Blue Remembered Hills Essay Example for Free

Blue Remembered Hills Essay When I first read the script of Blue Remembered Hills I thought it was quite naturalistic and it was well written from a childs perspective. The characters were all very believable and it seemed like a fun play to perform. I thought it would be easy to do because the characters are all children and I can still remember how I was at that age. In the performance I played the part of Peter, a young boy of about seven or eight years. He is the bully of the group and he tends to use his strength to get his own way over the others. He is not very intelligent and some of the characters use this to their advantage to get out of situations e.g. in scene two when Peter tries to steal Willies apple but Willie convinces him one bite would kill him. To get into our roles of young children, we did various exercises like childhood games and hotseating. I found hotseating particularly helpful because afterwards all of the class give their opinions and constructive criticism so I could improve my character. Playing childhood games helps to put you into the mind of an eight year old. After a few weeks we looked at the subtext of the play. This means you go through the script and look for the true meaning of the words that are spoken. For example if somebody says something sarcastically, you know to say it in a certain tone. Doing this helped with the language and how to speak the words in accent using the correct tone so that the true meaning is given across to the audience. I found the best way to improve voice, movement and gesture was to keep rehearsing it and talk to each other about how it looks and what could be improved. All of the characters wore similar clothing, as theyre all children of the same age living at the same time. For Peter I chose a pair of dirty, grey shorts and a plain dirty white shirt as this was typical for the time. He did not have any props specific to his character. I think that together as a group we worked very well. I found that constructive criticism and feedback from the other people in my group helped me greatly because it tells you what you look like to others and how the character comes across to the audience. We didnt experience many major problems throughout the project and other problems were easy to solve. Last minute rehearsals were just to polish off the scripts and make sure that all the scenes ran smoothly together. In the run-up to the final performance we would just act out each scene over an over and confirm that we had the play how we wanted it. I was quite pleased with the final performance but despite weeks of learning the lines, I still managed to make a few slip-ups, which I and the other character made up for by improvising. I thought that each person in the group fitted very well into their characters and worked very well together. We all added a bit of our own personality, which made the characters more believable. If I did the play again I might have made it more physical and at a faster pace. I didnt see any other groups performances so I cant compare ours to anyone elses. Over the past few weeks I have learned new techniques of character development and I feel my ability to work in a group has improved. I think I need sometimes to put in a bit more effort in the lessons and do every rehearsal as if it were the real thing as I lacked motivation in some lessons. It has prepared me a bit for the written exam because I have been analysing the performance, which is exactly what I have to do for the exam.

An Analysis on the Process of Adjudication

An Analysis on the Process of Adjudication Law is a â€Å"strange compound which is brewed daily in the caldron of the Courts† Hon. Benjamin N Cardozo[1]. The work of deciding cases goes on every day in hundreds of courts throughout the land. Any judge, one might suppose, would find it easy to describe the process which he had followed a thousand times and more. Benjamin Cardozo begins his Judicial Process with these words which with lyrical lucidity show what goes on in a court. It is deciding cases. To a layman, adjudication presents a picture of a court where a judge presides, listens to arguments of rival parties through their counsels and in the end, renders a decision which holds a person liable or acquits him of the charges that were labelled against him. To a lawman who is not untutored in the craft, adjudication means something more. When courts decide cases, they perform two distinct, though interrelated, functions. First, they settle the controversy between the parties: they determine what the facts were and apply the appropriate rules to those facts. This is the function commonly known as adjudication[2].While performing their second function, courts decide what the appropriate rules are and how they fit in a particular case. Deciding what rules are applicable often requires the courts to reformulate and modify the scope of existing rules. The second function is sometimes referred to as judicial lawmaking[3]. While adjudicating cases, a judge may be faced with a question of law or a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact. Besides, he may come across a case which the existing law does not cover, that is the question to be decided by the court was unforeseen by the legislature while enacting the law. Tools available to a judge while deciding a question generally include the statutory provisions, pr ecedent laid down by an earlier court, and the certain overarching principles like that of natural justice and equality. Judicial function performed by the judges requires them at times to use their discretions and rely on certain -principles that lie extraneous to the realm of the enacted law. This is one aspect of adjudication that has stirred much jurisprudential waters over a long period. Questions invariably asked have been: whether judges only declare the law; whether they only interpret the law; whether they only discover the law or whether they make law also. There are two aspects of judicial function that come to fore: The first-which can be traced back to at least Hale and Blackstone-is that judges merely find and declare the law rather than create it. Thus, judges are, allegedly, not a source of law†.[4] The second aspect of judicial juristic techniques that receives much publicised attention is the doctrine of precedent.