Prompt:
Why are you interested in science and what does it mean to you? List two qualities or character traits an intern (or scientist) should have and describe how you pocess those qualities.
I was born with an aptitude for science and mathematics, something that a few classmates of mine would kill for. But I sense that that is not the person you are seeking, because science does not require you to be smart, but instead requires a person to have curiosity and critical thinking, the light and the lighthouse, respectively. Because in order to be an effective scientist, one must apply the countless of hours of gathering evidence and tedious experimentation and actually molding that into a valid conclusion. Yet it is not all about the conclusion, rather the errors that have led you to believe, to know that your efforts have bore fruit. Science has a certain intrigue, a lure, that always reels you in, even without you acknowledging it. But to me, science is not merely a fascination, but a dedication. My role-models are not Usher, or Lady Gaga, but great philosophers and scientists, Locke, Newton, Kepler, Rousseau, and others. I wish to be known for an achievement that is for the betterment for mankind, whether it be an invention, or a paper regarding a new theory. And it is on this dream that I lay the foundations of my dedication to science and the greater good.
"Information is not knowledge", a famous quote by Einstein, and one that perfectly illustrates the advantage of critical thinking. But for a scientist it is not merely an advantage to have critical thinking, but a requirement. Critical thinking, in my words, is the ability to question and discern whether a claim is true through a reasoned process.When a scientist undergoes the process of validating a theory or hypothesis, they use the scientific method, which is really a systematic method of critical thinking, because a hypothesis that is not reinforced by this system of trial and error, is not a valid and true hypothesis. Ergo, a scientist that lacks this valuable trait is not truly advancing science. Without questioning or validating an existing fact, we will never progress, because, as stated above, the scientific is the only true method of validating a hypothesis, and the first step of this process is questioning.
A good example is the dominant philosophy during the Middle Ages, scholasticism. The main idea was to preserve and learn existing knowledge. This promoted literacy and knowledge around churches in Europe, yet the flaw lies in its strength. While preserving is valuable, it provides no real advantage if nothing is built upon it.
I have acquired this attribute not naturally, but by repeated exposure of my mind to such problems. I have a great deal of experience in labs, both unguided and guided. When I was attending the International School of Kabul in Afghanistan, my teachers often gave us an assignment, for example, determine if a substance has an ionic or covalent bond, and we had to choose a procedure. After researching into the matter, we concluded that ionic bonds are generally conductive, and covalent bonds aren't. We further deduced that electricity is currents passing back and forth, and that if the medium is severed, there is no electricity. Therefore, we connected a positive and negative wire to a lightbulb, but did not connect them with each other. We placed both wires in the substance, and if the lightbulb lighted, then the substance was ionic. For example, plain water lighted up the bulb very dimly, but that was because of the chlorine and other substances in the water. When table salt was added, the lightbulb shone very brightly. Thus from this evidence, we conjectured that salt water has an ionic bond, and pure water has a covalent bond. This type of experimentation and reasoning is, in my opinion, ideal for scientific inquiry.
I define science as progression. Scientist are able to define nature in a universal language that all man can understand, mathematics. But unlike math, science is inherent to the universe, not just man's mind. In math, all theorems and postulates are artificial, just a product of man's innovation similar to a language. Science, on the other hand, is constant whether or not man has discovered it. Gravity, inertia, viscosity, and other laws and theories will always be true no matter how it is interpreted.
The single only characteristic that differentiates civilized man from savagery is the use of technology, through which is contrived from science. Without technology we would not have the power to count votes or communicate ideas and philosophies. Humans are living as long as ever with the ever-changing innovations in pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, and anti-bacterial products.
So science does not only represent progression, but also represents civilization.
While questions fuel our thinking, we must have a source in which we derive these educated questions from. The ultimate answer is curiosity, because while other factors play into making observations and questions, a person must have a general sense of curiosity to start the questioning process.
Curiosity can also be defined as eagerness to work and experiment. Eager and curious minds inevitably work harder and faster to satisfy their thirst for knowledge. I for one work twice as hard in a subject if it is interesting, whether it be science or history because at the end I know I will receive the satisfaction of knowledge.
But the big question remains, what generates curiosity? Knowledge fosters curiosity, and curiosity in turn foster knowledge. Curiosity often provides experience to learn from, thus building mental capacity. This new fostered mental strength provides the means to open our brain to new areas.
While curiosity is an innate trait amongst humans, my sense of curiosity has been amplified by my exposure to labs. When I first started doing labs, I dreaded the write-ups that followed the drudging lab itself. When I started to look at the labs critically, and interpret the results and procedures differently, I started to question the results and why certain things happened. It soon became a regular thing to ask my teacher or mentor, and when that wasn't possible I vied to finish the lab as soon as possible to find the results and form my own conclusions and theories.
As previously mentioned, the scientific method is widely believed as the most accurate way in proving a hypothesis, or any conjecture, and the first step is generally to observe and ask a question. The ability to observe lies in your curiosity, and the ability to ask a question lies in critical thinking skills.
