Sagan, C. (1995). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Answer the questions about a book
Please answer the five questions. The questions are about a book, Sagan, C. (1995). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Also, these questions are about only chapter 11. I
1. In Chapter 1, Dr. Sagan introduces us to some of the lines between religion and pseudoscience. Dr. Sagan presents a concept known as the God of the Gaps Theory. What is the God of the Gaps Theory and what evidence would support it throughout human history? (Note that answering this question does not require that you subscribe to the God of the Gaps Theory. Rather, it only requires you to demonstrate that you understand it).
God of the Gaps is that people want to put the existence of God forward by current unexplained scientific explanation. In other words, it means people try to fill prematurely the empty gap in our knowledge by God. It is easy logical error to mistake while overzealous theists are developing discussion with limited knowledge of science.
2. In this chapter, Dr. Sagan presents a quote from Edmund Way Teale concerning the moral implications???? of indifference??? toward the distinction ?? between truth and fiction. Do you agree with the idea of the quote? Why or why not?
I agree with the idea of the quote. For example, if we know that the government is incompetent and corrupted, we are discouraged and disappointed. But, some people do not care and even do not know about that like it is not my business. But that does not mean being unaware the fact is not necessarily better. Being aware and unaware is very different in our society.
3. Dr. Sagan makes a very important distinction in this chapter between erroneous science and pseudoscience. What are the unique characteristics of pseudoscience that distinguish it from erroneous science (Hint: they are also the reasons why pseudoscience is so worrysome a threat to human reasoning.)
Erroneous science is that science improves and develops from errors. But, pseudo science is imprecise, exaggerated, and unverifiable. It also depends on confirmation instead of rebuttal.
4. Dr. Sagan shares with us the breadth? ?? with which pseudoscience has pervaded ????modern society. To emphasize his point, he shares an example of a US president’s reliance?? ?? on entirely unproven?????? superstitious???? practices to guide in his decision making. Who was the president and what was his vice?? ???? Does this scare you? Why or why not?
If the president depends on unproven superstitious practices, his decision is a lack of accuracy and get lost way what the country want to go forward. The citizens feel anxiety and distrust their president.
5. Dr. Sagan uses this chapter to express the gravity?? of the danger that arises??? ???? in a society that cannot—or will not—distinguish???? fact from fiction. But how does this apply to the business world? What do you think some of the dangers might be if leaders managed companies based on instructions from a “Magic 8” ball, or by flipping a “lucky” coin. Are these examples any less credible??? ?? than some othe others that Sagan discusses in the chapter?
In the business world, the leader makes his or her own understandable and reasonable decision. But, it is dangerous that a leader depend on superstition or pseudoscience for the companyís future. Depending on the superstition or pseudoscience is like a gambling. If a leaderís decision from the gambling, the company can develop forward.
1. In the very first paragraph, Dr. Sagan discusses how we grossly overestimate ourselves when we promise to ‘tell the truth and nothing but the truth’ in a court of law. Given all that we have learned in this book over the last month, what does Dr. Sagan mean by this? Why does he think this is too much to ask of us?
2. In this chapter, Dr. Sagan discusses with us the dangers of what he calls “silent assent” to even aparently harmless mysticism and fanatical thinking. He shares an analogy of a prejudiced cab driver, and a crossroads at which we arrive in deciding whether and how to respond. In light of the discussion, what are the options and their consequences? How would you handle such a situation and why? What if the situation were different: you’re a leader and the unfounded truths are coming from one of your followers upon whom you rely in order to keep your team functioning. Is you response any different? Why or why not?
3. Some of the potential negative side effects that Dr. Sagan describes with respect to rigorous skepticism are 1) the creation of polarity (us vs. them mentality), 2) a perception of arrogant superiority or contempt, and 3) personally offending those whose beliefs are scrutinized by skepticism. How does Sagan suggest that we avoid these pitfalls? Does he think that some ideas are too silly or fantastic to be worthy of investigation? Dr. Sagan describes three ESP-related claims which he states “deserve serious study”. What reason does he cite for this support? Does he believe the claims are valid? Even if the claims are invalidated, what benefits might the exploration yield for the investigators and the claimants? How does this dynamic relate to a leadership paradigm? In other words, how can a leader avoid perceptions of arrogance among his or her followers, and how can a leader ensure that followers feel that their opinions and ideas are respected?
4. What are the two tenets that Dr. Sagan has been trying to impress upon us throughout this entire book? (Hint: read the chapter title). Define each of these two concepts in your own words, based on what you have learned. How are they inter-related? With respect to your future career as a hospitality professional and as a social scientist, how will you apply these concepts to your perspectives on work and life?
5. These two tenets aside, a third over-arching theme of Dr. Sagan’s writing has been humility. Recall that we opened class with an anonymous quote: “the wisest among us always have more questions than answers.” Countless times throughout these readings have we witnessed Dr. Sagan finish a thought with “but I could be wrong.” How often do we hear other public figures share this disposition? Celebrities? Politicians? Theologians? What does this say about one’s character? Why is this so important and integral to what we’ve been learning? Do you find yourself saying “I could be wrong” a lot in conversation? Will these teachings change your tendencies (or lack thereof) on this point? Why or why not?
1. In this Chapter, Dr. Sagan shares with us some responses from students about the state of American education described in the preceding chapter. Were the responses a surprise to you? Why or why not?