[5] The function of adjudication subsumes certain intricately intertwined issues. The tool of interpretation plays an important role in adjudicatory process. It may be said that Adjudication is interpretation[6], given the fact that Adjudication is the process by which a judge comes to understand and express the meaning of an authoritative legal text and the values embodied in that text.[7] Interpretation, whether it be in the law or literary domains, is neither a wholly discretionary nor a wholly mechanical activity. It is a dynamic interaction between reader and text, and meaning the product of that interaction.[8]To recover an old and familiar idea, namely, that adjudication is a form of interpretation would build bridges between law and the humanities and suggest a unity among mans many intellectual endeavours. A proper regard for the distinctive social Function of adjudication, and for the conditions that limit the legitimate exercise of the judicial power, will require care in identifying the kinds of texts to be construed and the rules that govern the interpretive process; the judge is to read the legal text, not morality or public opinion, not, if you will, the moral or social texts. But the essential unity between law and the humanities would persist and the judges vision would be enlarged.[9]The words and phrases are symbols that stimulate a mental reference to referents.[10]And it becomes relevant given the fact that the problem of interpretation is a problem of words and their effectiveness as a medium of expression to communicate a particular thought. One of the important aspects on interpretation is to find the intention of the members of the legislature whose creation, that is the enactment, outlives them. Salmond says that the true duty of the judicature is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature-the mens or se ntentia legis. However, the way this duty is to be performed becomes tedious in that judges have only the barren words to confront with and to find the intention of the legislature. The question of interpretation also brings forth the question: do judges make law while interpreting the law? Does the finding of intention amount only to discovery of law or does it mean creation of law? Interpretation often is instrumental in the birth of new precedents, and there have been arguments put forth that say precedents are clearest examples of judicial law making. Dworkinian thesis of how judges decide cases avers that judges merely discover law; they do not make law. However, it has been argued that when judges discover legislative intent, they in fact invent it instead of discovering it[11]. The growing complexities of modern day life throw new challenges and problems in myriad manifestation before the judges, who at times may be tempted to cross the restraints of written words of law, besides being confronted with question of morality and needs of justice. There may surface a problem which the law when enacted could not foresee. Or the law relating to a particular issue is shrouded in ambiguity. Many a time, a judge may have to trace that golden thread from the labyrinth of legalese and factual matrix that will help him reach the desired goal of rendering justice. Often, it is very difficult to do so. The process of adjudication requires a judge to be attentive and aware of the several factors which at times may have a telling impact upon the rights of people, besides jeopardising the cherished goal of doing justice. Performance of judicial function is an onerous task given the kind of responsibility a judge has to shoulder within the constitutional and statutory constraints that hedge him or her from all sides, though leeway for creativity does exist given the tools of interpretation a judge is armed with.13 Innovation comes to the rescue of judge when confronted with a novel case that demands that the judge acts in a way that justice is done: The discussion and deliberation that follow in the coming chapters focus on some of the key aspects of adjudication primarily that of Dworkins, and an effort is made to critically analyse the various facets of Dworkins theory of adjudication before reaching a conclusion in the light of criticisms levelled against them. 3.2  ADJUDICATION vis-a-vis SEPARATION OF POWERS Within the realm of law, adjudication enjoys a place of prominence. Primarily the task of the courts is to adjudicate upon the issues that arise in disputes between parties which may be an individual, at times, state, and on occasions both the state and individuals. In the modem era, the role of the judges has become more complex and it is now a far cry when compared with the role a judge had to play eons ago. The evolution of the society and the legal system has entrusted the judges with newer powers and functions. Now their area of operation is not confined to decide questions that arise between individuals as Geoffrey Rivlin reminds that First, where there is any dispute about constitutional law, the judges must decide what the law is. Their most important role, however, is to act as an independent check on the power of the executive. Only the courts have the authority to stop any individual or body of persons from exceeding their powers, or making improper use of their powers. Th is is known as preventing an abuse of power. When we speak of judges, it means the entire hierarchy of judges who operate in different courts. The problems arising before the courts and decisions to be rendered are different in nature depending upon the courts. The factors that influence the outcome of an adjudicatory process vary greatly, and so do the decisions of the court. Be that as it may, there are a score of issues that need to be dealt with when we consider the process of adjudication. 