this time period of the Scientific Revolution. The knowledge of the common population during the 16th and 17th centuries in regards to the heart and circulatory system wasn't very extensive before Harvey's discovery's, observations, and writings. A webpage that summarized Harvey's work and findings, and his life, also describes and explains the little generalized knowledge of the bodily systems at this time, the fact that blood was circulated by a sort of a pulsing action from the arteries. This wasn't known to science, or as a 'science' at all, this was the general popular belief at this time. The site then explains his accomplishments in regards to fulfilling this lack of knowledge. His research of the circulatory system was generously sponsored and encouraged by King Charles I. Whom Harvey was later appointed personal physician. By studying animals given to him, Harvey eventually developed a very accurate theory of how the heart and circulatory system operated. He then published his theories in 1628 in his famous book "On the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals," which functioned as the backbone of his notoriety throughout Europe (Wiegand).
Outside readers should further inquire and learn more, if they don't have previous intellect on this subject, (especially if they live in the 16th or 17th centuries, and don't know much about the heart and blood). Our documentation and proof of the importance on the innovation should be read into further, to gain knowledge of the pulmonary and circulatory systems, to know more about our human bodies. The current perception has little knowledge of this time period, and I'm sure that what's included in our presentation about major arteries, the basic structure of these systems, and the dangers associated with the blood, is unknown to most. In order to make sense out of a previously obscure and confusing subject, read further to develop a coherent sense of this lively juice flowing through our bodies. For the sake of being cautious and knowledgeable about your body, one should know about the potential pathogens like a rusty nail that can infiltrate and disease ones blood stream and body. With the help of the groundwork from William Harvey, and our documentation on this important scientific innovation, we can explore the basic structure of these systems, and explore the potential hazards that can harm the body and blood stream. The awareness of these hazards will be especially beneficial to anyone who doesn't know about them, which lack of this intelligence limits the assurance of good health and prosperity.
Works Cited:
Wiegand, Susan. "William Harvey (1578-1657)." NNDB. Accessexcellance.org. 3 Nov 2008. <http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/William_Harvey.php>
Willis, Robert. "William Harvey: A History of the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood." London: C.K. Paul & Co., 1878.
Mechanizing the Cosmos
Rene Descartes was an influential French philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and writer. He was considered the “Father of Modern Philosophy” and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution. Descartes developed many new scientific ideas such as the idea to mechanize philosophy by using pieces of matter and their characteristics to explain the physical effects. http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm He also thought of the idea of using distinct elements to place together based on partial size to produce different physical bodies. During this time period, Descartes wasn’t the only Philosopher to come up with ideas; the Scientific Revolution began with Copernicus and his beliefs in Heliocentric Cosmos and ended with Newton’s Universal Laws. http://www.web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Teaching/03sr-definition-concept.htm
For Rene Descartes, human knowledge functions the same way that a simple tree does. He explains this by saying that metaphysics forms the roots and physics creates the overall tree, while medicines, morals, and mechanisms become placed on the branches that eventually form knowledge. This goes out to prove that he was a strong believer in human minds; he was a dualist that believed in the soul (mind) and the human body. Descartes strongly wanted to point out that humans are actually the only creatures that possess a mind and that have the ability to fully control it. http://www.4learning.co.uk/support/programmenotes/micro/kntv/prog4.html
Based on Rene Descartes scientific thinking, the Scientific Revolution was greatly affected.
For Rene Descartes, human knowledge functions the same way that a simple tree does. He explains this by saying that metaphysics forms the roots and physics creates the overall tree, while medicines, morals, and mechanisms become placed on the branches that eventually form knowledge. This goes out to prove that he was a strong believer in human minds; he was a dualist that believed in the soul (mind) and the human body. Descartes strongly wanted to point out that humans are actually the only creatures that possess a mind and that have the ability to fully control it. http://www.4learning.co.uk/support/programmenotes/micro/kntv/prog4.html
Based on Rene Descartes scientific thinking, the Scientific Revolution was greatly affected.
"What do Guts Have to do with It?"
The concept of our project is to try and explain the shift of belief from pre-cadaver age medicine, to post-cadaver age medicine. Andreas Vesalius was a man ahead of his time. Considered the Father of Modern Anatomy his fascination with the human body began as a student, when he started drawing different parts of the body. This continued with his commission of local artists to draw more accurately and more detailed drawings of the many aspects of the body that he studied. He went on to become a teacher in Italy, where he developed many new teaching techniques. Through his research he began to gain a deep and powerful understanding for how the human body worked, and how we could better understand the inner workings of the body. His teaching practices broke the boundaries of how students were taught. He would have students gather around and watch him dissect bodies, showing them the inner workings of organs, muscles, and tissues. These practices are still used in today’s classrooms. This man is truly a revolutionary mind, his ideas and thoughts have made waves for hundreds of years. Throughout his research and teaching, he wrote a series of books on his findings and techniques. One of the most famous books was De Humani Corporus Fabrica. http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/proj/ttp/flash/vesalius/vesalius.html This is still to this day considered one of the more influential books on anatomy of all time. He went into great detail about each bone, tissue, vein, etc. of the body. His detail and knowledge was unparalleled at the time. It was in this book that the first understandings of mechanical ventilation (artificial breathing) were ever described. At the age of fifty Vesalius died of natural causes. Though he died poor, he left the world of medicine with a wealth of ideas and knowledge. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15378c.htm
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Reading Connections #2
I was faced with a challenge in class that I greatly underestimated. "Where are the women of science in the seventeenth century?" I was asked. I thought someone had to have taught about them. Out there, there was a text book ridden with dates and names of women who made a difference scientifically. I asked my brother if, when covering that time period in his history classes, they reviewed any women philosophers and scientists. There were none. I asked my cousin who attends school in New Jersey, if any women of significant value to the scientific community during this time were ever mentioned during classes. Once again, there were none. I went as far as to even ask a friend of mine living in London, but he couldn't recall learning about any women other than Marie Curie in his science and history courses.
