Science and Technology Online Lecture

7/30/2019 Science and Technology Online Lecture

1/35


2/35

Overview of Lecture

Past years A level questions

Observable trend of past years questions

Analysis of 2 questions Nov 2000 Q6 Science never provides

solutionsit only poses more problems. Is

this a fair comment? (implications of sc,

bioethics)

Nov 2002 Q6 Science and religion will

always conflict. Discuss.(sc and religion)


3/35

Past years A level Questions

1999-2001

Nov 1999 Q6 Can the transplanting of animal organs

into human beings ever be justified? (bioethics)

Nov 1999 Q7 Is a sound knowledge of science and

technology essential for a well-educated person intodays world? (scientific knowledge and education)

Nov 2000 Q6 Science never provides solutions it

only poses more problems. Is this a fair comment?

(implications of sc, bioethics)

Nov 2001 Q6 Examine the implications of cloning for

the human race.(implications)


4/35


2002 -2004

Nov 2002 Q6 Science and religion will alwaysconflict. Discuss.(sc and religion)

Nov 2003 Q5 Should medical science always

seek to prolong life? (bioethics) Nov 2003 Q11 Does the modern world place too

much reliance on technology? (technology prosand cons)

Nov 2004 Q4 How inventions and discoveriesare used is not the concern of the scientist. Doyou agree? (technology, bioethics)


5/35

Past years A level questions

2005-2007

Nov 2005 Q1 Is effective farming possible withoutscience? (scientific knowledge and technology)

Nov 2005 Q5 Medical science has been sosuccessful that people now expect too much of it.Discuss.(bioethics)

Nov 2006 Q3 Does modern technology always

improve the quality of peoples lives? (technologybenefits/pros and cons)

Nov 2007 Q11 Should research into expensivemedical treatments be allowed when only a few can

afford them? (bioethics)


6/35


2008 -2010 Nov 2008 The more science advances the more,

religion will decline To what extent do you agree? (scand religion)

2009 To what extent has technology had an impact on

both privacy and security in your country? (technologypros and cons)

2009 Should every country have the right to carry outunlimited scientific research? (implications of scienceand knowledge of science)

2010 To what extent has technology had a negativeimpact on the skill levels of people? (technologypros/cons)


7/35

Observable trend over the 12 years

There is a question on science and/or

technology every year (2009)

In some years, 2003, 2005 and 2009, there are

2 questions, one on each. The questions broadly asked for responses on :

Bioethics

Implications of Scientific knowledge

Science and Religion

Technology : pros and cons


8/35

Questions on Bioethics

Can the transplanting of animal organs into human beingsever be justified?( Nov 1999, Q8)

Nov 2001 Q6 Examine the implications of cloning for thehuman race.(implications of science and bioethics)

Should medical science always seek to prolong life? (Nov2003 Q5)

Medical science has been so successful that people nowexpect too much of it. Discuss.(Nov 2005 Q5)

Should research into expensive medical treatments be

allowed when only a few can afford them? (Nov 2007Q11)


9/35

Questions on Implications of

Scientific Knowledge

Nov 2000 Q6 Science never provides solutions

it only poses more problems. Is this a fair

comment? (implications of sc, bioethics)

Nov 2001 Q6 Examine the implications ofcloning for the human race.(implications)

2009 Should every country have the right to

carry out unlimited scientific research?

(implications of science and knowledge of

science/in some way science and politics)


10/35

Questions on Science and Religion

Nov 2002 Q6 Science and religion will

always conflict. Discuss.(sc and religion)

Nov 2008 The more science advances

the more, religion will decline To what

extent do you agree? (sc and religion)


11/35

Questions on Technology: pros and

cons Nov 2003 Q11 Does the modern world place too

much reliance on technology? (technology prosand cons)

Nov 2006 Q3 Does modern technology always

improve the quality of peoples lives?(technology benefits/pros and cons)

2009 To what extent has technology had animpact on both privacy and security in your

country? (technology pros and cons) 2010 To what extent has technology had a

negative impact on the skill levels of people?(technology pros/cons)


12/35

Nov 2000 Q6 Science never provides solutions it

only poses more problems. Is this a fair comment?

(implications of sc, bioethics)

First thing to note is the use of theabsolute term never in this question. -

implies there are no cases/instances ofscience providing solutions to problems

Next analyse the Key words: solutions,problems-

solutions = answers/ways of dealing with adifficulty

problems=difficulties/troubles


13/35

Apply thinking skills to tackle the questions: Pauls

elements of reasoning

Are there any assumptions hidden in the

wording of the question?