3.3  DISPUTE REVIEW BOARD/DISPUTE ADJUDICATION BOARD This method of international dispute resolution, first tried successfully in the 1980s in Central America, is now regularly used in respect of large international construction and infrastructure contracts. These contracts provide for the appointment of a panel of experts, generally construction practitioners (engineers, lawyers, economists), either at the time of signature or in the course of the execution of the contract. For example, contracts relating to the construction of the Vasco Da Gama bridge, over the River Tagus in Portugal, provided for the appointment of two panels (technical and financial) of three experts each. For the Channel Tunnel, between France and the United Kingdom, the designation of apanel of three experts and two alternates was provided for in contracts. Members of the .dispute review board/dispute adjudication board (DRB/DAB) are appointed by the parties in the same way as an arbitral tribunal is constituted, with one major difference. The panel is generally appointed at the very beginning of the project and for its whole duration, whereas arbitrators are appointed only in the context of a dispute. Each party nominates its experts and the two appointed experts designate the third that is, unless the parties have agreed on a different appointment mechanism. A one-member DRB/DAB may also be appointed DRB/DABs typically follow a project from beginning to end (through site visits, study of monthly reports, exchanges of correspondence, miscellaneous reports, etc.), This-is so that they are able, upon the request of a contracting party; to react promptly and knowledgeably and, if necessary, to issue an opinion, recommendation or decision in written form. DRB/DAB experts are usually paid monthly or, for on-site interventions, by the hour. The DRB/DAB may intervene in either a flexible or a more formal manner. In the former, it acts as an advisory body. A party or several parties may, by a simple and informal request, ask for a preliminary written opinion. This opinion is considered provisional in that it does not bind either the parties or the DRB. In the latter, the DRB/DAB plays a more formal role, insofar as it issues either a decision or a recommendation, on a procedure that enables each of the parties to express its ideas fully. Once the panel of experts has handed down its opinion, decision or recommendation, each of the parties indicates, generally within a fixed time limit, whether or not it accepts the decision or recommendation. If the decision is not accepted, recourse to the jurisdictional procedure (before a State court or an arbitral tribunal) remains possible. 3.4  DWORKIN’S THEORY OF ADJUDICATION The courts are the capitals of laws empire, and judges are its princes, but not its seers and prophets. Dworkin, Laws Empire, 407(1986) Introduction In laws empire, judges enjoy a prominent position. They are entrusted with the task of adjudication, which affects the lives of people in ways both seen and unseen. Rights of people who approach the apostle of justice stand to lose or gain depending upon how the judge presiding over the court views a case. Importance of judges in legal arena is reflected in Dworkins writing when he begins his Laws Empire with these words: It matters how judges decide cases. It matters most to people unlucky or litigious or wicked or saintly enough to find themselves in court.[12] The difference between dignity and ruin may turn on a single argument that might not have struck another judge so forcefully, or even the same judge on another day[13]. A single nod of a judge may rob a person of his liberty or protect his liberty. It may mean life or death for a person.[14] The role played by judges assumes more importance today. Given the fact that they perform one of the tedious tasks in a society, it becomes desirable to see and analyse how they do what they do. In view of the foregone discussion in the previous chapter that touched upon the vexed question of what is law and the myriad facets of adjudication that are crucial to the understanding of how law operates in laws empire, the theory of adjudication as developed by Dworkin assumes due importance, especially given the parallels that are perceptible in the time that preceded Dworkins theory. One such parallel can be seen in Blackstones declaratory theory that dealt with the famous account of judging which holds that judges find (or declare), rather than make, law. In the introduction to the Commentaries, Blackstone states that the judges job is to determine the law not according to his own private judgment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land; the judge is not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one. 3.4.1  ADJUDICATION: DWORKIN’S APPROACH To Dworkin, law is an interpretive concept†. By making this claim, he tries to distinguish his philosophy from what he calls semantic theories of law, which refer to positivist theories, like that of John Austin and Herbert Hart. According to him, these theories suppose that that law has a meaning which is shared by lawyers and others. This shared meaning consists of rules for using the word law. These rules, in turn, tie law in positivist theories to historical facts, such as the enactment of a statute or the decision of a case. Dworkin suggests that disagreement about the law, under positivist theories, would invoke legal argument in adjudication only about the historical fact made relevant by the shared meaning of law. He considered three theories of law-conventionalism, pragmatism and law as integrity in Laws Empire. Only the last of these is interpretive, but each, he argues, is compatible with his interpretive theory of meaning, which he describes as the view that the doc trinal concept of law is an interpretive concept. 3.4.2  ADJUDICATION OF HARD CASES The theory of hard cases provided by positivism, according to Dworkin, envisages that when a particular law suit cannot be brought under a clear rule of law, laid down by some institution in advance, then judge has discretion to decide the case either way. He says the opinion of the judge seems to assume that one or the other party had a pre-existing right to win the suit, but idea only is a fiction. In reality, he has legislated new legal rights, and then applied them retrospectively to the case at hand.[15] Dworkin tries to provide an alternative method of adjudication which he calls naturalism. It is noteworthy how he builds up his theory of adjudication in the following manner:[16] I shall start by giving the picture of adjudication I want to defend a name, and it is a name which accepts the crude characterization. I shall call this picture naturalism. According to naturalism, judges should decide hard cases by interpreting the political structure of their community in the following, perhaps special way: by trying to find the best justification they can find, in principles of political morality, for the structure as a whole, from the most profound constitutional rules and arguments to the details of, for example, the private law of tort or contract. Prior to elaborating further on the methodology adopted by Dworkin, it will serve some purpose to see how he disagrees with the general understanding of how judges go about doing what they actually do. He believes that the common story about the way judges function is misleading, and misses certain notable points. He