There's no way there could be absolutely no women involved at the time. They had to be out there, they were just hiding in the bindings of overlooked books. I decided to do some of my own investigation, so I started in the place I knew I would get results: the internet.
What I found was more than just a lack of women in 17th century science. Throughout modern history and science books, only men a greatly referenced. There are maybe two or three women mentioned as giving significant contribution in said field. This isn't to say that they didn't give significant input, but there's so little known about them. How many people could tell you where Marie Curie lived, what year she was born, and exactly what her contribution to science was? I'm sure out of those people, at least twice the number of them can tell you at least three facts about Albert Einstein or Issac Newton, and specify exactly what they did.
After searching for a while, I found that there are a lot of women that myself or others have never heard about, but have contributed a lot to the world and it's quest for knowledge. There were women present in science, even as far back as the time of the Ancient Greeks. A good example of this, is a woman named Aglaonike, a philosopher of the Ancient Greek Era. She is one of the earliest known women in astronomy, and is known for being able to predict eclipses. At this time, people with such knowledge were seen through fearful eyes since they had knowledge of what was unknown. She was seen less as a philosopher, and more as a powerful sorceress for knowing such things. She was known enough at the time that she was even mentioned by the great Plato in his writings, but where is she today in modern teachings of astrology and philosophy?
So why is it that we don't know about her? Why do we give all credit to men for all great discoveries, that were originally made by women? I think it's time we do some reevaluating in our textbooks, and start adding the many powerful women that added in uncovering the mysteries of our vast universe.
Works Cited:
Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41,
1, 79-93.
"4,000 Years of Women in Science." University of Alabama Arts and Sciences: Department for Physics and Astonomy. 1999-2008. 24 October 2008. < http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/timelist.shtml >
Reading Connections #2
Personally I am still trying to figure out in my head how this whole notion of women not being part of the scientific revolution is possible! I mean, in history, there have been a lot of things that women have not been aloud to do, but they still do them anyway. Why would this be so different? My question is, where was all the writing? We know how much Anne Bolyn influenced king Henry, we know about the daughter of Galileo, but why do we know nothing about any other women? Where are the "lost texts" of the age? I just really am trying to understand how this is possible. We have all kinds of texts about women writers during the 16th century. The women listed on this website are just a handful http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/sr-women/05-SR-WOMEN%20OF%20LEARNING.html Look at all these women that did all these amazing things!!! Why don't we read about them at all!!!!
I just have a hard time believing the article that we read in class about women and modernity. I think that it makes no sense that just because there were witch trials, or that because a woman's assumed role was to be in the kitchen that there was NO ONE at all anywhere any place at any time involved! But they were! Why is it that we still have this idea that women were not involved, why is this still a common idea and a common view that women were unable to do these things. I think it is just crazy.
Works Cited:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/sr-women/05-SR-WOMEN%20OF%20LEARNING.html
Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.
I just have a hard time believing the article that we read in class about women and modernity. I think that it makes no sense that just because there were witch trials, or that because a woman's assumed role was to be in the kitchen that there was NO ONE at all anywhere any place at any time involved! But they were! Why is it that we still have this idea that women were not involved, why is this still a common idea and a common view that women were unable to do these things. I think it is just crazy.
Works Cited:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/sr-women/05-SR-WOMEN%20OF%20LEARNING.html
Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.
Whats News in Science: Bucky Paper
Ryan Vachon
Whats News in Science: Bucky Balls and Bucky Paper
I first heard about Buckyballs from a sci-fi novel by the author Ben Bova. His novel "Mercury" contained a character who was responsible for developing the first space elevator on a mountain range in South America. The material that this person used to construct the elevator was called "Bucky Balls" and was said to be many times stronger than steel.
Doing research for this paper, I happened accross an article published by Wired Magazine, and written by the Associated Press that talked about bucky paper, a variation on the bucky ball.
Bucky paper is formed from a carbon nanotube that is roughly 50,000 times thinner than hair. When combined into sheets, and layered, the resulting composite material is 10 times lighter and 500 times stronger than steel. They also have the ability to conduct electricity like steel.
The current technology to make this material is currently only able to produce it at a fraction of its estimated potential and with an incredible cost. FSU is currently studying the material and methods on how to make so they can cut productions cost and create a composite that can truely compete with steel and composit materials on the market today.
Due to the strength and weight of bucky paper, some of the first application ideas came from the aeronautics sector. Airplanes and spaceships could use this material to skin their vehicles, or possibly even frame them. Since the material is so strong and leight weight, planes and spaceships would benefit immensely from the improved materials.
Wired magazine is a well know tech magazine that knows what it is talking about. They cover a variety of subjects from chemistry to physics to current and future technology, as well as delving into popular culture. Bottom line is that the articles they publish can be trusted because they are an established magazine with a good reputation. The Associated Press sells their articles to Newspapers and Magazines accross the country. These articles are generally considered to be well written and balanced from bias.