This question contains an assumptions:

there are existing problems that remain

unsolved


14/35

Possible Approach to the question and using

the PAL thinking framework

For such a question with an absolute term, it is best totake the stand to disagree with the claim.i.e. Argue that itis not true that science never provides solutions but justadd on more problems . Simply put, argue that sciencedoes provide solutions to problems rather than add on

problems One way to go about it is to think of the existing

problems. You could go about it by applying PAL(Parties, Aspects, Levels). You could look at all thedifferent aspects, e.g. environment, economy, social etc

at the different levels: global, national, community For this question, it would be a good idea to look at a

more macro level to begin with- Global problems today


15/35

Existing Global problems

Hunger

Energy crisis

Low birth rage

Aging population Pollution

Gender imbalance

Terrrorism

The list goes on the question here is whetherScience provides answers to these problems ordoes Science actually add on to these problems


16/35

Make your stand clear from the

start after your introduction

Try to hook the reader with a rivetingintroduction: e.g. a brief recount of ascientific breakthrough that has reaped

positive outcomes, maybe a recount ofhow a pair conjoined twins weresuccessfully separated, testifying to themiracles made possible by Science, then

asserting the stand of how Science hasproven itself capable of solving problemsthat were insumountable in the past.


17/35

Argument 1:

Science provides solutions to problem of hunger

Hunger problem has science helped to resolve

it? yes-show by evidence (e.g. GM food)- golden

rice golden rice can improve the lives of millions

of the poorest people in the world. Theseconsumers include at least a million children

who die every year because they are weakened

by vitamin-A deficiency and an additional

350,000 people who go blind. The rice containsbeta-carotene which is the building block for

vitamin A.


18/35

counter argument: golden rice does resolve

hunger problem but has created more

problems because it contains snippets ofDNA borrowed from bacteria and daffodils

what if there are side-effects?

Rebuttal: even if so, the benefit of feedingthe starving is sufficient reason to carry on

with genetic engineering, unless and until a

better and quicker solution to feeding the

millions starving can be found.


19/35

Argumemt 2:

Science helps to ameliorate the problem of low

birth rate

Science provides many different

technologies that help infertile couples

have a child of their own. The technologies

include:

artificial insemination, IVF, surrogacy,

cloning, (refer to all your lecture notes)


20/35

Counter argument : While it is true that science providesassisted reproduction technologies, Science alsoprovides scanning technology that increases abortionrate and exacerbates the problem of Gender Imbalance :in countries that favour sons e.g. India and Chinascanning technology that enables people to find out thesex of the child led to abortion of female foetuses. Alsogene selection technology that helps to determine the

sex of babies result in more male babies being born. Possible rebuttal: even without these technologies, theproblem already existed as infanticides via other meanshave been happening even in the remote parts of Chinaand India. e.g. drowning and live burials of female

babies. Further reading:http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012028.html

http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html
http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012028.htmlhttp://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012028.htmlhttp://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.htmlhttp://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.htmlhttp://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.htmlhttp://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.htmlhttp://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012028.htmlhttp://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012028.html


21/35

Argument 3: Provides us with alternative

source of energy: e.g. biofuels and nuclear

energy(lecture notes)

counter-argument leads to more production of carbondioxide create more problems, production of fuelsprioritised over production of food, hence exacerbating the

problem of global hunger. some biofuels can producenegative net energy gains, releasing more carbon in theirproduction than their feedstocks capture in their growth.also issue of fuel vs food. . As the majority of biofuelsare produced directly from food crops the rise indemand for biofuels has lead to an increase in the

volumes of crops being diverted away from the globalfood market. This has been blamed for the globalincrease in food prices over the last couple of years


22/35

rebuttal: Second Generation biofuels are

produced from non-food crops such as

wood, organic waste, food crop waste andspecific biomass crops, therefore eliminating

the main problem of fuel vs food. Life cycle

assessments of second-generation biofuelshave also indicated that they will increase

net energy gains

The Third Generation of biofuels are fromcultured algae which can be manufactured

into a wide range of fuels such as diesel,

petrol and jet fuel.


23/35

Rebuttal continued

Four Generation Bio-fuels are aimed at not onlyproducing sustainable energy but also a way ofcapturing and storing co2. This carbon capturemakes fourth generation biofuel production

carbon negative rather then simply carbonneutral, as it is locks away more carbon than itproduces. This system not only captures andstores carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but italso reduces co2 emissions by replacing fossil

fuels Hence this biotechnology not only provides an

alternative source of energy but reduces theproblem of carbon emission.


24/35

2008 The more science advances the more,

religion will decline To what extent do you

agree? (sc and religion)

Analysis of question

Key words:, science advances, decline andreligion

advances- move forward/make progressinwhich aspects? at which levels?

decline-weakens in importance/relevance (towhom? in which aspects, at which level?)

science-study of nature and behaviour of naturalthings

religion- a system of beliefs in a God/Gods or a

philosophy of life


25/35

Approach to to what extent question

Note this is a to what extent question, which

means to what degree or how much do youagree with the statement you have to showthe extent by showing the magnitude/degree

of the truth or fallacy of the statement andshowing necessitates giving evidence andnot merely saying so. If you give ample andconvincing enough examples to support your

stand, it shows you agree to a large extent,conversely if examples given for theopposing stand are more persuasive, itshows the extent to which you disagree with

the statement.