finds a further level of subordination in such a story which goes unnoticed. It is expected that when make law, they will act not only as a deputy to the legislature but also as a deputy legislature. However, Dworkin reasons:[17] They will make law in response to evidence and arguments of the same character as would move the superior institution if it were acting on its own. This is deeper level of subordination, because it makes any understanding of what judges do in hard cases parasitic on a prior understanding of what legislators do all the time. According to him, this subordination is both conceptual and political. He believes that judges are not deputy legislators, and they should not be as well. It is misleading to assume that they are legislating when judges go beyond the political decisions which have been made already by someone else. He argues that such an assumption misses the fundamental distinction between arguments of principle and arguments of policy. It is noticeable, Dworkin argues that the distinct outline here is an improvement upon the distinction between principle and the policy that he made under chapter two of Taking Rights Seriously, one of the virtues among others being that this formulation â€Å"prevent the collapse of the distinction under the artificial assumption described before[18]. It should be pointed out here that both the arguments justify political decisions; it is only the way they justify such decisions that differs. Arguments of policy justify a political decision by showing that the decision advances or protects some collective goal of the community as a whole[19] whereas the arguments of principle justify a political decision by showing that the decision respects or secures some individual or group right.[20]The justification of legislative program of any complexity, says Dworkin, will require both sorts of arguments. According to him, a program that is chiefly a matter of policy may require strands of principle to justify it[21]. Sometimes, it may so happen that a program which is generated by policy may be qualified by principle and vice versa. In a hard case where no settled rule dictates a decision either way, then, Dworkin says, it might seem proper that a proper decision could be generated by either policy or principle.[22]He cites the case of Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd. V. Martin Co. f02. In this case, the employees of the defendant company had broken the electric cable which belonged to a company which supplied power to the plaintiffs factory, which was shut down during the period the cable was repaired. Whether to allow recovery for economic loss following negligent damage to someone else’s property was the question to be decided before the court. Here, there are two ways open before the court. Dworkin says â€Å"It might have proceeded to its decision by asking whether a firm in the position of the plaintiff had a right to recovery, which is a matter of principle, or whether it would be economically wise to distribute liability for accidents in the was plaintiff suggested, which is matter of policy. Dworkin lays down his thesis: Judicial decisions in civil cases, even in hard cases like Spartan Steel, characteristically are and should be generated by principle not policy. 1 [1] Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature Of The Judicial Process, 10 (1921) [2] James L. Houghtling, The Dynamics of Law 13(1963) [3] Ibid [4] Rajeev Dhavan et. al. (ed), Judges and the Judicial Power 1 2 (1985) [5] Ibid. [6] Owen M. Fiss, Objectivity and Interpretation, 34 Stan. L. Rev. 739. [7] Ibid [8] Ibid. Fiss says, It is an activity that affords a proper recognition of both the subjective and objective dimensions of human experience; and for that reason, has emerged in recent decades as an attractive method for studying all social activity. The idea of a written text, the standard object of legal or literary interpretation, has been expanded to embrace social action and situations, which are sometimes called text-analogues. [9] Ibid. Indeed, interpretation is defined as the process by which the meaning of a text is understood and expressed, and the acts of understanding and expression necessarily entail strong personal elements. At the same time, the freedom of the interpreter is not absolute. The interpreter is not free to assign any meaning he wishes to the text. He is disciplined by a set of rules that specify the relevance and weight to be assigned to the material (e.g., words, history, intention, consequence), as well as by those that define basic concepts and that established the procedural circumstances under which the interpretation must occur. Id. at 744. [10] G Williams, Language and the Law, 61 LQR 73. [11] For a detailed analysis see, Chapters 4 and 5. Also see, Upendra Baxi, On How Not to Judge the Judges: Notes towards Evaluation of the Judicial Process, 25 JILl 210 (1983). [12] Ronald Dworkin, Laws Empire 1(2002, Indian Reprint) [13] Ibid. [14] Dworkin says, People often stand to gain or lose more by one judges nod than they could by any general act of Congress or Parliament. Ibid [15] Supra note 70 at 81 [16] Ronald Dworkin, Natural Law Revisited, 34 University of Florida Law Review 165 at 165- 166(1982). Suppose the question arises for the first time, for example, whether and in what circumstances careless drivers are liable, not only for physical injuries to those whom they run down, but also for any emotional damage suffered by relatives of the victim who are watching. According to naturalism, judges should then ask the following questions of the history (including the contemporary history) of their political structure. Does the best possible justification of that history suppose a principle according to which people who are injured emotionally in this way have a right to recover damages in court? If so, what, more precisely, is that principle? Does it entail, for example, that only immediate relatives of the person physically injured have that right? Or only relatives on the scene of the accident, who might themselves have suffered physical damage? Ibid. [17] Supra note 70 at 82 [18] Ibid [19] Ib.id. F~r example, The argument in favour of a subsidy for aircraft manufacturers, that the subsidy WIll protect defense, is an argument of policy. Ibid. [20] Ibid. For instance, The argume~t in favour of anti-discrimination statutes, that a minority has a nght to equal respect and concern, IS an argument of principle. Ibid. [21] Ibid. [22] Supra note 70 at 83. Emphasis added.