The second article I used was more scientifically oriented than the Associated press article. This is because the website is targeted towards a much more scientifically based community that knows the terminology and basic foundations of the topics. I used it mostly as a reference against the first article to make sure the facts were there and accurate.
Associated Press "Future planes, cars may be made of `buckypaper'." Wired Magazine. 18 Oct. 2008. 25 Oct. 2008. http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/T/TEC_BUCKYPAPER?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-10-18-03-35-31
"Nanotubes and Bucky Balls." Nanotechnology Now. 29 Mar. 2008. 25 Oct. 2008. http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanotube-buckyball-sites.htm
Whats News in Science: Bucky Balls and Bucky Paper
I first heard about Buckyballs from a sci-fi novel by the author Ben Bova. His novel "Mercury" contained a character who was responsible for developing the first space elevator on a mountain range in South America. The material that this person used to construct the elevator was called "Bucky Balls" and was said to be many times stronger than steel.
Doing research for this paper, I happened accross an article published by Wired Magazine, and written by the Associated Press that talked about bucky paper, a variation on the bucky ball.
Bucky paper is formed from a carbon nanotube that is roughly 50,000 times thinner than hair. When combined into sheets, and layered, the resulting composite material is 10 times lighter and 500 times stronger than steel. They also have the ability to conduct electricity like steel.
The current technology to make this material is currently only able to produce it at a fraction of its estimated potential and with an incredible cost. FSU is currently studying the material and methods on how to make so they can cut productions cost and create a composite that can truely compete with steel and composit materials on the market today.
Due to the strength and weight of bucky paper, some of the first application ideas came from the aeronautics sector. Airplanes and spaceships could use this material to skin their vehicles, or possibly even frame them. Since the material is so strong and leight weight, planes and spaceships would benefit immensely from the improved materials.
Wired magazine is a well know tech magazine that knows what it is talking about. They cover a variety of subjects from chemistry to physics to current and future technology, as well as delving into popular culture. Bottom line is that the articles they publish can be trusted because they are an established magazine with a good reputation. The Associated Press sells their articles to Newspapers and Magazines accross the country. These articles are generally considered to be well written and balanced from bias.
The second article I used was more scientifically oriented than the Associated press article. This is because the website is targeted towards a much more scientifically based community that knows the terminology and basic foundations of the topics. I used it mostly as a reference against the first article to make sure the facts were there and accurate.
Associated Press "Future planes, cars may be made of `buckypaper'." Wired Magazine. 18 Oct. 2008. 25 Oct. 2008. http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/T/TEC_BUCKYPAPER?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-10-18-03-35-31
"Nanotubes and Bucky Balls." Nanotechnology Now. 29 Mar. 2008. 25 Oct. 2008. http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanotube-buckyball-sites.htm
Friday, October 24, 2008
Debating Science & Religion
The debate of Science vs. Religion is a funny one. While people claim that the two are polar opposites, one disproving the other in constant argument, it seems only funny that the church itself has the Pontifical Academy of Science. It seems almost hypocritical that science is supported by the church, and that’s what has been attempting to disprove their ideas for decades.
I found the article “God vs. Science” in time magazine; the first thing I noticed was that the same person, Richard Dawkins was in both articles showing that he is an avid representative in debates on the topic. I do find it interesting though, that Dawkins mentioned in “How to Teach Science to the Pope” from his conversation with Father George Coyne, “And he said to me that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in God…” when Dawkins asked why Coyne believed God, Coyne had given the simple answer, “It’s quite simple, I was brought up Catholic”
Now it’s this that gets me to think, that after all these years of debates against one another that the two are finally beginning to accept one another? As Dawkins says in the Time article,
“I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.”
I believe the two have come to the point where it’s like saying, “I dislike you, but I notify you’re here.”
Works Cited:
Cray, Dan. “God vs. Science.” Time Magazine. November 5, 2006. October 23, 2008 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-2,00.htmlMason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope
I found the article “God vs. Science” in time magazine; the first thing I noticed was that the same person, Richard Dawkins was in both articles showing that he is an avid representative in debates on the topic. I do find it interesting though, that Dawkins mentioned in “How to Teach Science to the Pope” from his conversation with Father George Coyne, “And he said to me that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in God…” when Dawkins asked why Coyne believed God, Coyne had given the simple answer, “It’s quite simple, I was brought up Catholic”
Now it’s this that gets me to think, that after all these years of debates against one another that the two are finally beginning to accept one another? As Dawkins says in the Time article,
“I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.”
I believe the two have come to the point where it’s like saying, “I dislike you, but I notify you’re here.”
Works Cited:
Cray, Dan. “God vs. Science.” Time Magazine. November 5, 2006. October 23, 2008 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-2,00.htmlMason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope
Bryce Coster: Reading Connections #2
In today's modernized world, it is impossible to rule out science as a means of explaining why things happen the way they do. However for some topics, science just can't offer the insight necessary to make for a solid understanding of said topic. Prominent evolutionary theorist and Pontifical Academy of Science member Richard Dawkins touched on this dilemma when he stated "Science cannot tell you what is right and wrong. When it comes to really interesting questions like 'Where did the laws of physics come from?' or 'How did the universe arrive in the first place?' I genuinely don't know whether science will answer those deep and at present mysterious questions."(Mason). To explain the unexplainable, people turn to religion to give them answers. This is the standard way of cognitive thinking in the modern world. Recently, the church has been making sincere efforts to try and collaborate with scientists to better their doctrines based on scientific discovery.
