Friday, October 24, 2008

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 England this question was answered and the fact that we do not see ideas that women come up with during this time is sadly not surprising. The reasons that we do not see women’s work on science during this time is first they were not able to get the same education as men, they were not able to join the Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, and this time period had that highest number of witchcraft trails so women who tried to impute the ideas on science would have been see at witches. But there were still some women that were able to get around this. Two that were mentioned Lucy Hutchinson and Aphra Benn they were able to do this by translating books and adding notes thought out with there own ideas.

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 Cited

Dean, Cornelia. "Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches." New York Times 19 Dec. 2006.

Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.

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>

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: 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