From Galileo To Hubble Philosophy Essay

From Galileo To Hubble Philosophy Essay The 16th century provided the world with scholars such as Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, and Lagrange, all of whom helped to advance the scientific phenomenon of space exploration through telescopes with the results of their many experiments. Although over 500 years have passed since these scholars walked the Earth, their discoveries and inventions are still very much used today, and will continue to be used well into the future. From Galileo to Hubble is a great leap in technological advancement. If it were not for Galileo, society would not have todays level of technology used in space exploration. Everything NASA foresees for future projects is always influenced by past research up to four centuries ago. How the does the discoveries from the 16th century influence tomorrows telescopes? Galileo was not the first person to question whether the Earth was truly at the center of the universe. Nicholas Copernicus first wrote about his theory that the sun was the center of the universe in his book, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs). However, the book was written simply as a hypothetical mathematical problem. Copernicuss theory proposed that the sun was at the center of the universe and the Earth revolved around it. Copernicus did not continue to explore his theory because, it is speculated, he was distracted by trying to follow Aristotles requirement for the law of motion. This law of motion was considered the uniform circular motion of all celestial bodies, which led Copernicus to believe that his theory could only be proven if he went from a geocentric model to a heliocentric model. Galileo then took the Copernican theory and explored it as being the truth. Galileos ideas that Earth was not the center of the universe truly sp arked the scientific revolution. The people of the time were ready for some real answers, although they never spoke of this because of their loyalty to the Church. The idea that the sun was actually the center of the universe went against many Biblical passages. Galileo pointed out that scripture teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. (The Galileo Project). Before the 16th century, society believed that the earth was at the very center of the universe. Anyone who believed otherwise was condemned by the church and, consequently, society as well. Due to the lack of scientific research, religious ideas were the only ways that people could view the world. They had no scientific evidence to back up any sort of explanations. While there were ideas and theories about the solar system that had yet to be proven, no one at the time had the tool to back up this theory. During the scientific revolution in the 16th century, a scientist named Johannes Kepler proposed three laws of planetary motion. Kepler went on to explain that these accurate descriptions of the motion of any planet and any satellite nearly 400 years ago, and are still by NASA today. Kepler described five different fixed stationary orbits. If it were not for Kelper, society probably would not have the Lagrange points, which are used to give accurate locations of fixed loop hoop orbi ts in-between the earth and the moon. Technology then had to catch up with the theory. An early 16th century scientist came up with a tool that would literally change the outlook of how society perceived the world and later, even the universe. Spectacle maker Hans Lippershey is accredited with the earliest record design of the optical telescope. When word actually got out about this new innovative tool, Galileo Galilei made a name for it. Galileo took the telescope and did what no one else thought of, he courageously pointed it towards the heavens. His theory caused a ripple effect in the scientific community. His unending devotion and determination for discovery led to a better understanding of the universe. He gave other scientists, artists, and philosophers of centuries to come something they can build on. A telescope perfected from Hans Lippershey invention by the simple arrangement of two lenses in a long, narrow tube allowed Galileo to see objects ten times more clearly. With his primitive telescope, Galileo was able to make a number of remarkable discoveries. At the time, people believed the surface of the moon was smooth and flat. However, Galileo found mountains, valleys, and craters on the surface. Not only was Galileo the first man to see the craters of the moon, but he also went on to discover sunspots, the four large moons of Jupiter, and the rings of Saturn. This fire of ideas that Galileo created through his discoveries inspired scientists to create telescopes of increasing size and complexity. With the ever-changing shape and form of telescopes, astronomers have been able to see ever farther into the universe with increased clarity. Although telescopes have revealed much over their nearly 400-year history, they are still limited in what they can show us from Earth. Light pollution, cloud cover and the Earths turbulent atmosphere constantly interfere with telescope views from Earth. No telescope, to date, has been able to overcome these problems. To conquer these problems, scientists decided that a telescope must be placed above the atmosphere, in orbit around the Earth. That is where the Hubble telescope was born. The Hubble telescope, launched in 1990, marks the most significant advance in astronomy since Galileos telescope. This telescope was the first to be launched into orbit and is therefore at the ultimate mountaintop for viewing the universe. Above the distortion of the atmosphere, above rain clouds and light pollution, Hubble has an unobstructed view of the universe. So what did the new telescope discover? Scientists claim that they have used Hubble to observe the most distant stars and galaxies as well as the planets in our solar system. Even twenty years after its launch, Hubble is still in working order. However, the time has come to improve this situation and create something that will go beyond the Hubbles view. It is also important to have something that we are able to do regular maintenance on. By placing a permanent telescope on the moon, we can explore the universe in even greater capacity than the Hubble telescope did. Even today Galileos influence is being felt in the develo pment of telescopes and their increasing ability to explore space. This opportunity to place future space telescopes in superior environments would create a situation where Moon-based crews can easily visit them. It is promising enough that NASA should now begin brainstorming options and opportunities that I will recommend towards them. Telescopes on the Moon, especially instruments capable of feats well beyond the Hubble and Webb, but how can someone demonstrate how to overcome the cons over the pros? Placing telescopes on the moon