Science and Religion weren't always so buddy-buddy. In fact, the church at one point was down-right vicious when it came to new scientific ideas. When Giordano Bruno proposed his scientific theories on the structure of the cosmos, the church's inquisition decided that he should die for his ideas, and not by quiet, gentle means either. An article exploring the reasoning behind Bruno's execution described the event: "Bruno was escorted at dawn on
If we allow the church to assimilate science into itself somehow, we need to remain aware and be sure that no information or discovery is sequestered from the public based on the ruling of the church. Based on past examples like Galileo and Bruno, it is reasonable to say that the Church will go to great lengths to maintain its post of authority in the world.
Works Cited
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." DISCOVER Magazine
Rowland, Ingrid D. "What Giordano Bruno Left Behind
Reading Reaction 2
Ryan Vachon
Reactions 2: How to teach Science to the Pope
"Creation: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Sorry Darwin huggers, but its not "In the beginning a monkey evolutioned gay marriage."-Stephen T. Colbert
How to Teach Science to the Pope is an article written by Michael Mason built upon a series of interviews of Vatican officials. Mason discusses how the Church has set up a series of universities throughout Rome with the goal of pursuing scientific research with the goal of understanding the work and effects of God.
I came into this article a bit skeptical of how religion and science can be tied together in such a manner. As I read along I began to see and admire how science has been approached by the Catholic Church. Here, scientists are finding ways that science and faith blend together, and they do so in a manner that does not exclude one side or the other and that has some flexibility. I wanted to see if this flexibility in science and faith was simply part of the portrayal or was something that actually occurs.
I discovered a USA Today published Associated Press article from a few years back titled: Vatican academy to ponder evolution; pope addresses limits of science. It looks at how two modern popes have view evolution under the light of religion. “Benedict's predecessor, John Paul, told the academy in 1996 that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God and that Darwin's theory of evolution was more than a hypothesis.” This sort of illustrates an idea stated in the Mason article by Consolmagno: “If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it’s and expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the creator.”
Ultimately, I found a way that science and religion coexist and a manner that I have often wondered about. Can science be the study of the way the universe works, while theology explains how the universe came into being? Mason has lead me to believe it can happen, and the Associated Press has confirmed that belief.
Associated Press. “Vatican academy to ponder evolution; pope addresses limits of science” USA Today 6 Nov. 2006, 24 Oct. 2008 http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-11-06-vatican-evolution_x.htm
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope
Reactions 2: How to teach Science to the Pope
"Creation: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Sorry Darwin huggers, but its not "In the beginning a monkey evolutioned gay marriage."-Stephen T. Colbert
How to Teach Science to the Pope is an article written by Michael Mason built upon a series of interviews of Vatican officials. Mason discusses how the Church has set up a series of universities throughout Rome with the goal of pursuing scientific research with the goal of understanding the work and effects of God.
I came into this article a bit skeptical of how religion and science can be tied together in such a manner. As I read along I began to see and admire how science has been approached by the Catholic Church. Here, scientists are finding ways that science and faith blend together, and they do so in a manner that does not exclude one side or the other and that has some flexibility. I wanted to see if this flexibility in science and faith was simply part of the portrayal or was something that actually occurs.
I discovered a USA Today published Associated Press article from a few years back titled: Vatican academy to ponder evolution; pope addresses limits of science. It looks at how two modern popes have view evolution under the light of religion. “Benedict's predecessor, John Paul, told the academy in 1996 that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God and that Darwin's theory of evolution was more than a hypothesis.” This sort of illustrates an idea stated in the Mason article by Consolmagno: “If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it’s and expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the creator.”
Ultimately, I found a way that science and religion coexist and a manner that I have often wondered about. Can science be the study of the way the universe works, while theology explains how the universe came into being? Mason has lead me to believe it can happen, and the Associated Press has confirmed that belief.
Associated Press. “Vatican academy to ponder evolution; pope addresses limits of science” USA Today 6 Nov. 2006, 24 Oct. 2008 http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-11-06-vatican-evolution_x.htm
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope
AJ Peters, Reading Connection #2
We live in an age of speedy information and instant satisfaction. What we used to value, like hard work, a hearty meal, and time with the family, is a subtle joke to many of our young adults. We live for the minute and are resourceful beyond any previous generation. So what do we look for in life? Easy answers and quick fixes for our everyday problems. There is no longer a need to pray before meals, thank the faith for having such a wonderful family, or pray for a good day before bed. The notion that God brings all that is good, that the church is a place of redemption and forgiveness, is being replaced by other entities. Science and technology.
The Church, from the 15th to the 17th century, was probably ones of the most powerful organizations in the world. People would start wars or massacre thousands at the word of the pope. Those people lived by the Bible and the holy sacraments of the day, it was all they needed to have a fulfilled life. The Church is now slowly losing its followers. The Bible, which boasts Creationism, is being challenged and defeated by modern science and technology. In the Nashville Conference on the Church and Theology, members of this religious organization are trying to place God back at the center of it. Apparently, God, who was the reason for all that exists, is slowly disappearing from the big picture. It seems that because of Science, God no longer has all the answers. One example could be the Great Flood, which has been disproven by Science. This classic example of Gods wrath is now seen as false, and the fear which one held the peoples beliefs is evaporating.
In an age where the internet seems to hold all the answers, no one seems to be looking up anymore. No one cares if God gets angry when you steal from your neighbors or saying Gods name in vain. We live lives of self-reliance and self-competence. Well, maybe not ourselves, the internet perhaps.
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008.
