Reflection: Frankenstein :)

Question: How does Frankenstein change how you view technology?

   The way Frankenstein might change how i view technology is that it might make me think are we advancing to quickly for our world to comprehend it? For example, scientists are always trying to discover something new, they're always trying to advance in some way or another. In Frankenstein, the scientist was trying to make someone come alive again. I think that this book started a new revolution of ideas for scientists that they will try to achieve anything.
  I think that technology is a great thing and how humans/scientists have advanced in the past years amazes me. Sometimes the things that are created with our technology isn't always meant to be good. For example, the invention of the nuclear weapons was invented to "help" America, but in the process we are hurting others. I know that this is the purpose behind war, but because of war we are forced to advance everyday in our technology so that we can survive. No matter what, i still think the advancement is technology will always be a great thing.

The Age of Reason Questions :)

1. What two tools literally changed the way that people saw their world?

 The microscope and the telescope 

2. What institutions and systems of belief did many philosophers and scientists rebel against?

 Obstructing the path of human thought

3. What previous cultural movement gave rise to the Age of Reason?

 The Renaissance 

4. What invention allowed ideas to spread more easily?

 The Printing Press

5. What is a "logical date" for the start of the Age of Reason?

 1642

6. What was Newton's most famous work?

 The Mathematical Principle of Natural Philosophy 

7. What system of government was forcefully overthrown by upstart republics?

 Monarchy 

8. What branch of mathematics did Newton "discover"?

 Calculus

9. What "method" did Newton formalize?

 The Scientific Method

10. What other "revolution" had its start in the scientific revolution?

 The Industrial Revolution 

Victorian Background

Victorian Period - A Time of Change

http://classiclit.about.com/od/victorianliteratu/a/aa_victorian.htm

"The Lost Tools of Learning" Three Paragraphs :)

  In "The Lost Tools of Learning", Dorothy Sayers says that mankind has lost the ability to learn; I couldn't agree more with her. For generations, we have been the product of people who have been, in a way, "force fed"information. This has been our way of so called "learning" to gain knowledge. The way we as children are being taught is at a very mature level, but we are more concerned with other things at such a young age. If we were taught to think for ourselves, we would probably be more successful in the ways of life.

   By having a syllabus that is based on the ways of Middle Ages education, it would be very beneficial to our youth because they emphasized on grammar, sentence structure, and dialect. These are crucial things to have in an education because these things allow us to defend ourselves, help us analyze problems and use our knowledge in logic. With a proper education, we can all benefit from it in the long run. The thing is we need to be taught how to think for ourselves instead of just having someone think for us.

   Religion is a very controversial subject to be incorporated in our modern day education. Back then, it helped decide discipline  and what was right from wrong. Now, most educators don't even mention the word in school systems. To be educated without it is very harmful to the development of one's ethics. If people could in-force the teaching of religion in schools, this could be a massive change in the way we view our school systems. Also this could change the way children are being taught, instead of having someone tell us what to think, we can finally think for ourselves; something that hasn't been taught in centuries. If man doesn't start think for themselves, we might as well be wasting our time in everything we do because that is not the way to be successful.

Frankenstein - Technology, Personhood, Science (:

1.) Technological advances that have caused more harm then good is the invention of Facebook. In ways, this social network is good because people from different countries can connect or reconnect with each other, you can reconnect with old friends, or people you used to go to high school with, or just have it as a way to talk to your friends. With all great things, there has to be a flaw with it. Facebook tends to have a lot of "Facebook Drama" where teens and adults like to bully or "harass" each other.
2.) I do think that humans should always push the boundaries of knowledge because humans are curious creatures, meaning we always want to know more of something. We tend to never stop learning about everything because we discover something new everyday. I think that people in the field of discovery should be the ones allowed to push the boundaries because they are the experts and know how far something needs to be pushed.

Frankenstein Questions:
1.) What inspired Shelley to write this novel was one of his dreams.
2.) Technological advances that the speaker reference is Shelley knew that the science of genetics would expand due to her 'dream'. Also genetic engineering would also be an idea that scientist would soon know more about because of Frankenstein.
3.) One of the definitions of "Frankenstein" that I hear is that "one who creates something they can't control."
4.) The invention of 1769 that changed the world and started the industrial revolution was the steam engine.