telescopes could be considered a more stable environment than a telescope in orbit. Thus, placing telescopes within the service range of lunar outposts will have the effect of firming up the future for those outposts, and also receive funding necessary to keep them operational and growing. The biggest question is can you improve on the next telescope by creating one ultimate telescope or developing many with variety of task giving all while keeping within a practical budget? Galileos Influence on the Scientific Community Lance K. Erickson Ph. D., a professor of applied aviation sciences and space studies at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, agrees that Galileo had a strong influence on the scientific community. However, in our interview on DATE, Dr. Erickson added that even if Galileo had not lived, society would not be that far behind where it is now in space exploration. In addition to Galileo, many other scientists in history were developing their own telescopes. Leonard Digges, for example, invented the reflecting and refracting telescopes, but never capitalized on his invention. Another professor, however, emphasizes Galileos importance. In an interview with Dr. Alan R. Pratt, professor of humanities at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, he stated that if it were not for Galileo, many artists and philosophers would not have been so greatly influenced on the imagination of the universe. Dr. Pratt, stated: In terms of any other changes that happened in past centuries regarding science, I really do not think [that] any philosopher or artist could have had a bigger impact than Galileo did. In a matter of a few months, Galileo was able to alter the development of science so deeply as those months between the end of 1609 and the beginning of 1610. He now was at the crown rewriting the book of laws, which consisted of raw facts with evidence to back it up. He literally changed physics, which, in turn changed cosmology, and again that changed the way future philosophers and artists imagined the universe. This influenced many poets, mostly because they were stimulated on a sense of anxiety, that Galileo discovered that society is in fact on a small planet. According to Dr. Pratt, this change in science introduces a big change in religion and anthropology. Figure 1 portrays Galileo trying to convince the Church. Figure 1: Galileo and his Discoverieshttp://www.chrismadden.co.uk/moon/galileo-telescope-church.gif . Unlike many revolutions, the scientific revolution changed peoples minds, rather than the way society acted. People began to seek scientific answers to things that they before accepted as truth without question. Figure 1, shows that Galileo had a lot of explaining to do, but that it was not easy convincing the church of his discoveries. His theory was very much against religion, and Galileo knew this would change everything. As a result of Galileos influence, science and mathematics began to be more widely accepted than philosophy when used to explain phenomenon. Today, it is hard for anyone to comprehend that there was a time where claims were not researched scientifically. Galileo developed a more modern concept of researching which scientist still use today. Sir Isaac Newton Taking Telescopes to the Next Level Following Galileo, English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian, Sir Isaac Newton is considered by many scholars and members of the general public to be one of the more influential people in human history. In 1661, the scientific revolution was at its peak, and many works of basic to modern science had appeared. Astronomers from Copernicus to Kepler had elaborated the heliocentric system of the universe. Galileo had proposed the foundations of a new mechanics built on the principle of inertia. Led by Descartes, philosophers had begun to formulate a new conception of nature as an intricate, impersonal, and inert machine. Newton was about to change the laws of the universe that were backed up by mathematically proven certainty. These laws were physical by nature but were neither sporadic nor limited locally. According to Newton in Principia, laws were universal. There were three laws that would describe universal gravitation. The only lim it of these laws of motion was that they could not be applied to the atomic level or on some conditions that would include the speed of light (Cambridge). Newtons Telescope In addition to these theories, Newton followed where Galileo left off and made a bigger and better telescope that would yet again change the way the public would view the universe. Figure 2 shows one of Newtons many drawings of his telescope. Figure 2: Newtons Drawing of a Telescope . The drawing represents the time when Newton began formulating the idea of optic lenses. An optic lens bends light in order to refract and, therefore, magnify the image. Newton went on to develop what is known as the theory of optics. Theory of Optics The theory of optics utilizes a concave mirror to develop a refracting telescope. Newton was able to utilize the visible light spectrum and show that bending it would create a magnifying effect. Understanding refracting telescopes did play a big role in the development of future telescopes. In 1704, Newton published Opticks, which resulted in his victory in the debate of the nature of light. In his publication, he questioned the theories of light, defraction, and the visible spectrum. He developed experiments to test these questions which he reviewed in Opticks. While this controversial debate over the nature of light was tested by many scientists, Newtons theory of optics became generally accepted. This theory led into the law of superposition, consisting of a wave-like property. Superposition opened a new door in physical optics. It wasnt until Sir Isaac Newton developed the next upgrade to the telescope, which he called the reflecting telescope, and later renamed as the Newtonian Reflector. This new optic lens would be revolutionary in terms of seeing deeper into space. Figure 3 depicts one of Newtons large telescopes with a structure to reach the eyepiece. These huge telescopes were the first of their time and were the first to use a pitch lap, a polished optical surface that acts as a mirror. Newton claimed that this reflector would be the heart of the design of the Newtonian telescope. Thus, the optic lens that Newton perfected within his telescope is still used today in the Hubble Space Telescope. Newtons development of the optic lens proved to be the next important step in space exploration. His upgraded development in the telescope was indeed the influence needed to keep the evolution of telescopes going. Figure 3: A large Newtonian Reflector . The Hubble Space Telescope Science has come a long way since the first telescopes were imagined in the minds of their creators. The complexity can range from a ten dollar telescope