Today in
class we saw a video from Ted talks, talking about how useful is Science as a
way of knowing. The guy doing the presentation though that science could be
successfully as a way of thinking because of what we know about emotions and
the brain. This made me think that maybe some day we would be able to know for
sore what is morally good and what is not. This might happen because we know
which parts of the brain relate to which emotion. There are electronics devices
that can tell us which part of the brain reacts according different situations.
However I think that this is impossible;
yes we are all equal physically, but not mentally. All of us have being through
different situations that might have change our way of feeling and seeing life.
I think there is not an actual way to prove
that all humans react the same to different stations. I personally believe that
even though science works as a way of knowing in many aspects, it helps us
understand the tangible things of world, moral and feelings, in the other hand
cant be determined by it.
We are too
much humans in this world, we all live in different ecosystems, and have to
interact with different people, this sometimes causes diseases or alterations
of the human body that make us different to others. If these alterations occur
in our body, why cant it happen in our mind and in the way we react to emotions
as well.
Here we
have an article about a scientist called Edward Teller. The article talks about
how science can be used as way of knowing, giving proves that morality, even
though it seams impossible, might be easier than we think.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5367/1200.full
You have expressed your ideas about using the scientific method to solve moral problems, now you need to think about the scientific method itself. How does it involve our 'ways of knowing' (sense perception, reason etc) and how do these affect its reliablity? Is it an effective way of reaching conclusions about the world around us?
ResponderEliminar