"Nashville Conference on the Church and Theology." 2008. 24 Oct. 2008.
<http://www.churchandtheology.org/>
The Church, from the 15th to the 17th century, was probably ones of the most powerful organizations in the world. People would start wars or massacre thousands at the word of the pope. Those people lived by the Bible and the holy sacraments of the day, it was all they needed to have a fulfilled life. The Church is now slowly losing its followers. The Bible, which boasts Creationism, is being challenged and defeated by modern science and technology. In the Nashville Conference on the Church and Theology, members of this religious organization are trying to place God back at the center of it. Apparently, God, who was the reason for all that exists, is slowly disappearing from the big picture. It seems that because of Science, God no longer has all the answers. One example could be the Great Flood, which has been disproven by Science. This classic example of Gods wrath is now seen as false, and the fear which one held the peoples beliefs is evaporating.
In an age where the internet seems to hold all the answers, no one seems to be looking up anymore. No one cares if God gets angry when you steal from your neighbors or saying Gods name in vain. We live lives of self-reliance and self-competence. Well, maybe not ourselves, the internet perhaps.
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008.
"Nashville Conference on the Church and Theology." 2008. 24 Oct. 2008.
<http://www.churchandtheology.org/>
Reading Connection #2
The Scientific Revolution was a time of change and discoveries. But while learning about this time we see that all the books that were written and the ideas that were found where found by men. So the question arises where were all the women during this time? Well after reading Ruth Watts article “Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century
Even hundreds of years later in the world of science today women are not equal to men. In the New York Time article "Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches" by Cornelia Dean we see that even thought more and more women are moving into the field of science and medicine they are not getting equal amount of funding as males in the same position as them. Because of the less money they are getting women also publish less works them men. It is also a lot harder for women to get jobs in these field then it is for men. Although I was not surprised that during the Scientific Revolution women had a hard time entering the world of science I am surprised women are still not even close to being equal to men in today's world of science.
Works CitedDean, Cornelia. "Women in Science: The
Reading Connection #2
Religion vs. Science
In our modern society there are still some things that cannot be explained by science, and there are some things in the religious works that has been completely disproven. Science and religion however have always gone hand in hand, especially in the Catholic Church. Some of the first true scientists were men of the cloth; Science has also had the help from the church through the Vatican Observatory and the Pontifical Academy of Science. However it has had some serious hindrances indirectly in the form of public opinion. Some members of the church believe that different kinds of research are sacrilegious, like research into stem cells and evolution.
I’ll be the first to admit that some scientific research fields begin to tamper into things that mankind is better off not dealing with, genetic manipulation being the most predominant one. However there are some things that mankind has a right to know; In the case of evolution for example. There are certain religious elements that would have you believe that God really created the heavens and the earth in seven days, and that the earth as we know it is only 10,000 years old however science has proven with 100% certainty that the earth is over four billion years old. Science has also proven with 100% certainty that our ancestors were ape like creatures, yes I hate to break it to you religious fanatics out there we came from monkeys. These same religious elements also have tried to stop the teaching of evolution in schools during the famous Scopes Monkey trial. After that controversial trial it would still take a few decades and more court cases until creationism was no longer taught in school. Studying where we came from and where we are going can give us insights into who we are and at least start to answer some of the really big questions, like who we are and why we are here. One scientific field that the church has supported for several decades is the study of astronomy. Although the church didn’t avidly support astronomy at first with the trial and imprisonment of Galileo is has today with the construction of the Vatican Observatory and other departments to study dark matter, quasars, and other universal phenomena.
Even though the Vatican and other religious elements in the U.S. and abroad are suppoting different kinds of science it is hypocritical that they only support science that will add to or not take away from their own power base. For example if someone was trying to explain certain phenomena found in the bible, like the burning bush, the parting of the red sea, and several others the church would be against that because it would prove that god in some small way that god did not exist or that everything that we think we know about religion is wrong. Ultimately no matter what our belief there are just some things that science can’t explain and there are some things that we just have to take on faith.
Bibliography:
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. 18 August 2008. <http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope>
Robinson, B.A. “A brief history of the conflict between evolution and creation science.” Religious Tolerence.org. 12 August 2007. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_hist.htm>
In our modern society there are still some things that cannot be explained by science, and there are some things in the religious works that has been completely disproven. Science and religion however have always gone hand in hand, especially in the Catholic Church. Some of the first true scientists were men of the cloth; Science has also had the help from the church through the Vatican Observatory and the Pontifical Academy of Science. However it has had some serious hindrances indirectly in the form of public opinion. Some members of the church believe that different kinds of research are sacrilegious, like research into stem cells and evolution.
I’ll be the first to admit that some scientific research fields begin to tamper into things that mankind is better off not dealing with, genetic manipulation being the most predominant one. However there are some things that mankind has a right to know; In the case of evolution for example. There are certain religious elements that would have you believe that God really created the heavens and the earth in seven days, and that the earth as we know it is only 10,000 years old however science has proven with 100% certainty that the earth is over four billion years old. Science has also proven with 100% certainty that our ancestors were ape like creatures, yes I hate to break it to you religious fanatics out there we came from monkeys. These same religious elements also have tried to stop the teaching of evolution in schools during the famous Scopes Monkey trial. After that controversial trial it would still take a few decades and more court cases until creationism was no longer taught in school. Studying where we came from and where we are going can give us insights into who we are and at least start to answer some of the really big questions, like who we are and why we are here. One scientific field that the church has supported for several decades is the study of astronomy. Although the church didn’t avidly support astronomy at first with the trial and imprisonment of Galileo is has today with the construction of the Vatican Observatory and other departments to study dark matter, quasars, and other universal phenomena.
