March Blog Assignment: Week 3

Limits of Science

Central  Argument- The central argument is that even if it seems science can explain everything, it does not because there are limits to some questions that cannot be answered.

                Science is often looked upon for answers because people feel science has the answer to it. People always use the term “scientifically proven” to either strengthen their argument or to persuade someone. They do this because they believe that science has proven the right answer. Science has “proven” many answers, and it has the capability of making people believe in science. It’s influence on people is so strong that it has sparked debate against religion and god. Though it may seem science has all the answers, it does not because there are some questions that cannot be answered and it never will. How can science prove that whether god is true or not? Do they have hardcore evidence to back up that statement? Often, scientists claim to make people feel that science does have answers to everything by adding two phrases- “research” or “scientifically proven”. These two phrases are continously used by  scientists to make people believe in science because it makes scientist look like they have done there homework, and they have resolved the question. I strongly disagree when the term “scientifically  proven” is used because that is trying to say that what they (the scientist) says is the only right answer, and there is no way that you can argue with it. It’s like having an arrogant,overconfident kid in your classroom who thinks he knows it all.

               

                Science may feel it knows it all, but that’s just there perspective. Just because they have many loyal, avid supporters doesn’t mean they can just say there is just one answer to it. It doesn’t mean science can claim to know it all. I personally disagree with many scientific examples, such as evolution. It is really hard for me to see how Charles Darwin came up with the theory that humans evolved from monkeys. Just because we look like monkeys, doesn’t mean we just transformed from that phase to this phase. If that was the case, isn’t there a possibility of another phrase of evolution? I also feel science cannot answers based on emotions. It cannot “scientifically prove” why someone is crying or why someone is sad.  When science claims to answer, I feel that the ones that are right are based on knowledge, but when it comes to complex answers, there is a bit of opinions and hypothesis added to it. The Big Bang Theory is a good example, as it is logical to know that the world did start some way, but since none of us were there to observe it, scientistn “claim” that a “big bang” created Earth. This just shows that science  “assumed” how today’s world came to be.

                Though  there are many explanations science can give to findinf its answers, there are some that are assumed or based on opinion factors. There are some questions science should just leave it unanswered because science itself cannot answer it. Science should not act like it knows it all, and feel that it has the capability to answer everything.

Surveillance

Central Argument-  Though surveillance has its positive factors, it can stil be bad to have them because they are moraly wrong.

                These days, many places, particularly big cities, have installed many surveillance cameras. The reason? To protect the civilians and take security measures to make the city a safer place. Though this seems to be done from good intentions, it  is also morally wrong. It is morally as it does not give people privacy and it seems they (public service providers) are sneaking into others businesses. Yes, I do understand  that they are taking it as a security measure, to protect their citizens, but is putiing up surveillance the only solution? People can hesitate and panic because they cannot freely express themselves in public because they know that somewhere, someone is looking at every move,every step and generally, everything they are doing. It makes people conscious and uncomfortable, and that is the last thing the city council and the police should do because their job is to serve the citizens well.

                Crime is increasing day by day, and the government,police are entrusted by citizens to not let criminal activites take place. The government and the police therefore with good intentions tend to feel that surveillance is the only option. That is not the only method that they can carry out. A good example is Santa Maijos, Argentina  where crime was increasing dramatically during late 90’s. Instead of putting surveillance cameras, the city council constructed more police stations, and employed more polices as well. This helped significantly as crime decrease during the last decade. If San Maijos could do it without surveillance, I see no reasons why major cities like London,New York,Sydney,Tokyo cannot do it. They surely have bigger budgets and  has greated population to employ from.

                Due to surveillance cameras, people feel  uncomfrotable and conscious because they know someone is looking at them through a lense. People feel that their freedom to be themselves is limited, and they also do not want to do something embarrasing. I clearly feel that surveillances sneak into peoples privacy and it tends to create a akward relationship between public service providers and the citizens. Though criminal acts are caught, there can be embarassing, privacy related acts be going on, and this also makes it akward for people who monitor the camera. It is just morally wrong because citizens feel like there is this hawk that watching them all the time, and they just cannot express themselve to be who they are.

                As stated before, the government and the police are adding surveillance to its respective cities, because they want to protect the citizens. They are catching criminal acts through their surveillance, but is it the only possible way to catch them? People are not feeling comfortable by being monitored thorugh a lense, and every action they do being caught on camera.They are feeling uncomfortable and to some extent, injustice because they do have any privacy. People just do not feel comfortable with surveillance and this is morally wrong.