Research Paper: Discuss this Toumey’s citation in referring to concrete examples
(PLEASE USE THE PDF DOCUMENT ATTACHED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE)
Topic: “Whereas science fiction celebrates science and technology by endorsing their ability to shape our lives, mad scientist stories embody the opposite message, that science threatens our well-being ». Discuss this Toumey’s citation in referring to concrete examples.
Instructions:
Overview
Evaluated based on your demonstrated understanding of the material and critical engagement with it. It should reflect a balance between the material you have read and your critical responses to it. As a formal reflection of your thoughts on the material, all research papers should also have an introduction, a development, and a conclusion.
Presentation of your arguments is very important: always pay attention to the quality of language you use in expressing your ideas. While having good ideas is a strong first step to a well constructed reflection, the ability to communicate them in a clear, concise, and precise manner is equally, if not more, important.
Be vigilant against plagiarism when using quotations in your paper: whenever you cite an author, enclose his or her words within quotation marks and give the precise location of the quotation from the original source.
The specified number of words is a guideline intended to help you evaluate the degree of details expected for an answer. Make sure to take it into account. When marking, the instructor will be looking primarily at the content and information communicated within the recommended word count; in other words, to get the maximum marks, you must efficiently communicate good information within the specified number of words. All writing must be double-spaced, legible and neat.
It is important that you give the references and sources of your information. Marks will be deducted if there are no citations / references.
Use the APA style for citations (https://sass.uottawa.ca/sites/sass.uottawa.ca/files/awhc-apa-style.pdf.), but be consistent.
Methodology
For this paper, students are required to use primary sources whenever possible. Primary sources are editions of the works of the philosopher(s) and/or school of thought whose name is included in the topic. Editions of their works, in full or in part, are available freely on the Internet. Students are also required to use at least two secondary sources, i.e. commentaries or other scholarly publications, whether books or articles, on their chosen topic. Many peer-reviewed articles are freely available on the Internet, as well as some older books that are now in the public domain. However, most are not available in this way, and in some cases, for some topics, to meet the requirement for this paper, the use of online services of a university library will be necessary.
This essay must be at least 2,000 words long including the introduction, body and conclusion, but not the bibliography. Though a bibliography must be appended, which lists all the books and articles used, quoted or simply consulted for this assignment.
1-The introduction must include a clear question and a thesis with general presentation of the topic as well as an overview of the essay. If relevant, there should also be an indication of what is not covered in the essay, though relevant to the topic.
2-The body of the essay may be divided into parts. If the essay is longer than the minimum required length and has several parts, it might be a good idea to insert a table of contents after the cover page. In any event, all pages except for the cover page and the table of contents should be numbered.
3-A conclusion should also be included in which one typically recapitulates the main ideas developed in the essay. Students should consider rounding out the conclusion by offering some thoughts on the reception throughout the ages of the works discussed in the essay or on their relevance today.
The purpose of the research paper is to reproduce or re-construct the argument of a philosopher on a given topic. The student should use his or her own words as much as possible. If the words, other than the common words, used are taken verbatim from primary or secondary sources, then they must appear in quotation marks, and a reference must follow. Since the essay reproduces an argument, references are of crucial importance, since they act as evidence in a scholarly work.
The essay will be assessed for the most part (40%) on the student’s ability to identify and reconstruct a philosopher’s thought, the main argument on a given topic and to articulate in a personal way, and yet intelligently and accurately, while being able to support by accurate references the reconstruction of the argument every step of the way. 5% of the mark is based on grammar and spelling. Failure to meet other technical requirements such as page numbering might trigger another deduction of up to 5%.
▪ Grading rubric for the Research Paper (50%) 20 Marks
Technical writing:
● The structure of an academic essay is used
● There is a clear thesis
● Grammar and spelling are (mostly) correct
● Professional/academic tone is used
● Tone:
o The tone of the essay is professional/academic but does not rely on pedantic or overly flowery
language or rhetoric.
o The writer’s audience is academic, but anyone engaged in the issues will have greater clarity
on the issue having read the essay.
● Citations
o Use of APA Citations (check Library for correct style)
o Cite sources and quotations clearly and correctly
o Credit the author appropriately to avoid any concern or confusion of plagiarism
20 Marks Body of Essay
● From beginning to end, I understand the argument being made/explained.
o This is demonstrated through appropriate structure, clarity of writing, and use of primary text
● They have understood the article well enough to articulate the main issues being addressed:
o In turn I could understand the article without having read it (although I have read the articles)
● Interest level:
o The writer was able to raise an interesting and valuable philosophical point.
o I as the reader have learned something having read this essay
o I was engaged in the material and found the writing style comprehensible
o Using the technical aspects of an essay style, I was able to convey meaning while keeping the
interest of the reader
● Originality and new perspective:
o The essay demonstrated the thesis of the article in a way that highlighted something that I may not have thought about before.
