Vibe check for Sep 08

Responses by PHIL 006 students, clustered using gemma3:12b

id	quote	question	answer
Ethical Concerns
1	Given that one of our fundamental social values is to provide equal opportunities foreveryone who has the capability to excel in science and mathematics—andgiven that there are strong ethical reasons to promote this value as well—itturns out that this area of research [Cognitive Differences]* should probably not be a priority.	Why would we want to study something that contradicts our values? And if it’s a low priority research topic, then why is it still researched so much?	I’m guessing it’s just trying to seek understanding or further background on this topic. Even if something is valued by a society, i think it’s a good idea to delve deeper and try to understand it further. But what seems really problematic is when this information is used as evidence for misleading claims, which in and of itself can be hard to control. I’m guessing it kind of creates a loop, where more research is put into this, and it’s used to promote some belief others have, and then more evidence goes into it to reject or oppose their idea. Basically bringing in more information so it’s harder to come to a hasty or unsound argument.
2	“As a society, we do indeed value efforts to inform our curiosity, but we need to weigh this value against our values of preventing harm to others and promoting equal opportunities for all members of society. (25)”	What does the author mean that “as a society we do indeed value efforts to inform our curiosity,” when there’s been plenty of instances proving this wrong? For example, social media platforms were created to connect people and to spark curiosity, but they have also caused significant harm through misinformation, privacy violations, and unequal impacts on marginalized groups.	I believe what the author means by “as a society we do indeed value efforts to inform our curiosity” that this is an idealized instance of what we as a society would collectively want to achieve. That as a society we encourage everyone to have curiosity and pursue new knowledge and that we should weigh that with fairness.
6	In particular, ethical and social values can be used as a justification for making further studies of gender (or racial) differences in cognitive abilities a low social priority.	If ethical and social values deprioritize research on cognitive differences between groups, how can we balance that with the need for open scientific inquiry to guard against misuse of such deprioritization?	It seems reasonable to deprioritize research that could easily be misinterpreted to reinforce stereotypes or inequalities. But shutting it out entirely may impair science’s self-correcting role. To get a balance, maybe there should be skeptical, carefully framed research in such areas, but only under ethical oversight, with explicit attention to context and disclaimers to minimize harm.
7	“To make the case that these studies should be a low priority, it is helpful to consider an excellent overview by philosopher Janet Kourany of historical efforts to justify women’s inferiority through scientific research. She notes that in the seventeenth century, women’s brains were regarded as too cold and soft to compete with men’s intellectual capabilities. In the eighteenth century, scientists argued that women’s cranial cavities were too small to house the more effective brains that men had. In the nineteenth century, experts argued that if women engaged in too much intellectual work, it would harm their reproductive capabilities. In the twentieth century, it was argued that the lesser specialization of the two hemispheres in women’s brains lessened their visuospatial skills.” (21)	How different would society be today if gender equality was more prominent early in history?	I belive that our society and how it is structured would look drastically different. The way our system was built and how the job market still is today is basis and certain jobs are still seen as a male only field
12	Philosopher Thomas Pogge has suggested that the wealthy countries of the world could set aside money to put into a special Health Impact Fund (HIF). The money in the HIF could then be disbursed to pharmaceutical companies as a reward for doing research that addresses the needs of the poor. But it is difficult to create a new system like this and to get it funded	Throughout the chapter Elliott refers to potential solutions like this, and then explains why it is nearly impossible to implement in our world. If it is so unfeasible, how would someone implement something that achieves something similar to these ideas without needing to change the entire political and social landscapes, and why hasn’t Elliott given those examples?	An idea that achieves the results we desire without needing to structurally change much definitely seems unlikely, perhaps even more so than actually changing the system. However, there are a lot of people with a lot of ideas, so it is unlikely that something like this has never happened. The likely reason why Elliott didn’t include them is because they were either somewhat irrelevant to the current points being made, or more likely because these points are brought up as potential objections from the reader. Providing a counterexample to the discussion of the objection might make it much too convoluted to properly discuss inside the book.
Political Influence/Funding
3	In a spare room on the top floor of the National Science Foundation (NSF), two congressional staffers spent hours poring over confidential material relating to 20 research projects that NSF has funded over the past decade.…The Republican aide was looking for anything that Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) … could use to demonstrate how the $7 billion research agency is wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous or low-priority projects, particularly in the social sciences. The Democratic staff member wanted to make sure that her boss, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the panel’s senior Democrat, knew enough about each grant to rebut any criticism that Smith might levy.	How would science be different if we weren’t so engrossed in our team us vs Them mentality, how would Science be without the toxic influence of politics?	I believe if Science was less influenced by the team mentality, I feel beneficial Science may be more plentiful and not denied for petty things like being “liberal agenda”.
