Ethical Demands of Popular Science

1.

The Cartesian and Aristotelian conceptions of the human being, body and mind are different in their explication of the human entity. The two concepts all aim at explaining the human being as a whole and how the body and the mind relate. Though the two approaches aim at showing the correlation, they are presented in a manner that offers contention and which proves that they are different. The Cartesian approach seeks to explain how the mind influences the physical state. That is, the Cartesian approach shows that the mind is superior while the body is inferior and thus it has to be directed by the mind. The levels of influence that the mind has on the body are dependent on the part of the body that is considered (Hacker, 1993). On the other edge, there Aristotelian proves that both the mind and the body exist in different physical states and hence they are all physical. It is an approach that aims to show that the mind is neither inferior and neither is the body.  At the same time, none has superiority over the other.  The differences between the two concepts are therefore in the explication of the power of the body and the mind over each other.

2.

Cartesian materialism is an approach that seeks to show that some places in the mind are meant for certain specific information. The view proves that inside the human mind itself, there exist different parts that are meant for different issues. Using this approach, there is a level of conscious experience that some parts of the body have which other parts of the body do not have and that is the reason that there is an intricate difference between the perceptions that different parts of the mind have on various issues. On the other hand, the Cartesian Dualism shows that there exist two discrete parts of the body (Bernet & Hacker,2003). There is none among the two that has superiority over the other according to the theory. In a somewhat different manner, the two depend on each other, and their interactions are mutual. For instance, the eye, a part of the body needs to see for the body to decode the meaning of the thing that the mind perceives. The theory, therefore, counters any argument that shows that the mind has conscious experience that makes it have superiority over the body as is fronted by the Cartesian Materialism.

3.

The ontological conception of things is the understanding of the human being an entity. It a study that often does not just seek to prove things using empirical data. The conception of things as they are empirically showed is not the whole scope of the ontological perception. Though empirical data is often utilized, there is a great debt of appreciation for extra research and concepts that is made use of by ontological studies. The perception also includes the application of abstract theories that have not yet been proved but those that the authors appreciate that they are applicable (Feser, 2014). It does not, however, mean that ontological studies are not empirical. The greatest extent of ontological studies is the empirical data that is often concerned with showing the exact and applicable issues concerning the human being. However, above the data, the approach outsources more abstract details that cause the variations that are often experienced in different studies.

4.

A scientific experiment can suit in the Cartesian and the Aristotelian frameworks. This is based on the fact that that the two frameworks are all ontological and their explanation of the scientific issues are all aimed at showing the ontological explanations of something. In a rather executive manner, a scientific experiment can be explained in the Cartesian framework. The approach that the Cartesian framework can be used to explicate the scientific experiment is in the view that it can be understood in terms of the physical and mental realms. In that way, the two realms can show the ontological existence of the human being as explicated in the research (Bernet & Hacker, 2003).  The use of the Cartesian approach can be used to show the meaning of the scientific research with particular concentration made on the physical and mental realms and the implications that it would have on the two independently. On the other hand, use of the Aristotelian approach, an understanding of the application of scientific research in real life. The use of the Aristotelian approach can therefore not be used to prove the compound matters and in their real form (Hacker, 1993). The use of the Aristotelian approach can therefore only be used to show the reality of the scientific research and therefore it can only use the physical realms. The implication of using the latter would, therefore, mean that the scientific work is limited concerning scope.

Searle argues that the computational theory is unfounded and unnecessary seeing that it only considers the aspect of computational thinking and rarely does it consider the element of natural thought and cognition that is not often shared by computers.  The reason that Searle argues against the theory is that the human thinking cannot be limited to computation as there are other issues such as influence, communication, and handling of other matters such as handling societal issues (Feser,2014). The view of the mind as a computational issue just like that of computers is therefore wrong. It is unfounded since were it not for the human knowledge the computer would also not be essentially developed. Searle, therefore, finds it rather appalling that AI could be used compared to human intelligence while it is itself the creation of a humans mind. Searle, therefore, finds the Computational theory to be false and that one that should not be used in any ontological ground. 

6. 

Popular scientists that were some ethical issues that popular scientists held in the development of their theories. It is basic that the use of ethics is quintessential in the development of any human study. In real regard, the popular scientists followed the ethical issue of human security. There is not a singular study that was developed by the popular scientists that posed human life in danger. Rather, human protection crowns the works first in consideration that they developed the works for the purpose of a better understanding of the human entity and secondly for the purpose of ensuring that people had a better understanding of the human being (Searle 1993). The other ethical obligation that popular scientists learned to fulfil is the appreciation of diversity. Their respect for diversity can be understood from the fact that they did not concentrate on a particular group since such would be humiliating and would cause the society to take the group as weaker.

References

Hacker, P. M. S. (1993). Wittgenstein: Meaning and Mind, Volume 3 of an Analytical Commentary on the Philosophical Investigations, Part Ii: Exegesis 243-247. 

Bennett, M. R., Hacker, P. M. S., & Bennett, M. R. (2003). Philosophical foundations of neuroscience (Vol. 79). Oxford: Blackwell.

Searle, J. R. (1993). The critique of cognitive reason.

Feser, E. (2014). Scholastic Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction (Vol. 39). Neunkirchen‐Seelscheid, Germany: Editiones Scholasticae.