10 Marks
● Engaging with the primary texts:
o The essay has effectively referenced and quoted the primary text (using correct citations),
which has made the thesis clearer and more powerful.
ANSWER
Science can be used for good as well as for bad. Just like one of the very first tool in human evolution, the hoe, the Homo habilis could have used it to till the ground to attack fellow living things in his ecosystem. The same applies to science; it is a tool with which incredible things can be achieved both in the positive and in the negative. Christopher P. Toumey (1992), in his article The Moral Character of Mad Scientists: A Cultural Critique of Science argues that “whereas science fiction celebrates science and technology by endorsing their ability to shape our lives, mad scientist stories embody the opposite message, that science threatens our well-being” (Toumey 1992) This conclusion could not be further from the truth. This essay argues that science is inherently good from an analysis of its achievements so far. There have been pitfalls both in fiction and in real life, but that is not a character of science; instead, it is an aspect of human nature.
Researchers apply a component in their study, which they refer to as ‘literature review.’ Under this, they use historical data collected by prior researchers to form a foundation for their own research. For instance, Toumey constantly refers to Mary Shelly’s book, Frankenstein’s Monster, or the Modern Prometheus. In the book, Dr. Frankenstein uses different perfect organs of the human body collectively to build the perfect ‘monster’ whom he refers to as Frankenstein’s monster (Shelly 1818). However, the experiment does not go as planned, and the monster is not as perfect as expected as it ends up suffering deep psychological issues resulting from desolation and rejection by both its creator and the society, and that is when it turns to evil. The point of this example is not the actual experiment by Dr. Frankenstein but the perceived possibility of the researchers that would come after him. Science has a strong culture of recording even the smallest of details so that future scientists can build upon previous research towards a more wholesome result. In principle, science aims at the improvement of life rather than the threatened well-being, and in case of an error, research follows to try and improve the results.
Toumey also refers to Nazi scientists, namely Dr. Christian Szell and Dr. Josef Mengele, in William Goldman’s novel Marathon Man. Nazi scientists are well known for their vicious science experiments in biology, chemistry, and physics during the Second World War. Labs discovered after the end of the war contained evidence of the cruelty of science, and Toumey takes note of this to prove the evil that lies in discovery and research. Most recent in the Marvel Comic’s Captain America was Dr. Arnim Zola working for the Nazi science division called Hydra. Using an unknown source of energy, Dr. Zola creates weapons of mass destruction, which the supervillain Red Skull effectively applies when he fires the weapons in America. However, another German scientist, Dr. Abraham Erskine, develops a super-soldier serum that builds Captain America and who in turn saves America from the evil of Hydra. If Toumey had performed an analysis of the film, he would talk about the evil of science without reflecting on the goodness of science under the same breath. The film, if anything, supposes that with the creation of evil, an equal and opposite good will also be manufactured more or less like the scientific Newton’s third law of motion that “for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Newton 1999).
Blaming science for the evils that happen in the world is like blaming politics for everything that has happened since the genesis of civilization. Toumey mentions Star Wars and Star Trek, the popular fictional films and TV shows of space travel. In Star Wars, the evil imperial government is responsible for the problems in the universe, which the rebellion with the help of the magically induced Jedi. In Star Trek, the Star Fleet, a branch of the militarized and highly scientifically advanced department of the federation, engages in tasks designed to save lives across the universe. In both, the scientific advancement of labs, machines, and spaceships is in so much detail in how they look and work that anyone would be convinced that that was the future of humanity. Toumey argues that “the reason why science fiction celebrates technology this way is that it assumes that technology is equivalent to progress and intelligence, regardless of the moral strengths or weaknesses of the good guys and bad guys who employ it” (Toumey 1992). Toumey is right in this, but his appeal is against the evil that lies with humanity and not with science. As pointed out earlier, good people choose to do good things with tools at their reach, while bad people choose to do bad things with the same tools. It has nothing to do with the tools and everything to do with human nature. In the fictional world of Star Trek and Star Wars, good people choose to use the tools to help life, including saving various endangered species of organisms, saving entire planets from collapse, and stopping bad political tyrants who interfere with the liberties and rights of their citizens.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki in Japan, and Chernobyl in Ukraine are regions where people living there may have a semblance of the truth of the evil of science. The three regions are the victims of the scientific discovery of nuclear energy. In Japan, it was through the war, while in Chernobyl, it was the result of scientific tests on the applications of nuclear energy as a source of a renewable and sustainable source of energy and an alternative to fossil fuels, which had been responsible for climate change. In Chernobyl, a fault in the structure of the facilities where nuclear tests were undertaken led to a leak and with it a loss of life and evacuation of an entire city that remains a dangerous zone to date. Toumey capitalizes on the damage caused by these tragic events saying that “to denounce the destructive potential of technology, there are the statistics of death and despoliation from Chernobyl and Hiroshima” (Toumey 1992). However, while the notions expressed in these examples are solid, the assumption lies in the details. Albert Einstein is the celebrated scientist responsible for the development of the equation E=mc2, which propelled the discovery that mass and energy are interchangeable (Einstein 1935). Before the application of this discovery in atomic bombs, Albert protested its use, and instead, the government revoked his access to the Manhattan Project for being a pacifist. Here is a scientist aware of the capability of his discovery and tries to warn the people about the impacts, but instead, politics and political power take over, condemning them for being too passive and uses the very weapons to devastate the world. This example maps out several evils, but none of them point to the scientist or the science; instead, it is all about politics. In Ukraine, the USSR was also very invested in winning the cold war that it abandoned the safety precautions of the facility and those around it. Toumey’s disdain is for politics and not science or scientists.
