diff options
author | Holden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev> | 2020-08-28 16:30:31 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | Holden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev> | 2020-08-28 16:30:31 -0400 |
commit | 4ae8d2b2f5c80e9522107afcb11ee6c07fe4b285 (patch) | |
tree | 306e983403e4c7ded2b2731e0061853e33a2ad13 /markley | |
parent | a31fe44e7549912d05753c7f686ebbd29aea9cee (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_exercises | 46 |
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. |