Even though the Vatican and other religious elements in the U.S. and abroad are suppoting different kinds of science it is hypocritical that they only support science that will add to or not take away from their own power base. For example if someone was trying to explain certain phenomena found in the bible, like the burning bush, the parting of the red sea, and several others the church would be against that because it would prove that god in some small way that god did not exist or that everything that we think we know about religion is wrong. Ultimately no matter what our belief there are just some things that science can’t explain and there are some things that we just have to take on faith.
Bibliography:
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. 18 August 2008. <http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope>
Robinson, B.A. “A brief history of the conflict between evolution and creation science.” Religious Tolerence.org. 12 August 2007. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_hist.htm>
readding connection #2
Has the role of women changed from that of the women during the scientific revolution? The scientific revolution was a very important period in history. Some of the most famous discoveries where thought of during this time period. These discoveries were made solely by men, unlike today. Women living during the time of the scientific revolution played a different role than they do today. The majority of the women were not educated as well as the men. If a woman’s family was either rich enough or important enough, the girl could attend early childhood education, but after that, she would be forced to learn the role of the women. This consisted of cooking, cleaning, and bearing children. If the woman was lucky, she might be able to go on to a slightly higher form of education. Meanwhile, the males in the class were able to continue learning. From the start, women were at a disadvantage; they had not nearly as much education as the men, and if a woman came up with a revolutionary idea that could change the views of the society, no one would listen to her. Women’s opinions were not valued as much as a man’s. What we do not know today is that is possible that someone could have listened to a women’s idea and stole it knowing she has no right in the science world.
Nicole Beck says in her article that in today's world women are supposed to be equal to men and everyone is supposed to have equal opportunities, while this is true and more and more women are becoming influential figures throughout the world from business to computers has the woman’s roll really changed since the scientific revolution? When you watch television and commercial for a food product comes on who is cooking the dinner? The woman, the same goes for cleaning supplies and any other product along these lines. While times have changed since the scientific revolution and women are given more opportunities to succeed in life the media and most of society still portrays women stereotypically as they were back in the scientific revolution. Adena Young explains in her article that times have not changed spite the fact that women are given more of an opportunity to succeed, she claims that still in today’s world women are not taken as seriously as men and society still have a negative portrayal toward women. We have to wonder if women really play a different role than that they did during the scientific revolution?Works Cited
Beck, Nicole. "The Rapid Changes in Women's Roles from 1900 to 1920." Associated Content. 9 Dec. 2005. 23 Oct. 2008
Young, Adena. "The Negative Portrayal of Women." Mind and Body. 23 Oct. 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Reading Connection #2
“Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century England,” by Ruth Watts raised a great question of where were all the women during the scientific revolutions? Also, did they find ways to become part of the Scientific Revolution or were they fully excluded? Watts pointed out that women were excluded from the Royal Society and were not able to seek out education. Only middle-class and upper-class women were allowed to have education which may suggest that upper-middle class women may have been part of the Scientific Revolution. When talking about the Scientific Revolution we mainly talk about men and what their accomplishments were which makes me wonder why women are not talked about. In my opinion, because women had minimal rights and were seen as traditional where they cooked for the family and cleaned the house, that it made historians believe that there was no way women could have been part of the Scientific Revolution. Also, if women were uneducated compared to the men then how could they have the same kind of thinking or even come up with the ideas that men in the Scientific Revolution came up with. The only time women were talked about in the seventeenth century was when there were the witch trials. Mostly women were seen as witches.
In an article that I had read named “Yesterday and Today: The Top Women Scientists” by Jen Meadows, suggests that women may have participated in science by naming all of their ideas and thoughts through a males name. Just so their thoughts would be looked at. In the article she lists many women scientists ranging from the 1700’s to today. Today, women are equal to men, whereas in the past women were looked down upon, and had a hard time trying to get them to be seen. Seeing that women were part of science in the 1700’s shows that maybe women were starting to have more rights and were more educated whereas in the 1600’s women had to hide and were uneducated compared to men.
Works Cited
Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.
Meadows, Jen P. "Yesterday & Today: The Top Women Scientists." Weblog post. Scientific Blogging. http://www.scientificblogging.com/i_can_get_science/yesterday_today_top_women_scientists
Readings Connection #2
I have grown up with having the internet available to me my whole life. Of course computers have drastically advanced since the early 90’s. We now have computers that are fully touch screen including the key board, wireless internet, amazing graphics, and innovative software. When we were told to read Nicholas Carr’s article about Google I was automatically interested and knew right then that I would enjoy reading the article. He discusses a lot of his own experiences concerning the fluctuations in technology over time and how these changes have affected his learning, attention span, and laziness. I know from my own experience that if I try to read a book or article, I honestly have to work hard to stay concentrated. I often wonder in my thoughts and find myself having to go back and re-read previous pages. Carr discusses in his article that, “Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text.” Carr’s problems are the same as mine; however, the difference is that I have had this problem since a very early age so I know how to deal with it better. Carr has only recently had this problem since computers evolved. He stated that he used to be able to sit down and totally immerse himself in a novel and not have to worry about a wondering mind. With today’s available technology, a wondering mind is almost an included and expected side package. E books for example are extremely cost affective and convenient; however, as a college student reading a book online, we might all of a sudden find ourselves browsing face book or listening to Pandora radio without even meaning to.