8	“Consider some of the different types of control that congress could exert over science funding decisions. It is probably reasonable for congress to make large scale decisions about how much money we should spend on research for the purpose of national defense vs the amount to be spent on medical research, or the amount of agricultural, energy, or education.” pg 29	Does congress actually know what its people need and how do they know? How do we know they aren’t just completing things off a checklist?	Through elections, people get to choose who they want representing them, but oftentimes these people could say one thing and do another. Politicians are usually seen as shady because they’re only interested in getting votes, but not doing what is good for the people. Most of the time, they’re making decisions about funding to meet quotes, not based on what they deem important.
13	Therefore, we need to take our social values into account so that we can figure out which problems are most significant to us and therefore which lines of research should be most heavily funded	What happens when our social and ethical values start to Contradict themselves? How would you determine which to prioritize? Ethics or social values?	When social and ethical values contradict people tend to pick a side based on their bias. In other words, this would cause tension in a society by those who value social versus those who would pick ethical values. As we read in the book, ethics should be used as a compass to guide us on which topics should be prioritized.
Solutions & Feasibility
11	“More recently, legislators such as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) attempted to limit funding from the NSF for political science projects.”	Why does the US focus so much on engineering and science instead of other research areas?	I think the reason is that we have this national mentality of being the best so we must always have better tech than other countries which leads us to focus and only care about that instead of other areas of research.
Utility/Misuse of Research
4	Perhaps another, more significant worry about the notion that cognitive differences research should be a low priority is that we may have overemphasized the extent to which this research will actually harm society. For example, despite the concerns recounted here, some scientists will surely continue to engage in this sort of research and share any cognitive differences that they find. Given the potential for this research to be misinterpreted and exaggerated, perhaps it is valuable to have other scientists who are skeptical of alleged cognitive differences but who still pursue research on this topic. (Elliot 23)	When research has gone through the process of being overemphasized to what degree would it be biased or truthful?	Research can only be truthful when it’s not overemphasized because it’s not represented in a way that intensifies one idea or the other. It’s simply the truth; there’s nothing for a statement to be overly example as the answers are enough to be explained for itself.
5	when dealing with highly politicized issues, it is very difficult to use scientific evidence to change people’s minds	How could scientists get around this problem for important scientific issues that are highly politicized like ‘climate change’ for example? How can scientists sway social biases for matters that are important, but not abused for matters of less importance like the ‘cognitive abilities’ research?	A possible solution could be a sort of science ‘bully pulpit’ that is a sort of President that speaks out on important scientific issues that need clarity. The issue though would be the possible abuse this role could exercise either purposefully or accidentally. Scientists are not all knowing so any claim the speaker made would have to be heavily scrutinized in advance.
9	“…ethical and social values can be used as a justification for making further studies of gender (or racial) differences in cognitive abilities a low social priority.”	How do the ethical values of everyday people differ from those of people in power?	Everyday people see the problems in things like racial injustice, homelessness, etc, while people in power only focus on things that can genuinely benefit them, making all the rest a “low priority.” If it isn’t something that can directly help their job or offer them any financial benefit, they don’t tend to pay attention to the people who actually need help. A large connection I made to this was Gun Laws. Despite the abundance of school shootings that America has faced in the past few years, Congress hasn’t changed any of the gun laws and has made it very easy to acquire a gun. On May 24, 2022, a Uvalde School shooting took place where an 18-year-old killed at least 19 children and 2 adult teachers. Ted Cruz, A republican US Senator, sympathized with the families that had lost their children, but refused to pass bills and restrict gun purchasing. A bill was brought to the Senate, forcing tougher background checks on younger buyers and encouraging the state to remove guns from people considered threats. Cruz criticized others for this bill, stating that it was an attempt to disarm law-abiding citizens rather than take serious measures to protect our children
10	That people often justify cognitive differences research based on the argument that it could be used to assist less well-endowed groups to achieve greater success.	In what ways has cognitive research helped “less well-endowed” groups achieve greater success?	In many cases, this has never happened and actually caused the opposite reaction from these groups. Many times, people have referred to these groups as inferior to themselves, causing problems that have impacted how we view each other and our actions. One that most know is racism, which is still impacting us today.