Vibe check for Oct 06

Responses by PHIL 006 students, clustered using snowflake-arctic-embed2 and gpt-oss:20b

id	quote	question	answer
Social Influence & Cheating Is cheating a form of social influence or conformity in the context of justifying biological wants?
4	Cheating was just “in my blood”	Is cheating a form social influence or conformity in the context of the justification of biological wants?	In the context of rationalizing cheating, it’s a mixed of both where social influence is caused by one’s affinity towards change and what’s normal (conformity).
Risk Communication & Terminology Does choosing the less‑charged label “hormonally active agents” instead of “endocrine disruptors” change how regulators, the public, and policymakers respond to evidence?
7	When a US National Academy of Sciences panel issued a report in 1999, it referred to these chemicals and ‘hormonally active agents.’ Part of the motivation for using this term was that it seemed less emotionally charged than the term ‘disruption,’ and it also eased the impression that hormonally active chemicals are always harmful.	Does choosing the less-charged label “hormonally active agents” instead of “endocrine disruptors” change how regulators, the public, and policymakers respond to evidence? And if so, should scientists prioritize minimizing public alarm or maximizing accurate communication about potential harms when the science is uncertain?	The choice of the term “hormonally active agents” softens how the issue sounds, which likely makes the risks seem less serious. That might reduce public concern, but could also delay precautionary action. Scientists face a tension between avoiding unnecessary alarm and clearly warning of possible harm. The best approach may be to use neutral language, but be transparent about uncertainties and the real risks behind the terminology.
Race Classification in Science If race does not have a strong biological basis, why do racial categories play such a big role in science and medicine? Would it be easy to change the way scientists conduct their research to not have a racial category?
11	“Contemporary genetic research indicates that the racial classifications that we emphasize so much in contemporary societies are very tenuous from a biological perspective.” (p. 130)	If race does not have a strong biological basis, why do racial categories play such a big role in science and medicine? Would it be easy to change the way scientists conduct their research to not have a racial category?	Racial categories play a strong role today due to their deep historical and social roots. Lots of research has been built around visible physical traits like people’s skin color. While it would be challenging to change scientific systems around race, it would not be impossible. While it would change how scientists collect their data, it can still be done.
Terminology and Public Perception How can scientific terms be adjusted to balance accuracy, public understanding, and value‑laden concerns?
14	the voles case illustrates the challenges that biologists and social scientists often face when choosing between terms that are understandable and meaningful to the public versus those that are least likely to cause confusion.”(124)	How would you change the term monogamous in order to make the claim more accurate and understandable to the public?	I would make it so that it doesn’t make the voles fully monogamous but more receptive to a singular bond while sharing partners.
15	We want these sciences to connect with human needs and concerns, and therefore we want to use terms in ways that are true to their typical meanings. As a result, Dupré claims that many areas of science will be unavoidably value-laden and that this is completely acceptable, given that we want scientists to study the value-laden world of human culture	Is it possible that over time, with enough use, these terms can evolve to be aligned more with the scientific definition?	I think that this really depends on the context it is most used it. If it is mostly used in science and is rarely used in general talk, then it could change to be near-completely associated with the scientific idea. However, it is very rare for a word that is often used in science and general talk to just disappear from only one of those lexicons, so I’m unsure if it would actually happen.
Framing vs Rhetoric How is strategic framing different from propaganda?
9	In an opinion piece, Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney argued that scientists could do a better job of communicating with the public about contested issues like climate change, evolution, and embryonic stem-cell research if they were more willing to frame these topics strategically.”	How is their use of “strategic framing” any different from using propaganda or advertising?	Strategic farming is drastically different from propaganda because they serve different purposes. The purpose of strategic farming is to make scientific info simpler to understand for the general public and propaganda is to convince someone to share the same opinions as them.
10	A frame is a way of characterizing a message or a problem or a decision situation. Scholars have described different sorts of frames. Some frames describe an identical situation in different ways, such as when one says that new medical treatment has a 90% survival rate as opposed to saying that it has a 10% mortality rate” (116).	What’s the difference between a frame and rhetoric?	While both frame and rhetoric can be synonyms when meaning how to communicate data, rhetoric also means how to communicate the message behind the data, such as how to explain the significance of one’s research to the public.
Environmental Decision‑Making & Values How can we decide when one perspective should be prioritized over another? What do/should we take into account when deciding this?
2	Critics worried that bird and deer populations were being harmed and that beloved recreation areas were being altered. In other words, many of the critics complained that the Chicago Wilderness organization was actually destroying parts of nature that the citizens held dear. In response, proponents of the project insisted that they needed to eliminate species that were non-native to the region in order to recreate ecosystems like prairies that were present in the past. (121, Elliott)	How can we decide when one perspective should be prioritized over another? What do/should we take into account when deciding this (Word choice? End-goals? etc.)?	It’s clear that they want to try and preserve something, but the way in which they do that is inadvertently damaging something else. Maybe they see it as necessary but it seems to be creating another issue, which just stems further and further. I guess i would approach this from a utilitarian pov, where we decide things based off of the greatest good it can provide.
12	In other words, many of the critics complained that the Chicago Wilderness organization was actually destroying parts of nature that the citizens held dear. In response, proponents of the project insisted that they needed to eliminate species that were non-native to the region in order to recreate ecosystems like prairies that were present in the past.	How do we determine what is worth protecting/recreating when in most cases, ecosystems have already adapted to their environment making that place their new home?	I believe it should be up to the locals to decide whether or not the ecosystems nearby should be destroyed to make way for the ones that were there before them because they are going to be the ones that get affected the most, when the land changes.
