Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Epidemics
Not that we have been talking about this during class.. but i guess it has always been just an extreme fascination for me. Have you guys ever noticed how quickly epidemics spread? I mean they are both physical and emotional epidemics. I knowe I have been personally affected by the Facebook, ugg boots and chai latte epidemic.. but maybe thats because I'm sitting in English... ahah just kidding. But honestly epidemics take over people like it is a evil spirit dwelling in the corners of our world waiting to escape and take over without remorse. This is a serious matter. People are widely scared and threatened by epidemics just because they know that they are powerless against it. They have to give in without choice. What do you guys think about this? It is definately all over the literature that we have been reading and even more so, integrated into our everyday lives. They are everywhere. How did you guys respond to the epidemics in the text? Do you see any in the Lost World or Lingua Franca? Maybe science itself is an epidemic.. its powerful and people believe it with the drop of a hat without thinking about it twice..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I like your idea that science might be an epidemic. If you think about it, we are all powerless against it. For instance, almost every person in the world is affected by technology and science in some way. There is no way to escape it. However, epidemics are often defined as being temporary. Therefore, in order for science to be an epidemic....it has to be temporary. So I pose this question to you:
ReplyDeleteif science IS in fact an epidemic, when do you think we will be "cured" of it?
Building in on Varun’s idea, for science to be an epidemic, he mentioned that it needs to be temporary; in other words, it is necessary for science’s sweeping power to come to an end. And the very cause of the end of scientific power will be called the “cure.” What would bring about the end of the credibility of science? To emulate Basalla, there are only two possibilities to end the infective power of science. One is plain ignorance, where no intelligent response is perceived when a useful and revolutionary scientific idea is conveyed. An example of this scenario would be found in a scene where an anachronistic scientist in the Stone Age is trying to explain the durability of metal to a spear-maker of the Rock Village. Two is where perception is no longer the mode of belief, where even “physical proof” would be denied. Similar situation would be a scene where a teenager is trying to explain to an Amish elder what fun computers are.
ReplyDeleteI like Joey's caveat about how epidemics are temporary and I don't believe science is temporary. It is a permanent epidemic that has spread over global culture and still continues to penetrate regions where there is lack of scientific skill. The key with science being an "epidemic" is that it can be put to applicable use for better medicinal practices, technology, etc. Because of globalization and private companies, our global trading system tries to put out bigger and better products to make profit. Science is ubiquitous and will remain so as long as there are needs or wants that science can fill.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to some text from class, The Basalla article shows how Western science was an epidemic. It was spread through colonization along with Western culture. In Basalla's three phase's of scientific development, the second phase of learning Western science shows that most independent science is based upon Western knowledge. Western science has an epidemic-like spread but instead of leaving, it stayed.
I think there's a huge difference between epidemic and trend, first of all. An epidemic implies the idea of rapid spreading. I don't think science has necessarily been rapidly spreading, though it does seem to be speeding up as we get further into it. For example, quantum mechanics seems like it is expanding and expounding faster than a heliocentric solar system did. Before in previous times, religion played a much more prevalent daily authoritative role in society. Religion and politics often went hand in hand, and when science was first being discovered (or invented), there was a lot of power shifts between politics and objectivity vs religion and subjectivity. (I say objectivity and politics loosely because ultimately a political system must strive to be objective.) Within the last 50 years or so, there has been a HUGE decline in religion. People are striving to be more "politically correct" and therefore more objective and less bias. With this trend in the decline of importance on religion, it seems that science and technology (or the physical progressive objects put out because of science) are expanding by leaps and bounds much like a trend does, or I suppose in this instance, and epidemic. But, I personally don't like thinking of science on the whole as an epidemic because that implies a certain negativity to it. A disease. Something that must be cured. I think that science is not a negative or positive thing, it's neutral. It is a mindset or a field of study. Only what science can be used for can be considered negative or positive. For example, nuclear fusion that was necessary to make the atom bomb was not evil or a bad thing. It was incredible and genius. But, the nuclear war we live in today spawned because of the invention of the atom bomb could be described as evil and a plight to humanity. So, I'd prefer to call science a "trend", and along the lines of what Varun said trends have a way of dying out like ugg boots or video game crazes. Will science die out? Will it be absorbed by a new field? Much like religion was kind of in this day and age replace by science and fact, I think science and theories will some day be replaced, but I honestly have no idea of what will replace it. We're in the heart of the science age, I think. Could people before the renaissance really imagine what would become greater than God and religion? Not at all. Science was just something that happened, that evolved. It was blended for awhile and slowly extinguished religion. Maybe math will be the next focus. Quantum physics is already moving towards a more mathematically theorized and based society. So, it may make sense that it will eventually take over much like science did to provide new bridges over the same old gaps.
ReplyDelete