Reflection 1: Umbrellaology
Science is the study of nature and the universe around us, which can be further broken down into numerous branches. Such examples include Astrobiology, Chemistry, Physics, and others.
Umbrellaology is not a science. It doesn't explain the universe, nor are there any groundbreaking discoveries waiting to be made in this field. This idea is more closely related to Psychology as it seeks to explain correlation, likelihood, and statistical data among people and what type of umbrella(s) they own.
The difference between Umbrellaology and Zoology for example is that Zoology explains the organisms on our planet in its entirety. In Zoology, there are plenty of unknown phenomena as well as species that haven't been discovered yet. Also, organisms have been around for billions of years, have had significant impact on our world, and will most likely continue to do so for billions of years to come. That isn't the case with Umbrellaology. Umbrellas are an invention that have been around for only a few thousand years, are mainly used for one specific purpose, and life can flourish wonderfully without them. The "laws" stated in the text aren't definite for any person or for eternity, so they shouldn't be labelled as such. There isn't much more to be studied in Umbrellaology, so these are all reasons as to why it should join the ranks of pseudosciences as Astrology or Alchemy.
Hi Marcus, nice reflection! I like how you relate umbrellaology to certain aspects of psychology. Even better I think is your classification of umbrellaology as a pseudoscience (at best). I agree with your statement that umbrellaology cannot be considered a science, because it is about something man-made. I also agree that the "laws" of umbrellaology are not such, as you state; a scientific law must be applicable universally.
ReplyDeleteMarcus! I really appreciate how straightforward you were in defining what science is and how umbrellaology either fits or doesn't fit into that category. I do agree that umbrellaology shouldn't be considered a science and you back that up by comparing it to another science- Zoology. Your response is concise and does raise the question of how does this apply when viewing the world around us when there are so many unanswered questions and we only have data and trends? What science and methods in science can help us then?
ReplyDeleteHey Marcus! I like that we do agree that Umbrellaology is pretty close related to Psychology. Also that's a good point that the "laws" stated aren't definite, so would it really be a "law"? But you do bring up a good question. Does it need to be something naturally formed for it to be considered a science? Technically engineering was also created thousands of years ago by humans. And if you think about it, some primates have been seen creating makeshift umbrellas when it's raining, so the idea isn't exactly originally from us. So it really is hard to pinpoint an exact answer!
ReplyDeleteHello Marcus,
ReplyDeleteStraight and to the point. Excellent and concise post. Your definition of science is also very straight forward. The argument of how much Umbrellaology is more similar to Psychology is an excellent approach. However, psychology IS a science, isn't it? Further reading your post clears up, however, that while it is similar, it isn't quite at the same level. Much appreciated, as I tend to get all artsy when I write.
Agreed. Not a science.
Have you read much Freud? I think you can make a slew of valid arguments for the psychology of ownership of umbrellas using the data collected in this study!