Scientists’ Responsibility in Framing To what extent is the scientist responsible for how the public perceives and responds to the information?
1	They contend that most people that most people don’t have the time or motivation to examine in any detail the facts and arguments related to scientific issues. Therefore, people depend on frames to synthesize information rapidly and determine how scientific information might connect with their own needs, concerns, and values” (Elliott 116)	When it comes to framing and communicating scientific information, to what extent is the scientists responsible for how the public perceives and responds to the information? If the public is too busy or unmotivated to review the information around scientific issues then why must the burden fall on the scientists?	I think it is a mix, as the chapter shows scientists have a responsibility to carefully consider the way in which scientific information is communicated. So their choices when it comes to communication will shape how the public interacts with it. Because of that there is some responsibility for the way it is perceived. However, I would say they don’t have a full responsibility. There are factors of public response that scientist should not be held accountable for. Such as people or organizations spreading misinformation or misleading people into having a certain response.
5	“A number of different activities or strategies can potentially contribute to backtracking: clarifying the level of evidence of favor of different claims or frames […] [however] these sorts of clarifications will not always be feasible or appropriate”	How will scientists know when backtracking is inappropriate? And what should happen to scientists that ignore these framing straggles?	Elliott says that he will go over it further and I assume he will lay out some general rules to follow. Perhaps things like considering all the possible frames and which ones would he hurtful to society. If some scientists framing hurt society than should we still let them publish? Surely somethings are better off not said.
6	Earle Holland… argued that Nisbet and Mooney’s suggestions seemed ‘somewhat dishonest’ and called for scientists to ‘rely on their data, rather than what ’spin’ on an issue might seem more convincing.’” [117]	If framing is a good way to communicate with the public, at what level of science communication should this occur? Should it begin with the scientists themselves or at an article/news reporter level etc.?	Most people don’t directly read the scientific papers that contain a finding that they might find important. If the framing happens on the scientist level it might unfairly affect the way the information is relayed to people (even if its a good thing), so I think the framing should be the responsibility of whomever is making the information accessible to the public.
16	” On one hand, it is helpful for scholars to present the potential implications of cutting-edge neuroscience in a manner that is easy for everyone to understand. On the other hand, these scholars are presenting the material in ways that can generate a great deal of confusion”(114)	Why might these scientist have presented this information in a manner that generated confusion to the public? Could it have been that the public already had a bias towards an idea? And if the public does have a bias (a mindset already made) would it make presenting information harder?	A possible reason for the information to have been mad confusing is their attempt to oversimplify a complex idea. By doing so, it might have missed out on fundamental concepts. In my opinion the public already has a bias, depending on the individual. For example, “… Tyra show, a man said that he felt like cheating was ‘in my blood’”(Elliott 113). This reflex that the man looked for justification for this unethical action. In this case, when the public has a bias, it makes evidence/information harder to relay because of their values.
Science Communication & Values Should scientists restrict themselves strictly to just reporting data, or should they discuss the broader implications and ethical concerns of their research?
3	“While there is always the danger that scientists will make speculative claims that go too far, it would also impoverish society if they entirely failed to point out these potential ramifications of their research.” (115)	Should scientists restrict themselves strictly to just reporting data, or should they discuss the broader implications and ethical concerns of their research?	I believe that scientists should discuss the societal impact of their research but not necessarily societal but also that affect certain individuals. Therefore, researchers shouldn’t just report data without addressing the possible outcomes that can shape policies, ethics, or human behavior, as important conversation might be ignored until it’s too late to do something about it. It should also be communicated responsibility when it comes to distinguishing between speculation and evidence-based findings. When it comes to balancing this it allows for science to uphold credibility while still being able to guide everyone through complicated conversations.
8	One could, perhaps, lessen the role for values in science communication if one decided that scientists should abandon all goals except accuracy. However, the first justification for incorporating values in science communication would still remain: there are often no value-free ways to frame and describe scientific findings.”	If science data can be interpreted with such a wide range with the same data set how can we build useful solutions?	I believe the best way is to have multiple options. The more data and options the more efficient we can use the information for.
13	However, the first justification for incorporating values in science communication would still remain: there are often no value-free ways to frame describe scientific findings. In other words, there can be multiple ways to talk about a scientific finding or problem that are all relatively accurate, but each approach subtly privileges or supports some values over others.(112)	If there are multiple ways to deal with scientific problems, how do we know when scientists are ignoring a more rational and quick approach that would benefit humanity as a whole and when they make a choice or are forced to take the route that would lead to the most profit?	There are multiple ways you can look at this question but for the most part when big corporations are involved you can tell when strings are being pulled but in most cases people only hear about the advancements rather than the inner workings.
17	In many instances, researchers will end up privileging one social perspective or another no matter which terms they choose to employ, so they have to decide which perspective is most appropriate to support.	Why, again, is it so wrong to support our values in science? Don’t we have the freedom to support our perspectives if we wish instead of feeling obligated to follow the same guidelines or values as everyone else?	Maybe it’s been some time since we discussed this, and I understand that values can cause bias, but it feels wrong to be told that you should ignore your opinions and views when doing research simply because that’s “how it should be done” or other potential reasons.