2. Then, Dr. Sagan shares with us a sampling of some parent opinions and commentary. What (if anything) surprised you about the parental perspectives on this issue? Why?
3. Dr. Sagan alludes to the “coolness” of learning in the preceding chapter, and now we hear from students and parents directly on the issue of how peer pressure and social expectations can make learning “uncool”. What do you think? Did you see a pressure not to be “a nerd” when you were going through grade school? How about now? What do you think causes this? How do we fix it?
4. One of the points that Dr. Sagan makes in this Chapter is the fact that retention in our public schooling is very low. Think back to what your learned in grade school. How much do you remember? How much do you think you have forgotten? In spite of this, Dr. Sagan shares some examples of extremely effective learning models and exercises. What is the common theme? How do we inspire the desire to learn and promote learning retention?
5. Although we can all agree that the education system in America could/should be better than it is, obviously there are a lot of different opinions on what (specifically) is wrong, and how (specifically) we go about correcting it. This is an issue that leaders in business and hospitality face all of the time. How can leaders most effectively address these challenges? Hint: Think about the Sciencenter story. What was special there? How did it end up becoming such a big success? What were the key factors in play?
Compelling correspondence is essential to the achievement all things considered but since of the changing idea of the present working environments, successful correspondence turns out to be more troublesome, and because of the numerous impediments that will permit beneficiaries to acknowledge the plan of the sender It is restricted. Misguided judgments.In spite of the fact that correspondence inside the association is rarely completely open, numerous straightforward arrangements can be executed to advance the effect of these hindrances.
Concerning specific contextual analysis, two significant correspondence standards, correspondence channel determination and commotion are self-evident. This course presents the standards of correspondence, the act of general correspondence, and different speculations to all the more likely comprehend the correspondence exchanges experienced in regular daily existence. The standards and practices that you learn in this course give the premise to additionally learning and correspondence.
This course starts with an outline of the correspondence cycle, the method of reasoning and hypothesis. In resulting modules of the course, we will look at explicit use of relational connections in close to home and expert life. These incorporate relational correspondence, bunch correspondence and dynamic, authoritative correspondence in the work environment or relational correspondence. Rule of Business Communication In request to make correspondence viable, it is important to follow a few rules and standards. Seven of them are fundamental and applicable, and these are clear, finished, brief, obliging, right, thought to be, concrete. These standards are frequently called 7C for business correspondence. The subtleties of these correspondence standards are examined underneath: Politeness Principle: When conveying, we should build up a cordial relationship with every individual who sends data to us.
To be inviting and polite is indistinguishable, and politeness requires an insightful and amicable activity against others. Axioms are notable that gracious “pay of graciousness is the main thing to win everything”. Correspondence staff ought to consistently remember this. The accompanying standards may assist with improving courtesy:Preliminary considering correspondence with family All glad families have the mystery of progress. This achievement originates from a strong establishment of closeness and closeness. Indeed, through private correspondence these cozy family connections become all the more intently. Correspondence is the foundation of different affiliations, building solid partners of obedient devotion, improving family way of life, and assisting with accomplishing satisfaction (Gosche, p. 1). In any case, so as to keep up an amicable relationship, a few families experienced tumultuous encounters. Correspondence in the family is an intricate and alluring marvel. Correspondence between families isn’t restricted to single messages between families or verbal correspondence.
It is a unique cycle that oversees force, closeness and limits, cohesiveness and flexibility of route frameworks, and makes pictures, topics, stories, ceremonies, rules, jobs, making implications, making a feeling of family life An intelligent cycle that makes a model. This model has passed ages. Notwithstanding the view as a family and family automatic framework, one of the greatest exploration establishments in between family correspondence centers around a family correspondence model. Family correspondence model (FCP) hypothesis clarifies why families impart in their own specific manner dependent on one another ‘s psychological direction. Early FCP research established in media research is keen on how families handle broad communications data. Family correspondence was perceived as an exceptional scholastic exploration field by the National Communications Association in 1989. Family correspondence researchers were at first impacted by family research, social brain science, and relational hypothesis, before long built up the hypothesis and began research in a family framework zeroed in on a significant job. Until 2001, the primary issue of the Family Communication Research Journal, Family Communication Magazine, was given. Family correspondence is more than the field of correspondence analysts in the family. Examination on family correspondence is normally done by individuals in brain science, humanism, and family research, to give some examples models. However, as the popular family correspondence researcher Leslie Baxter stated, it is the focal point of this intelligent semantic creation measure making the grant of family correspondence special. In the field of in-home correspondence, correspondence is normally not founded on autonomous messages from one sender to one beneficiary, yet dependent on the dynamic interdependency of data shared among families It is conceptualized. The focal point of this methodology is on the shared trait of semantic development inside family frameworks. As such, producing doesn’t happen in vacuum, however it happens in a wide scope of ages and social exchange.
Standards are rules end up being followed when performing work to agree to a given objective. Hierarchical achievement relies significantly upon compelling correspondence. So as to successfully impart, it is important to follow a few standards and rules. Coming up next are rules to guarantee powerful correspondence: clearness: lucidity of data is a significant guideline of correspondence. For beneficiaries to know the message plainly, the messages ought to be sorted out in a basic language. To guarantee that beneficiaries can without much of a stretch comprehend the importance of the message, the sender needs to impart unmistakably and unhesitatingly so the beneficiary can plainly and unquestionably comprehend the data.>