I feel that technology is an amazing asset to our generation. I do not feel that it makes us stupid or lazy; I do however feel that we could let technology make us lazy or less mentally sharp. An example would be if one could analyze a map in order to navigate themselves to their destination or they could use their Garmin navigation system or go on their laptop and map quest their directions. The different forms of technology are available to us, we are not required to use these products, we choose to use them. This fact is important for us and the media to realize before they state that technology could be making us stupid. The question should be is the human race making themselves stupid with their available technology and resources? Are we taking advantage of our innovative technology? If anything, I feel this is a valid question that should be asked and would bring up a whole new realm of ideas and questions.
All of today’s innovative technology is converting our world to a different way of thinking, learning, and merely living. Just because past generations did things different doesn’t mean that our generation shouldn’t try and improve our way of living and improve all aspects of our world. By saying that technology and Google is making us stupid, does this mean that we should still be watching black and white televisions and using crank telephones? Take reading for example… we are still reading the same material and getting the same message but it is on the internet instead of in a book. The other aspect is that it can be found in minutes on the web whereas finding specific information in a specific book could take hours. So are we being lazy or are we just making life easier for us in order to get work done faster, be more productive, and get more done more efficiently in order to have a healthier and more sustainable economy.
After surfing YouTube, I came across a brief video of an IT specialist discussing how our world is shifting completely to computers and what that entails. This relates to what Carr discusses and also what we have discussed in class, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-KqDXHB__M. Everyone in today’s world realizes that we are shifting completely to computers and technology and resorting back to books and libraries less and less. We discuss this subject extensively in class because of the thought of the future of education; will there be books, will there be mandatory computers at each desk, and will there even be a teacher or will it all be transmitted through the internet onto our computer screens. The future has much in store for us that we would never have believed to be possible. I’ am very excited for this change because I feel it will help our world and give us resources to succeed far more than we currently do. However, some might have a different outlook upon this subject and are scared of change, and think maybe it will make our society languid and unready similar to what Carr is discussing in his article about Google.
Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” July/August 2008. theatlantic.com. 21, October 2008. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
View our Course Readings for any other information on in class resources available.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-KqDXHB__M.
Reading Connection #2
Casey Norton
Reading Connection #2
“Gender, Science and Modernity in seventeenth-century England” by Ruth Watts answers questions that I had never thought of bringing up. In previous history classes, the great minds of the time period were spoken of, but the fact that they were all males was not brought up. After reading this article, it brought me to the realization that women were at a great risk for attempting to join the voices of the seventeenth-century. Women’s voices in this time period were rarely accounted for and criticized. As a woman in today’s society, it made me think about how much I take my voice for granted. If the women that had an interest in voicing their opinion saw how mindlessly we sit I class, they would be enraged. The idea that I could be killed or accused of being a witch for being intelligent or wanting to learn more frightens me. This fear could have also lead women to use a man’s name to get published and to put their ideas out into the world. I wonder if I lived in that time period I would write under a man’s name. It would be frustrating because I would want my ideas, under my name put out into the world. I would not want to give another man credit for my discoveries and my beliefs.
As I searched for more reasons why women were not present, I found that people/men of that century believed that it was unnecessary and harmful for a women to be educated because it may ruin their marriage prospects according to the Norton Anthology of English Literature in the section Contesting Cultural Norms (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/17century/topic_1/hutchins.htm). It upsets me to think that so many of these women’s lives of this century revolved around a man. It is shocking that in that time period I could not better myself through education because it would ruin my chances of getting a husband.
Reading Connection #2
“Gender, Science and Modernity in seventeenth-century England” by Ruth Watts answers questions that I had never thought of bringing up. In previous history classes, the great minds of the time period were spoken of, but the fact that they were all males was not brought up. After reading this article, it brought me to the realization that women were at a great risk for attempting to join the voices of the seventeenth-century. Women’s voices in this time period were rarely accounted for and criticized. As a woman in today’s society, it made me think about how much I take my voice for granted. If the women that had an interest in voicing their opinion saw how mindlessly we sit I class, they would be enraged. The idea that I could be killed or accused of being a witch for being intelligent or wanting to learn more frightens me. This fear could have also lead women to use a man’s name to get published and to put their ideas out into the world. I wonder if I lived in that time period I would write under a man’s name. It would be frustrating because I would want my ideas, under my name put out into the world. I would not want to give another man credit for my discoveries and my beliefs.
As I searched for more reasons why women were not present, I found that people/men of that century believed that it was unnecessary and harmful for a women to be educated because it may ruin their marriage prospects according to the Norton Anthology of English Literature in the section Contesting Cultural Norms (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/17century/topic_1/hutchins.htm). It upsets me to think that so many of these women’s lives of this century revolved around a man. It is shocking that in that time period I could not better myself through education because it would ruin my chances of getting a husband.
Reading Connection #2: Women in the Scientific Revolution
Although it would be presumptuous to say that women appeared nowhere in the Scientific Revolution of 1550-1700, there surely is an overwhelming majority of well-known male scientists. Some of the most well-known names in science come from this time period: Francis Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle, and Newton all spring to mind. However, what about Virginia Galilei, the famous Galileo’s daughter, who was rumored to be as intelligent as her father? We certainly have heard and read about her father, who has an entire section in The Scientific Revolution by Michael R. Matthews devoted to himself and his theories, but who has heard of her, or any of the other women interested in the sciences during that time period?
