Section 3:
Do some research, and in your notebook, write down what type of lenses nearsighted and farsighted people need to correct their vision. Describe why this is, and draw some diagrams.
Section 1:
Due Tomorrow:
Read pg. 415-422 in your textbook. In your notebook, copy down the lens/mirror equation, the magnification equation, and the example problem on page 422-423.
Due Friday:
Write a 1-2 page written response to the movie (you should cite particular parts of the movie), with a focus on the following questions:
1) To whom does the burden of 'ethics' fall? Scientist doing the research, politicians funding and applying science and technology in policy or philosophers integrating ethics and science?
2) Which of the aforementioned parties do you think have the loudest voice?
3) Are there any research methods, or topics that are too immoral to pursue? (e.g. human experimentation)
4) Is it possible to pursue the purest desire to understand the mysteries of the universe and maintain a lens of social ethics?
5) Are there any particular events, statements or arguments that really struck you? Why do you think that is?
Here are links to help you formulate your response...
What does ethics mean to contemporary scientist:
http://temp.onlineethics.org/codes/ACScode.html
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm
To help you understand the power of the bomb:
http://www.blogger.com/goog_2139632769
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppgdBI31-lo
The decision to drop the bomb:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/51g.asp
http://www.doug-long.com/oppie.htm
Other sides of the story:
http://www.unmuseum.org/nbomb.htm
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2000/oct/19/heisenberg-in-copenhagen/?pagination=false
I've given you plenty to work with but feel free to also bring your own research to the discussion. You've been studying ethics in religion; remember that a 'because I think/feel it's right' mentality is not enough to support a solid, academic discussion points. Be prepared to back up your opinions with facts!