to multi-million dollar telescopes developed by todays space explorers. The most well-known of todays telescopes is the Hubble space telescope, which is used to capture images of space from Earths orbit. Long before the Hubble telescope was launched into orbit in 1990, scientists were developing ideas of sending telescopes into space. In 1946 Lyman Spitzer, a researcher from Yale University, wrote a paper entitled Astronomical Advantages of an Extra-Terrestrial Observatory, in which he discusses how Earths atmosphere affects the visibility of stars and planets in space. Through his research and development, Spitzer began collaborating with scientists and professionals to move his plan into action. In the 1960s, NASA began to discuss the feasibility of such a project, and in 1971, it was granted permission to further discuss the blueprint for the project. The largest obstacle in the creation of the Hubble telescope was acquiring the funds for the project, which was estimated to cost $400 to $500 million. After revising parts of the telescope to make it more cost-effective, Congress finally the proposal for funding at $200 million and established the Large Space Telescope project fundi ng in 1977. NASA had planned for the telescope to be launched in 1983; however, assembly of the Hubble was delayed through 1985, when it was finally completed. Figure 4 shows the various control systems of the Hubble as it is in orbit. The planned launch had finally been set for October 1986. This launch was interrupted in January, when tragedy struck the Challenger space shuttle as it ascended into the atmosphere and exploded above the Florida skyline. NASA officials began to question whether the telescope would make it safely into orbit. One year later, shuttle launches resumed, but it was not until April 24, 1990 that space shuttle Discovery finally carried the Hubble into orbit. Figure 4: Important Features of the Hubble Space Telescope . Most would consider the launch of the Hubble a success; however, one mission of the launch was to gain spectacular images of the cosmos. Within a few weeks of being launched, the images that were sent back to NASA headquarters appeared blurry and out of focus. According to the NASA History Division, An investigation revealed a spherical aberration in the primary mirror, due to a miscalibrated measuring instrument that caused the edges of the mirror to be ground slightly too flat (NASA). In December 1993, the first servicing mission was performed with five back-to-back spacewalks, fixing the aberration as well as performing routine maintenance. When the images finally developed into sharp, clear pictures of space, NASA considered the maintenance mission a success. With sustained servicing missions, Hubble has continued to explore the universe from Earths orbit for the past twenty years. Additional Telescopes Although the Hubble space telescope is not the only telescope in orbit, it has remained the only one to operate on visible light wavelengths. Other telescopes, such as the Spitzer space telescope detect infrared radiation, or heat radiation. In addition, Chandra is a telescope that measures X-rays from high-energy regions of the universe, such as exploded stars, according to the Chandra X-ray observatory. Another telescope, the Swift, measures gamma rays. NASA headquarters explains that, Swifts primary goal is to unravel the mystery of gamma ray bursts. The bursts are random and fleeting explosions, second only to the Big Bang in total energy output. Gamma rays are a type of light millions of times more energetic than light human eyes can detect. Gamma ray bursts last only from a few milliseconds to about one minute. Each burst likely signals the birth of a black hole. (NASA). As one can see, there are multiple uses for telescopes in space, ranging from visible explorations, to X-ray, to gamma ray, and beyond. As science evolves, so will the applications of telescopes in space. James Webb Space Telescope The future of telescopes is rapidly evolving. Within a few years, the Hubble will no longer be the main operating telescope in orbit. In 2014, NASA plans to launch the next telescope into orbit: the James Webb Space Telescope. This large infrared telescope will consist of a 6.5 meter primary mirror and measure parts of the universe that have never been documented before. As seen in Figure 5, the James Webb Space Telescopes mirror is nearly three times the size of the Hubble mirror. With its four measuring instruments: the Near InfraRed Camera, Near InfraRed Spectograph, Mid-InfraRed Instrument, and the Fine Guidance Sensor Tunable Filter Camera, the Webb will measure infrared waves with some visible range. Figure 6 shows the different parts of the James Webb Telescope and where it will be placed in orbit. According to NASA, The Webb has four main science themes: The End of the Dark Ages: First Light and Reionization, The Assembly of Galaxies, The Birth of Stars and Protoplanetary Sys tems, and Planetary Systems and the Origins of Life. (NASA). It will explore the development of the first galaxies, and how they have connected to ours. Figure 5: Mirror Comparison between JWST and Hubble (BBC News) . Figure 6: The James Webb Space Telescope (BBC News) . Telescopes and the Moon The moon is often brought up in forums on the NASA website regarding the possibilities of placing telescopes on the lunar surface. In order to even consider how to fulfill the four Ws of curiosity (what, where, when, and why), scientists must find a valid reason for leaving the practical environment of the Lower Earth Orbit (LEO). The LEO is an ideal place for telescopes to be in the reach of astronauts for routine maintenance. This is an important issue to explore for the future of telescopes. In an interview with Dr. Lance Erickson, he stated that the idea of placing a telescope on surface of the moon is just not practical. The reason for that is simply because the rocket-power to transport the telescope onto the lunar surface is not there. Dr. Erickson explained that even if NASA decided to assemble the telescope on the surface of the moon rather than transporting it, they would have to do so on the far side of the moon. This would result in requiring a lunar outpost for routine m aintenance. Even though the idea of scientists placing telescopes on the moon sounds like an ideal project for future exploration, Dr. Erickson stated that the amount of money needed to budget a project of that magnitude would be beyond practical. Furthermore, having a variety of telescopes rather than one big expensive telescope could be a more feasible way to do research. Dr. Erickson explains that having a backup plan before the actual plan is exactly how achieve efficiency. With a backup plan, the probability of having a successful outcome for research doubles. NASA Space Center will not look into any suggested projects that do not have a valid contingency