Analyzing My Own Assumptions

In this passage I will be analyzing my own assumptions I have about both the text and the culture surrounding the text. To evaluate my own assumptions I will be answering a series of 4 questions from the Writing Public Lives reading.

Swearingen, Johnathan, "Quantum-Physics" uploaded 22 February 2008 via deviantart.com. Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives 3.0 License.

1) What cultural values do we share?

I believe that I share values with the culture that is present in the text that a lot of the language in physics is misused and misleading. I also think that I share a somewhat similar view to what the idea of consciousness means to the rest of the pubic. Not only consciousness but I also think I share a connection to what the purpose of science is and that these are fundamental questions to ask.

2) What cultural values do I not share?

I think that one of the main difference between what I assume about the culture and how the cultural context actually is is that for me I have more of a knowledge base in physics so this article is written in a context with which I am familiar with and therefore have a greater connection. In addition to this I don't think that I share the same kinds of ideas of what it means to be conscious as the context that the author is putting this article in, instead I have a more philosophical approach to the consciousness question and not so much a technical question.

3) What is the difference between my culture and the culture surrounding the text?

To me the difference between the culture I was raised in as opposed to the culture of the text was that the author is writing this topic from an east coast perspective. With that said, there isn't much difference in the science however the way in which he portrays people who have no clue what he is talking about is a more condescending and demeaning tone as well as a lot more technical use of language and scientific terms.  This is vastly from the culture I grew up in where people tend to be respectful of other's lack of knowledge and people still understand what term you mean through context and not the requirement of using as technical language.

4) What is the historical difference between the culture then as opposed to now? 

Since this article was written under a year ago the culture has not changed that much however within that year the focus of science has become a much more key issue. Climate change science has become much more critical of humans and is therefore has a much larger array of people commenting on the science claims as opposed to just climate scientists.