Who Said Science Was Objective? And Do the Toys Really Talk on Christmas Eve? [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]
Question by kakaara11: What is the highest paying science career? My science teacher's brother gets $ 1000 doing something with earth science but he has been doing it for awhile. Best answer for What is the highest paying science career?:
Answer by silver44fox
medical science or rocket science..chemical science is a dead end job..
Answer by makuwaca
Hi! Actural Science -> actually has somethig (a lot) to do with the Financial / economic world
Answer by nanny
astrophysics
Answer by mymacman
Engineering is consistently one of the highest-paid professions. There is a shortage of qualified engineers. Engineers are getting paid $ 50,000/year or more straight out of school because they are trained to solve problems. They design, build, and work on projects with tens- or hundreds-of-millions of dollars, so industry can afford to pay them well.
Answer by »-(¯`v´¯)-» Ð"пﺃмдâ„" â„"o٧ε٢
I would have to guess working with medicine. What I mean by that, is discovering new medicine, diseases, causes, and cures. Because there are so many sicknesses and not enough medicine, a person who discovered a new medication or cure for that disease would get a LOT of money. Earth scientists would also recieve a HUGE salary- because of all the non- renewable resources we are using, and we need renewable ones! All jobs that are high-paid require many years of hard work and dedication- at college of course. I want to be a vaterinarian when I grow up, but the work in college will be unbearable- I am still willing to go throught that because of my love for aniamls. Anyway, what I said about the scientists was pretty much everything you needed to know. I get carried away sometimes when I write- sorry about that.
Answer by smittybo20
You need to look at the future. Today's well paying jobs will soon dead end and they all shift to another area. The best paying job to go for is Renewable Energy and how to improve it. It is really going to boom in the next ten years. It is starting to now. This requires a knowledge of physics, and chemistry. So there are you 2 Fields of work to watch. Medical and the rest are trailing due to the fact of the struggle to create a cleaner, healthier life for us to live in, not just for today, but future generations to come. Check this out for yourself... Go to www.nrel.gov and search on the education and research links. Renewable Energy is in fact going to help save a lot of live's and our environment in the immediate future. More and more scientist are being called upon to help everyday to aid in heating/cooling, fuels, and earth studies. Look at the contracts and what money is being awarded through grants from DOE to fund these studies, then make your decision.
Answer by MeShell
Engineering... Just as previously stated, there is a demand for engineers... now if you can do aerospace, etc. engineering.... even better!
Answer by astatine
The key is to key up with the changes in industry after you graduate, otherwise the world passes by you. I am in the computer field and made over $ 75K in the early 80s. Didn't keep up with the PC and networking phenomena and now make just over $ 50K. Whatever your chosen field is, network, keep abreast with technology, and learn to communicate with all levels of people, and be ambitious. You dont have to be the sharpest tool in the shed - if you're ambitious, hardworking, and take risks the dollars will come.
Answer by eri
1K? A year? A month? A week? Science teachers don't get paid much, typically. Probably a neurosurgeon or anesthesiologist make more than most scientists. But that's because it might take you 20 years to get to that point. In response to someone above - astrophysicists make very little money compared to the 8-12 years of college we got. Starting salaries around 40K for a post-doc - maybe your first 5 years after getting your doctorate. After that, very few make more than a 100K, even at the end of their careers. That's more like starting salary for doctors.
Why, everyone knows that science is true and what is unscientific isn't! It's as simple as that. Take it a step further, and we commonly hear that the findings of science are proven, but religious ideas are pi in the sky, myths, completely lacking any credibility and scientific objectivity!
So, what do we mean by science being objective? Do we mean that its goal, as far as possible, is to make sure that its findings shall be free of all bias and impartiality? Hmm, that may be saying something else. Is the modern scientific enterprise - and I have worked in it as a development engineer - completely neutral, with a universal and verifiable reference frame that is totally free of all philosophical thought or influence? You bet - it's not!
