aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/markley
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorHolden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev>2020-08-28 16:30:31 -0400
committerHolden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev>2020-08-28 16:30:31 -0400
commit4ae8d2b2f5c80e9522107afcb11ee6c07fe4b285 (patch)
tree306e983403e4c7ded2b2731e0061853e33a2ad13 /markley
parenta31fe44e7549912d05753c7f686ebbd29aea9cee (diff)
did some exercises
The second answer feels sort of half-done. I'd like to revisit it after I've looked at it closer, but this is my gut reaction.
Diffstat (limited to 'markley')
-rw-r--r--markley/07_exercises46
1 files changed, 46 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/markley/07_exercises b/markley/07_exercises
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..27de1e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/markley/07_exercises
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Exer. 1:
+Write about the implications of these two phrases. How are they
+different? What can their differences tell us about their difference
+between Jekyll and Lanyon?
+
+a) "unscientific balderdash" - Lanyon
+
+Jekyll is a highly experimental scientist, preferring the cutting edge
+to more rigorous study, which is why Lanyon denigrates his chemical
+exploration.
+Lanyon likely prefers more rigorous testing or just more conventional
+medicine.
+The context of drugs as medicine being a much newer profession than
+surgery might also mean that Lanyon is calling Jekyll's science
+balderdash because new fields have much less established truth so poor
+scientific inquiry can happen.
+
+b) "scientific heresies" - Jekyll
+
+Jekyll, who is exploring drugs/chemicals even before discovering the one
+that transforms him into Hyde (and exposes some of the Victorian morals
+that Jekyll would like to abandon, which Lanyon might be seeing),
+believes that his experiments are very scientific but because they are
+untraditional, Lanyon is prejudiced against them.
+His experiments are much more exploratory, so they are very likely less
+rigorous, but they are nonetheless science because they are trying to
+discover new things about the world.
+
+Exer. 2:
+
+Do Dr Jekyll and doctors like him preserve "health" and morality or do
+they corrupt them?
+
+This question has multiple answers dependent on if "morals" refers to
+Victorian morals or more modern formulations (although they are not
+entirely discrete).
+Dr Jekyll's passion, even though it comes from a place of negative
+desire, isn't intrinsically immoral.
+Even though pain relievers and unsafe remedies dreamt up by mad
+scientists are often diagnosed irresponsibly by those same doctors, the
+drugs themselves (opioids, etc) improve overall health.
+In and of himself, Jekyll corrupted his own morality, but motivation
+isn't strictly important in reserach medicine.
+Dr Markley mentions that doctors, in a bedside manner way, need to be
+viewed as moral people, but research scientists don't have such a
+reputation.