26/35

Analysing for assumption

Also analyse if there is a hidden assumption in thequestion. In this question the assumption is that scienceand religion are polar opposites, thats why whenscience advances, religion will necessarily

decline/weaken. Whether you can accept thisassumption, will help you decide whether you agree withthis statement. If you find this assumption true, of courseyour stand will be to agree with the statement. Howeverif you find the assumption only partly true, then you will

somewhat agree only while if you find this assumptiontotally fallacious, you will most likely disagree with thestatement.


27/35

Applying thinking techniques: PAL

Lets go back to advancement made by Science think of

the different aspects in which science has advanced (A ofPAL): e.g. life sciences and biotechnology, nucleartechnology, media technology. Has progress in theseareas of science caused religion to decline? Here againapply PAL- how does it cause decline in religion, if itdoes? different aspects in which religion can decline:

e.g. religious observances and practices, faith, attendanceat church/mosques/temples, conversions, renouncementof faith. You can also consider decline from theperspective of which Parties lost their faith or at whichlevel, has decline happened? National, global, community

levels? If there is a loss of faith in many people, at manylevels and in many aspects of religion, then you canperhaps conclude that religion has declined to a largeextent. You dont have to use the word large but byshowing the evidence, statistics and research findings andreports, they speak for themselves.


28/35

Stand and Argument 1 Now lets try some arguments:

Stand: Not entirely true that the more science advances, themore religion will decline.

Argument 1: the assumption that science and religion arepolar opposites is not valid

If it were true that they were polar opposites, then would it

be the case that they move in opposite directions, in thestatement it states if science advances, religion will decline.However that is not true, in fact religion can even leadscience, e.g. Millennia before germ theory was proposed inthe late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene lawsthat included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction ofcontaminated pottery and washing of hands. (furtherreading:http://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Eighth_Day_Blood_Clotting_Factors)
http://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledgehttp://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledgehttp://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledgehttp://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge


29/35

Another example to support

argument 1

Another example is: The Book of Isaiahestablishes that the true shape of the earth is asphere: He sits above the sphere of the earth,and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers.

He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain,spreading them out like a tent to live under: -Isaiah 40:22

Note that Isaiah was written approximatelyduring the 8th century BC, centuries beforeGreek philosophers, beginning with Pythagoras,theorized the earth was round
http://www.conservapedia.com/Pythagorashttp://www.conservapedia.com/Pythagoras


30/35

Argument 2

Argument 2: human beings have spiritual needs thatcannot be satisfied by answers given by science the factthat human still seeks spiritual comfort and guidance showthat science cannot fulfil the need in man, showing religionhas not lost significance in peoples life despite the

advancement of Science.Hence even in the age of rapidadvancement in science, there is a resurgence of religiousfaiths, e.g Islam experiences a resurgence of faith in anera of globalization (further reading:http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.2/ahmad.html),there is a revival of Islamic faith in Tatarstan in the 1990s.Churches growing faster than starbucks in UK , While 481UK Starbucks branches have started since 1998, morethan 500 churches have been established during thesame time, based on only 18 of the more than 400denominations in the UK, which indicates that there may

actually be more churches that have opened.
http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.2/ahmad.htmlhttp://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.2/ahmad.html


31/35

Argument 3, 4, 5

Argument 3: the public outcry from religious groups tostem cell research, human cloning, genetic engineeringetc, shows that people do not blindly accept science andrenounce their faiths. In fact their faiths cause them to

question the morality of some scientific researches andadvancements

Argument 4: Science attempts to understand how theuniverse works but not whether an intelligent creator isresponsible for why it works, hence they answer different

questions and one will not negate the other. Argument 5: If one has genuine faith in a God/Gods, there

is no reason why understanding how the universe workswill undermine his/her faith in the God/Gods he/she trustsabsolutely, unless to begin with, his/her faith was already

shaky. After all faith is based on experiences


32/35

Arguments from the opposing camp: the

more science advances, the more religion

will decline Argument 1: scientific theory conflicts with

religious beliefs, if science progresses, it

must necessarily debunk religious beliefse.g. Science is founded on logic and

evidence while religion is founded on faith,

which is the substance of things not seen hence intangible and therefore refuted by

science that looks for tangible proof.


33/35

Arguments from Opposing camp:

the more science advances the

more religion will decline Argument 2: as genetic research

advances and genetic determinists explain

everything about human behaviour interms of genetics, it will undermine the

Christian idea of free will.


34/35

Arguments from the opposing camp:

the more science advances, the

more religion will decline

Argument 3: as people begin to push

moral boundaries in terms ofbiotechnology, religious principles are

compromised, hence religion is


35/35

Arguments from the opposing

camp: the more science advances,

the more religion will decline

Argument 4 : Going along with scientific

research necessitates some

compromise.e.g. killin go embryos for

stem cell research or genetic engineering.

To that extent, compromise could weakena persons faith.

Science and Technology Online Lecture

Documents

Transcript of Science and Technology Online Lecture