Yes, fortunately, aeroplanes normally fly, phones connect and computers crunch numbers, each in ways that fit close enough to the physical reality - great! But then consider also how many people engaged in the sciences assume that naturalism is true - period: nothing is excluded - there are no non-physical entities such as our minds, or ideas like love, truth and beauty, or the existence of a supreme, personal Being. So then is naturalism proven by science? No, it's a philosophical belief.
Look, don't get me wrong; far be it from me to be undermining science, when that's not what I'm trying to do, but I do need to explain what I'm driving at. Let me illustrate this from my book Dawkins' Dilemmas. Here's a summary of part of my argument from chapter seven:
It's a serious dilemma
There is no doubt that Richard Dawkins is a serious thinker, and that somehow he needs to stand outside of his avowed naturalism in order to give an independent evaluation of it as the only final reality there is! Does he do that? Is that sort of assessment within the remit of science? I doubt it; it's an a priori, an assumed starting point, that begs the question.
Dawkins' belief in philos ophical naturalism is his opinion. Sure, he doesn't want you to see it quite like that - that he has already conferred it with the highest accolade of final truth. Why so, what could possibly be embarrassing about that? Quite simply, for starters his naturalism assumes his thinking is only a complex electro-chemical reaction in his brain, unable to transcend its own nature to make finally independent assessments - that naturalism is a true description of objective reality!
Consider Dawkins' view that we build models of the external world, and how that view fits quite well with an older empiricism; that all of our experience or knowledge of the external world comes through the impressions that objects leave on our senses. But it doesn't explain how he enjoys a personal awareness of being part of an objective reality because I am suggesting that his personality already transcends the explanatory power of naturalism. As a consequence, naturalism is unable to give him an a dequate basis for his belief in it as a theory of everything, including himself.
How can you be sure? - An awful dilemma
So he freely admits that he cannot think how to disprove the suggestion of several science-fiction authors that 'we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilisation.' With this sort of fantasy we are now more like three-dimensional hologram images, trapped in a vast computer-simulated virtual reality game. Do you see why Dawkins' isn't sure about reality? When he denies there are no final absolutes, (except, perhaps his belief in the truth of naturalism and atheism) he has no way of telling the difference between an objective reality and a make-believe one.
Now, in Dawkins' view, we might or might not be like the toys beginning to talk to one another on Christmas Eve! And he's not sure which. Do you know what? Denial of final truth always leads to profound uncertainty, which, when you consider it, is what you might expect. And if Dawkins is unsure whether he's in a real reality, or a complex, computer-simulated one, what chance has he got of showing us that his atheism or his naturalism are real explanations of the ultimate reality?
Alas, Dawkins' ambivalent thinking leads him into serious confusion and dilemmas for which his atheism has no resolution. Why is that? Atheism isn't science.
The ultimate paradox
Yes, if the whole universe had no final meaning - just like the computer-simulated sub-reality - we would never have been able to make such a startling discovery! (Do you get it? - 'no final meaning,' a universal negative equals a type of 'final meaning'!) But, if on the other hand, the universe does possess final meaning, is the model inside Dawkins' head sufficiently developed to present naturalism or atheism as final meanings; I mean, how would he ever know? In comparison, the Christian position shows that following the Fall the natural thinki ng of humanity has become subject to confused futility. And without revealed answers, we are left with the random, meaningless whirling of our cerebral molecules, and personal unbelief.
Winding up this brief discussion, the ultimate paradox helps us to see that the very idea of final meaning - which if there were none, we would never have found out - only makes sense if there is final meaning: a final meaning paradoxically denied by atheism, but secured by the rational, living God revealed in Christian theism, the Creator of an understandable reality. So, are your views of science and the interpretations of the physical universe grounded in some sort of philosophy? Absolutely!
Recommend Who Said Science Was Objective? And Do the Toys Really Talk on Christmas Eve? Topics
0 comments:
Post a Comment