Toumey’s further analysis of film and their sequels, the psychology of mad scientists, and the conviction of heroes continue to betray his prejudice against science. He offers that while scientists peer review, critic, and build on each other’s work, they forget one vital component, which is “a kind of gothic subterranean reality, which reveals a visceral fear of science” (Toumey 1992). He employs science as a dangerous weapon and warns on the “powerful currents of hostility surrounding the institution of science,” which he recommends that are a danger not only to the fictional world but the real world as well (Toumey 1992). Mad scientists lurk beneath the shadows waiting for their chance to pounce and throw the world into chaos. He also says that science does not apply to morality and, in fact, suggests that science escapes the restraints of Judeo-Christian morality. The author is very convincing, and if not careful, it is possible to miss the gaps in his analysis. For instance, according to Judeo-Christian morality, God orders his creation to conserve life. Before the scientific invention of penicillin, mortality was high, and people would die from all simple wounds from the fields. In logic, the invention of the drug was in accordance with God’s order to conserve life. In Toumey’s argument on the devastation of science to the living world, research on environmental conservation indicates that the same damage done by industrialization to the environment can be fixed by adaptation or mitigation of climate change. In both these options, science is a key component that may as well determine our survival or extinction. For instance, on reducing carbon emissions, science has come up with air filters fitted in every factory that ensures everything released back into the wild is safe and harmless. In the use of automobiles, science has come up with solar-powered cars and electric cars whose major aim is to assure zero or no impact on the environment. Issues in the human world will always exist with or without science, and having the same scientific technology to provide aid when in need serves human interests rather than work against life.
Further, and to support this argument, philosophers in the course of history tried to explain human nature and the reasons we do things as we do. Socrates and Plato explained that mankind has a desire to be right and just regardless of the situation, which can be termed as the primal humanity that resides in every human being. Hobbes took a different approach as suggested that human nature was often geared towards self-interest and preservation, but a collection of a number of individuals essentially led to a safe society. Their theories applied to politics, mostly because it was the age before scientific discoveries, but they also apply. Every scientist has a need to do and invent something that is good for humanity. The result is not always perfect, but the innate desire is to discover something good. And, according to Hobbes, a group of scientists, each critiquing, evaluating, and building on each other’s work would eventually lead to a better society than the one before. Questioning science is questioning our existence because it touches on every other facet of life, among them, business, government, and culture.
In conclusion, this essay has analyzed Toumey’s perception of science to conclude that science is inherently good from an analysis of its achievements so far. As observed, there have been pitfalls both in fiction and in real life, but that is not a character of science; instead, it is an aspect of human nature. The essay has responded to Toumey’s analysis of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, the scientific appeal of popular films and TV shows like Star Trek and Star Wars. In addition, the essay has assessed the prevalent details of the incidences in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl involving nuclear power and atomic bombs. The absolute conclusion is that scientists and the work they do has exist within predetermined standards of ethics and morality. The capabilities and achievements of science cannot be watered down by the activities of a few who chose to follow the negative side of science both in the fictional and in the real world.
References
Flores, F. (1998). Einstein’s 1935 Derivation of E= mc2. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 29(2), 223-243.
Newton, I. (1999). Newton’s three laws of motion.
Shelly, M. W. (2009). Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus, 1818. Engage Books, AD Classic.
Toumey, C. P. (1992). The moral character of mad scientists: A cultural critique of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17(4), 411-437.