First Draft: Wikipedia War

Wikipedia War

By: Ana Jimenez

            There has been a lot of controversy over the accuracy of Wikipedia for a long period of time. Some people think that this site isn’t really reliable because of the option users have to be able to edit anything on any article. Others think that Wikipedia is just as useful as Google. There are a lot of different ideas being spread around about Wikipedia. There are many reasons why Wikipedia is just as reliable as Google or any other search engine, but here are the top three.

           

One reason is because my class decided to conduct an experiment about its reliability. Our class of students all went to different articles on Wikipedia to change little things on each article. Our goal was to figure out how long it would take the company to fix the errors we made. All of us waited and recorded down our data on how long it took them to fix our mistakes. The data we collected showed us that as soon as we made the changes, most of them were corrected in a short amount of time. Some student’s errors were corrected in a two-day period. Nonetheless, most of the mistakes were fixed. This makes me assume that Wikipedia is well monitored or they regularly check for changes made to articles that are incorrect. To me, Wikipedia seems to know when something is being changed and they are there to fix any error.

           

Another reason why Wikipedia is a credible source is because a man by the name of Thomas Chesney also conducted an experiment to see if Wikipedia was just as accurate as everyone thought. Nate Anderson wrote an article about the experiment he conducted because the results were very surprising. Anderson states the following:

Thomas Chesney, a Lecturer in Information Systems at the Nottingham University Business School, published the results of his own Wikipedia study in the most recent edition of the online journal First Monday, and he came up with a surprising conclusion: experts rate the articles more highly than do non-experts. (Anderson)

            Chesney’s whole goal for the experiment was not only to see if Wikipedia was credible enough, but to also see how many people find what they say is accurate:

This less-than-intuitive finding is the conclusion of a study in which Chesney had 55 graduate students and research assistants examine one Wikipedia article apiece. Each participant was randomly placed into one of two groups: group one read articles that were in their field of study, while group two read randomly-assigned articles. Respondents were asked to identify any errors that they found. Those in the expert group ranked their articles as generally credible, higher than those evaluated by the non-experts. (Anderson)

When Chesney was finished with his experiment, the results were surprising to him because the non-experts rated some articles to not be credible just because some of the information seemed to be unfamiliar to them. Chesney came to find out that Wikipedia is credible, but used their information with caution because one never knows when small mistakes may be made.

The last reason why Wikipedia is a credible source is because on the site, many of the articles are locked. This means that people or other users are unable to change what is written. By having articles locked, there is a less possible chance of having errors in what the articles say. Many people argue that Wikipedia isn’t credible just because you can change information in the articles that are written. What they don’t realize is most of the articles are locked for the reason that Wikipedia doesn’t want to have its users read the wrong information. This helps Wikipedia prevent false information from being spread around by unknowledgeable users.

From the reasons already stated, it is evident that Wikipedia takes care in what information is placed on their website. Wikipedia does give utmost attention to making sure all facts and other data are correct or corrected in order to leave nothing to chance for its readers to come away with any false information. This website strives to maintain its credibility through thorough and timely investigation of anything written in its articles.

First Draft: What I Have Done So Far :)

Wikipedia War

By: Ana Jimenez

            There has been a lot of controversy over the accuracy of Wikipedia for a long period of time. Some people think that this site isn’t really reliable because of the option users have to be able to edit anything on any article. Others think that Wikipedia is just as useful as Google. There are a lot of different ideas being spread around about Wikipedia. In my opinion, I think that Wikipedia is just as reliable as Google or any other search engine.

           

One reason why I think that Wikipedia is reliable is because my class decided to conduct an experiment about its reliability. Our class of students all went to different articles on Wikipedia to change little things on each article. Our goal was to figure out how long it would take the company to fix the errors we made. All of us waited and recorded down our data on how long it took them to fix our mistakes. The data we collected showed us that as soon as we made the changes, most of them were corrected in a short amount of time. Some student’s errors were corrected in a two-day period. Nonetheless, most of the mistakes were fixed. This makes me assume that Wikipedia is well monitored or they regularly check for changes made to articles that are incorrect. To me, Wikipedia seems to know when something is being changed and they are there to fix any error.

           

Another reason why I think that Wikipedia is credible is because

           

My paper, right now, should at least get a C+.

I have not incorporated sentence structure in my paragraphs, yet.