Homework Assignment Ten

This week our teacher wanted us to elaborate on the paradox of any scientific proof and to write 250 words about our semester topic......


Q1) We discussed in class how there is no such thing as a "scientific proof." Explain in your own words.


A scientific proof is implied to prove a scientific theory. However, if one looks more closely to the subject we can logical state that no scientific theory can be proved. We can first start with the inductive versus deductive reasoning. With deductive reasoning we can prove logic statements or mathematical formulas. Three multiplied by three will always give you the product nine. I the law of deduction is when the truth of a conclusion is shown to follow a logical consequence of the premises and its corresponding conditional premises are a necessary truth. Inductive reasoning can be seen as the premises or statements of an inductive logical argument convey a degree of support for the conclusion but do not entail it. As we can see from here science does not take on the deductive process of math. It is a form of inductive reasoning. Like our professor said, if we observe an apple that is thrown in the air will it always fall? One might say yes, but our prefessor brought up the fact that if we through the apple fast enough the apple could potentially escape earth’s gravity. Thus, this observation is not a complete truth. However, we can say that three times three is still nine. That is why scientific observations cannot be transalted to actual truths.. They show tendencies not certainities.

Q2) Write a new part for your project of 250 words or more.

3) Possible Issues and ImplicationsEthics of trans-humanismLike stem cells there will certainly be issues with the ethics of trans-humanism. The main issue I see is conservative people's values of norms. They do not want their culture to drastically change with technology. Would an elderly person accept a woman with a retractable arm and purple skin? I believe that in the future there will be debates on how long people will be allowed to live with integrated mechanical body parts (assuming that these parts will promote human life span.) We cannot let everyone live forever, because of many issues that would arise. I believe it is in our nature to see both life and death. It is and should be inevitable. Besides, how many people could the earth or any system sustain, especially when you are adding people at an exponential rate.

What is ethics? Ethics can be seen simply seen as what actions we judge to be right and wrong. This is a very subjective phenomenon. When we add trans-humanism to the mix, we complete this subjective phenomenon further. It seems that as time passes by, people’s ideas and beliefs change. These ideas and beliefs effect their ethical viewpoints. For example, some people think that it is ethically wrong to allow interracial marriages. Other people believe that it is unethical to not allow different races to marry. After all, how can we say two people are not allowed certain rights because they do not fit the proper or common situation? If we were a white southern whose parents were racist, would we have an open mind to interracial marriage? It is very hard to say, but we can assume that all ethical viewpoints come from experience and perception. This same logic can be applied to trans-humanism. Would some people think that it is unethical for people to have odd colored skin or retractable arms? Another big issue could arise if we could live forever through trans-humanism. Can we deny someone the ability to live forever? What if our population became to high to sustain. What if we took out our brain and somehow uploaded it to a cyborg. Would we be human or machine? How would a devout Christian or Muslim handle that? These are questions that will certainly arise. As we have seen the in past and the present, people will always differ in their viewpoints of ethics. People have formed prejudices and subjective feelings through their experience and perception. I believe that the further we progress into the future, people as a whole have become more tolerable towards difference. So in summary I believe that a person from 2009 will be less accepting of someone with robotic arms then someone from 2100.