Criticism of Our Faith in Science

Criticism of Our Faith in Science Every individual has a right to believe or not to believe. Faith is something subjective that related to all people independently. The authors of the article â€Å"Our faith in science† are Kirszner and Mandell who touch upon different issues, finally making an emphasis on ethics in science and application of ethical decision-making strategies to scientific researches. When the faith is questioned, it is necessary to ask monks for help while modern science is capable of escaping unethical decisions that can take human lives away.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Criticism of â€Å"Our Faith in Science† specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The article â€Å"Our faith in science† on behalf Tenzin Gyatso, Dalai Lama XIV is taken from The Blair Reader (20o4) written by Kirszner and Mandell. Though this article seems to be realistic enough, it also lacks convergence. This source is written on be half of Tenzin Gyatso though the authors are Kirszner and Mandell. The authors start to write about the faith and his trips, proceed with explanation of positive consequences of meditation on bran functions, and conclude with analysis of contemporary scientific methods with regard to ethical decision-making. As the authors begin their story with mention of Tenzin Gyatso’s childhood: â€Å"As a child in Tibet, I was keenly curious about how things worked† (Kirszner Mandell, 2010, p. 527), the article resembles a letter to a friend. In this respect, Kirszner and Mandell make the readers feel confident about what they say and be sure about the veracity of their words. The article is full of inconsistent statements because the authors intended to compare incomparable concepts and apply some religious theories and meditation strategies to scientific innovations. For instance, the authors claim that Tenzin Gyatso was interested in observing the sky through the telescope and saw that there were shadows on the moon surface (Kirszner Mandell, 2010, p. 527). They approached this issue questioning the science instead of questioning Tenzin Gyatso’s own knowledge. â€Å"†¦this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that moon †¦ emitted its own light† (Kirszner Mandell, 2010, p. 527). As such, the authors do not try to find the truth but rather attempt to find explanation to why something does not correspond to what Tenzin Gyatso has been taught. The authors imply that scientific methods can help to prove the positive effect of Tenzin Gyatso’s practices in order to tell about this phenomenon to the international community.Advertising Looking for critical writing on religion theology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More However, tradition of meditating was introduced by the authors as a way toward â€Å"alleviating human suf fering† (Kirszner Mandell, 2010, p. 528) whereas scientific methods can simply support or refute this idea instead of making certain contribution to making the human lives better. Alternatively, the authors do not mention the positive effects of scientific innovations on human life in terms of manufacturing, farming, and healthcare. Scientific research methods are questioned by the authors with regard to moral thinking and empathy. Science should avoid emotions such as empathy; otherwise, no inventions would be made even when vitally needed. â€Å"†¦Our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with speed of scientific advancement† (Kirszner Mandell, 2010, p. 529). In this respect, the authors start using the personal pronoun in plural form in order to identify Tenzin Gyatso with each and every reader. This approach can be analyzed as an attempt to persuade the audience in its own lack of moral thinking that lags behind the scientific progress. To sum up, the authors question the concepts of faith and tell about his childhood to gain the readers’ favor. Besides, Kirszner and Mandell spend many arguments on making people realize the positive effect of meditations whereas Tenzin Gyatso wants to reach collaboration between Buddhism and science. Finally, the authors question ethical decision-making with regard to advancement of scientific methods trying to persuade the readers that they have the same insight. References Kirszner, L., Mandell, S. (2004). The Blair Reader (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 527-529.

Confusing I and Me

Confusing I and Me Picture this: Jesse Kasserman, a high school senior with a strong academic record and high hopes, walks into the office of Dr. James, an admission representative of XYZ University. â€Å"Thank you for inviting my mom and I to see the campus,† he says. The college representative cringes. Which is Correct? Jesse might have blown the interview already. Why? Jesse should have said â€Å"my mom and me.† Smart people everywhere agonize over the misuse of â€Å"I† and â€Å"me.† It’s one of the most common mistakes in word usage. People seem to fear the word â€Å"me†Ã‚  and  to many people, it sounds just as wrong to hear the sentence, â€Å"The secret is just between you and I.† But its correct.   â€Å"I† is a nominative pronoun and is used as a subject of a sentence or clause, while â€Å"me† is an objective pronoun and used as an object. Sound too technical? Then think of this: The trouble with â€Å"me† usually begins when speakers are stringing together two or more objects in a sentence. â€Å"I† is not an objective case word, but people try to plug it in as an object because it just sounds smarter. Examples All you have to do is leave out the second object. Look over these examples, and you’ll see it’s really simple. You might be tempted to say:WRONG: â€Å"Would you explain that to John and I?† But then, when you omit the other object, you’ll have:WRONG: â€Å"Would you explain that to I?† Now that just sounds silly. Try this: RIGHT: â€Å"Would you explain that to John and me?†RIGHT: â€Å"Would you explain that to me?† Practice Now practice with these: WRONG: Leave the decision to Laura and I.RIGHT: Leave the decision to me.RIGHT: Leave the decision to Laura and me. WRONG: Please join Glenna and I for lunch.RIGHT: Please join me for lunch.RIGHT: Please join Glenna and me for lunch. WRONG: It’s just between you and I.RIGHT: It’s just between you and me. WRONG: The group consists of Laura, Joe, and I.RIGHT: The group consists of Laura, Joe, and me. Dont forget, when composing an essay or any research paper, be sure to go back and proofread carefully.