Can Science Answer Moral Questions?

Science as a way of knowing is inclined to believe in reason rather than faith, this implies that science is a way in which logic states every reason for our existence and (in general) how everything works in our plane of existence.

Both reason and logic are what defines the scientific method but science also needs other ways of knowing in order to learn certain truths about our world such as our senses, as scientists conclude truths from experiments and they certainly need to see, touch, feel, hear and (sometimes) taste in order to get raw data and consequently implement reasons and thesis of how everything around us works. Therefore, science doesn't preach morality but it rather defies it, as science will always need some sort of justification in order to validate its acts and these justifications have to be based purely on logic or else it won't be even considered in the scientific world.

The advantages that this way of knowing has towards our world is that it actually benefits us directly as science leads the way to more comfortabilities and apparent truths that in the past may have seemed as impossible, although one major problem with science is the fact that it is cold inside and unable to understand some ideas implemented by both faith and morality.

So now we may ask ourselves, can science answer moral questions? Well, since science and morality have always been distant from each other, we might tend to believe that science is just purely based on logic and therefore it cannot motivate us to act in any way or even reach into our morality, but based on a TED talk video me (and my class) saw, science may reach into morality under certain areas. These areas are based on facts and values such as health issues in which science and (good) morality do agree that saving a human life is required either for our continuous species existence or because we feel morally obliged to save lives.

I also believe that science may answer moral questions under certain areas but it will always have its limit under morality as it is unable to answer questions that are required for the inquirer to learn and specifically analyze.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5367/1200.full 

Persuasion And Propaganda

 Everyday and everywhere, we seem to find ourselves surrounded by advertisements that only promote or showcase a product or a way of living. It is quite interesting when we start to believe that we may not think at all like we want to but that we may be influenced by these kinds of propaganda that constantly persuades us to act in a way that follows the advertisement and not what we may believe or reason.

One example of persuasion and propaganda is seen with the recent creation of the new I phone 5 which seems to attract everyone's attention thanks to the incorporation of new features and the constant display of media that "orders" us to buy it. As opposed to this urgent need to buying it, I have found an article which uses examples of persuasion in order to reason with all of these advertisements.

Here's the link: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-57512927-233/why-you-should-wait-a-few-months-to-buy-the-iphone-5/

The main title of this article is "Why you should wait a few months to buy the iphone 5" and I believe that this article is quite persuasive from the beginning as it states a common phrase which we seem to use and that is "living under a rock" or in other words, without the necessary knowledge of technology and then it effectively cuts this humor when we read "don't do it." It also states good reasons in bold and then it explains them in great detail which is quite persuasive as people (as myself) need good reasons in order to be persuaded.

The constant use of propaganda and persuasion I believe it has corroded our minds and our way of thinking which has actually blinded the truth from those that let themselves be influenced, as most of the propaganda is biased and for one benefit; money.