Although she was touted to have the same great mind of her famous father, Virginia Galilei spent her life in a poor convent in Florence that her father admitted her and her younger sister to when they were both teenagers, a common occurrence of the time. People of means often sent their daughters to convents when they reached teenage years, so they could learn skills such as sewing, cooking, cleaning, music, and were taught religion until the day when their parents arranged a marriage for them and they were swept away to a new household. Unfortunately, this was not the case for Virginia, who ended up dying at a relatively young age due to weak health. However, the letters she wrote to her father have survived her, and we have records of a bright young woman who undoubtedly could have flourished in the scientific world if given the chance, which just wasn’t done. In a letter from 1623, she writers to her father… “Moreover, I beg you to be so kind as to send me that book of yours which has just been published, so that I may read it, for I have a great desire to see it.” The book that she writes of was The Assayer, and she would have undoubtedly had her own opinions and ideas of her father’s work. It’s inferred from her letters that she had the intellectual capability to think and work on a level comparable to her father’s, but she was never given the chance. A book has recently been published with many of Virginia’s letters to her father, and focuses on her own tremendous talents, a Rice college has started a project on Galileo’s life, a large part of which focuses on his eldest daughter, the website from which this quote of hers was taken.
A similar tragedy is seen in another letter, this one written by Margaret Cavendish, the Duchess of Newcastle, who was a woman of scientific mind interested in becoming a member of the newly-founded Royal Society in England. She writes, “I cannot publicly preach, teach, declare or explain (my work) by word of mouth, as most of the famous philosophers have done, who thereby made their philosophical opinions more famous than I fear mine will ever be.” Here we see that Cavendish is remarking on a fact of her time: that women were not regarded on an equal plane as men when it came to matters of the mind. Although this way of thinking no doubt stilted a great many accomplishments that could have been achieved had women been given a chance publicly to practice in the sciences, Margaret Cavendish did well for herself. She went on to write 13 novels, some of which focused on science, with an emphasis on atoms and matter in motion. She also published under her own name when most women who dared to write about the sciences published their works anonymously. Cavendish never did become a member of the Royal Society, but she was friends with many male members.
In just these two examples, we can see that it is not the fact that there were no women interested in the ground-breaking science of the time, it’s just that they weren’t allowed or even encouraged to have such a hands-on role. For the time, it would have been scandalous and considered taboo for a woman to seem to be as intelligent as a man or show similar interests or ideas, and for this, we have lost a great many opportunities for brilliant women to let themselves shine.
Bibliography:
1.) Rice College and the Galileo Project’s Website devoted to Virginia Galilei: http://galileo.rice.edu/fam/maria.html
2.) Iowa State University’s record of women in the Scientific Revolution, a section of which is devoted to Margaret Cavendish: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~hist.380/revolution.html
Although she was touted to have the same great mind of her famous father, Virginia Galilei spent her life in a poor convent in Florence that her father admitted her and her younger sister to when they were both teenagers, a common occurrence of the time. People of means often sent their daughters to convents when they reached teenage years, so they could learn skills such as sewing, cooking, cleaning, music, and were taught religion until the day when their parents arranged a marriage for them and they were swept away to a new household. Unfortunately, this was not the case for Virginia, who ended up dying at a relatively young age due to weak health. However, the letters she wrote to her father have survived her, and we have records of a bright young woman who undoubtedly could have flourished in the scientific world if given the chance, which just wasn’t done. In a letter from 1623, she writers to her father… “Moreover, I beg you to be so kind as to send me that book of yours which has just been published, so that I may read it, for I have a great desire to see it.” The book that she writes of was The Assayer, and she would have undoubtedly had her own opinions and ideas of her father’s work. It’s inferred from her letters that she had the intellectual capability to think and work on a level comparable to her father’s, but she was never given the chance. A book has recently been published with many of Virginia’s letters to her father, and focuses on her own tremendous talents, a Rice college has started a project on Galileo’s life, a large part of which focuses on his eldest daughter, the website from which this quote of hers was taken.
A similar tragedy is seen in another letter, this one written by Margaret Cavendish, the Duchess of Newcastle, who was a woman of scientific mind interested in becoming a member of the newly-founded Royal Society in England. She writes, “I cannot publicly preach, teach, declare or explain (my work) by word of mouth, as most of the famous philosophers have done, who thereby made their philosophical opinions more famous than I fear mine will ever be.” Here we see that Cavendish is remarking on a fact of her time: that women were not regarded on an equal plane as men when it came to matters of the mind. Although this way of thinking no doubt stilted a great many accomplishments that could have been achieved had women been given a chance publicly to practice in the sciences, Margaret Cavendish did well for herself. She went on to write 13 novels, some of which focused on science, with an emphasis on atoms and matter in motion. She also published under her own name when most women who dared to write about the sciences published their works anonymously. Cavendish never did become a member of the Royal Society, but she was friends with many male members.
In just these two examples, we can see that it is not the fact that there were no women interested in the ground-breaking science of the time, it’s just that they weren’t allowed or even encouraged to have such a hands-on role. For the time, it would have been scandalous and considered taboo for a woman to seem to be as intelligent as a man or show similar interests or ideas, and for this, we have lost a great many opportunities for brilliant women to let themselves shine.
Bibliography:
1.) Rice College and the Galileo Project’s Website devoted to Virginia Galilei: http://galileo.rice.edu/fam/maria.html
2.) Iowa State University’s record of women in the Scientific Revolution, a section of which is devoted to Margaret Cavendish: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~hist.380/revolution.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)