Why are you interested in science and what does it mean to you? List two qualities or character traits an intern (or scientist) should have and describe how you pocess those qualities.
I was born with an aptitude for science and mathematics, something that a few classmates of mine would kill for. But I sense that that is not the person you are seeking, because science does not require you to be smart, but instead requires a person to have curiosity and critical thinking, the light and the lighthouse, respectively. Because in order to be an effective scientist, one must apply the countless of hours of gathering evidence and tedious experimentation and actually molding that into a valid conclusion. Yet it is not all about the conclusion, rather the errors that have led you to believe, to know that your efforts have bore fruit. Science has a certain intrigue, a lure, that always reels you in, even without you acknowledging it. But to me, science is not merely a fascination, but a dedication. My role-models are not Usher, or Lady Gaga, but great philosophers and scientists, Locke, Newton, Kepler, Rousseau, and others. I wish to be known for an achievement that is for the betterment for mankind, whether it be an invention, or a paper regarding a new theory. And it is on this dream that I lay the foundations of my dedication to science and the greater good.
"Information is not knowledge", a famous quote by Einstein, and one that perfectly illustrates the advantage of critical thinking. But for a scientist it is not merely an advantage to have critical thinking, but a requirement. Critical thinking, in my words, is the ability to question and discern whether a claim is true through a reasoned process.When a scientist undergoes the process of validating a theory or hypothesis, they use the scientific method, which is really a systematic method of critical thinking, because a hypothesis that is not reinforced by this system of trial and error, is not a valid and true hypothesis. Ergo, a scientist that lacks this valuable trait is not truly advancing science. Without questioning or validating an existing fact, we will never progress, because, as stated above, the scientific is the only true method of validating a hypothesis, and the first step of this process is questioning.
A good example is the dominant philosophy during the Middle Ages, scholasticism. The main idea was to preserve and learn existing knowledge. This promoted literacy and knowledge around churches in Europe, yet the flaw lies in its strength. While preserving is valuable, it provides no real advantage if nothing is built upon it.
I have acquired this attribute not naturally, but by repeated exposure of my mind to such problems. I have a great deal of experience in labs, both unguided and guided. When I was attending the International School of Kabul in Afghanistan, my teachers often gave us an assignment, for example, determine if a substance has an ionic or covalent bond, and we had to choose a procedure. After researching into the matter, we concluded that ionic bonds are generally conductive, and covalent bonds aren't. We further deduced that electricity is currents passing back and forth, and that if the medium is severed, there is no electricity. Therefore, we connected a positive and negative wire to a lightbulb, but did not connect them with each other. We placed both wires in the substance, and if the lightbulb lighted, then the substance was ionic. For example, plain water lighted up the bulb very dimly, but that was because of the chlorine and other substances in the water. When table salt was added, the lightbulb shone very brightly. Thus from this evidence, we conjectured that salt water has an ionic bond, and pure water has a covalent bond. This type of experimentation and reasoning is, in my opinion, ideal for scientific inquiry.
I define science as progression. Scientist are able to define nature in a universal language that all man can understand, mathematics. But unlike math, science is inherent to the universe, not just man's mind. In math, all theorems and postulates are artificial, just a product of man's innovation similar to a language. Science, on the other hand, is constant whether or not man has discovered it. Gravity, inertia, viscosity, and other laws and theories will always be true no matter how it is interpreted.
The single only characteristic that differentiates civilized man from savagery is the use of technology, through which is contrived from science. Without technology we would not have the power to count votes or communicate ideas and philosophies. Humans are living as long as ever with the ever-changing innovations in pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, and anti-bacterial products.
So science does not only represent progression, but also represents civilization.
While questions fuel our thinking, we must have a source in which we derive these educated questions from. The ultimate answer is curiosity, because while other factors play into making observations and questions, a person must have a general sense of curiosity to start the questioning process.
Curiosity can also be defined as eagerness to work and experiment. Eager and curious minds inevitably work harder and faster to satisfy their thirst for knowledge. I for one work twice as hard in a subject if it is interesting, whether it be science or history because at the end I know I will receive the satisfaction of knowledge.
But the big question remains, what generates curiosity? Knowledge fosters curiosity, and curiosity in turn foster knowledge. Curiosity often provides experience to learn from, thus building mental capacity. This new fostered mental strength provides the means to open our brain to new areas.
While curiosity is an innate trait amongst humans, my sense of curiosity has been amplified by my exposure to labs. When I first started doing labs, I dreaded the write-ups that followed the drudging lab itself. When I started to look at the labs critically, and interpret the results and procedures differently, I started to question the results and why certain things happened. It soon became a regular thing to ask my teacher or mentor, and when that wasn't possible I vied to finish the lab as soon as possible to find the results and form my own conclusions and theories.
As previously mentioned, the scientific method is widely believed as the most accurate way in proving a hypothesis, or any conjecture, and the first step is generally to observe and ask a question. The ability to observe lies in your curiosity, and the ability to ask a question lies in critical thinking skills.