plan, insuring that research and development will help with funding. This way if a mistake is made between the launch of the plan and the actual space flight, scientists have something to fall back on. The greatest barrier of getting an idea to machine is having a logical way of overcoming hurtles that scientist have to adapt to. For example, it is necessary to satisfy the needs of the project within the limits of the funds available in order to justify the research with the public. Having the taxpayers agree on research is huge because much of the funding may come from taxpayers wallets. In coming up with a logical proposal to NASA about having a lunar-based telescope, which, in-turn would have to be submitted to congress, there are a mix of pros and cons regarding the project. Dr. Erickson pointed out the cons of placing a telescope on the lunar surface, there are some feasible advantages in fulfilling this idea. Paul Gilster, an author, looks at peer-reviewed research on deep space exploration, with an eye toward interstellar possibilities on his website. For the past five years, this site has coordinated its efforts with the Tau Zero Foundation, and now serves as the Foundations news forum. Paul Gilster states: Putting an enormous radio telescope on the far side of the Moon has so many advantages that its hard to imagine not doing it, once our technology makes such ventures possible. Whatever the time frame, imagine an attenuation of radio noise from Earth many orders of magnitude over what is possible anywhere on the near side, much less on Earth itself. (Tau Zero Foundation) Due to the dusty environment of the moon, the best type of telescope to utilize would be a radio telescope. Objects on Earth and in space also emit other types of electromagnetic radiation that cannot be seen by the human eye, such as radio waves. The full range of radiation emitted by an object is called its electromagnetic spectrum. This radio astronomy is also known as the study of celestial objects that emit radio waves. Scientists can study astronomical phenomena that are often invisible in other portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, placing this type of telescope would be a benefit to the environment on the moon for the one big problem not mentioned through NASA website forums on how to deal with the lunar dust. The Apollo astronauts found that no matter how careful one was, the dust went everywhere. Having dust on the mirror or the hardware is not what one wants. With the Construction of a large based mirrored telescope on the lunar surface it would be particularly a problem during construction. Since radio waves penetrate dust, scientists can use radio astronomy techniques to study regions that cannot be seen in visible light, such as the dust-shrouded environments, which are the locations where you find the birth of stars and planets. Filling the Medium with Future Telescopes Today, NASAs budget will not be able to cover telescopes with cost running over in the trillions just in maintaining a lunar outpost. Being able to justify the cost of an improved telescope, while keeping it in the Unites States budget, will require filling the medium between the LEO and the Moon. So in filling this medium so instead of building on joint task telescope, NASA should implement a variety of telescopes at all of the Lagrange points. Lagrange points are The Lagrangian points (also Lagrange points, L-points, or libration points), the five positions in an orbital configuration where a small object affected only by gravity can theoretically be stationary relative to two larger objects (such as a satellite with respect to the Earth and Moon) (Web Definitions). According to Dr. Erickson, he suggested that there are three justified Lagrange points that can be used effectively for telescopes that can be designed for different task. In order to figure out what Lagrange point will fit a given telescope the job the best, you must consider the locations of each point. Furthermore, its important to point out that these Lagrange points follow under what is called the Keplers laws The three laws of planetary motion are briefly described below (Physics Classroom): The path of the planets about the sun is elliptical in shape, with the center of the sun being located at one focus. (The Law of Ellipses) An imaginary line drawn from the center of the sun to the center of the planet will sweep out equal areas in equal intervals of time. (The Law of Equal Areas) The ratio of the squares of the periods of any two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their average distances from the sun. (The Law of Harmonies) With these laws in place, there is a chance of finding a loophole, and thats exactly what the five Lagrange points are. For example, with the L1 point, and given the proper distance of a spacecraft, which is maintained between the earth and the sun so long as it is about a hundredth of the distance to the sun (ESA). The spacecraft will take about one year to go around the Sun. With that, this point can used for monitoring the sun for its in the direct line between the sun and earth. In the interim, L1 is very unstable, so any spacecraft here will require their own rocket engines. Though, its a useful point for observing the sun (Dr. Erickson), the antennas which track it from Earth are also aimed at the Sun, which causes the disruptions with radio waves. Corrections are needed regularly (ESA). So the research will be limited to the sun. The next useful point will be Lagrange point 2. This point is located roughly around 1.5 million kilometers behind the earth (as viewed from the sun). To give a physical reference, it is estimated to be about four times the distance of the moon and earth (Figure 7). Figure 7: Lagrange Point 1 http://www.unexplainable.net/brainbox/uploads/1/21.jpg According to Dr. Erickson, this point will be the best for observing the larger universe which is observing deep space. The telescope would be free from the earths shadow, which distorts the observing views of the telescope mostly from the heat changes (correlation between day and night) (ESA). Most importantly, this point will be more stable than L1 and provide a more stable viewpoint. Figure 8: Lagrange Point 2 (Scientific Web) http://www.scientific-web.com/en/Astronomy/CelestialMechanics/images/LagrangePoints03.jpg Furthermore, L3 Lagrange point is the best for observing the galaxy according to Dr. Erickson. This Lagrange point lies behind the Sun, and any objects which may be orbiting there cannot be seen from Earth. The orbiting speed would equal earth and place the telescope just outside the orbital period of earth and as well the telescope would be on the opposite side of the sun which would block out sun light pollution (ESA). The reason Lagrange point 4 and 5 could not be used is mostly because of debris. Debris gathers at these locations interferes with the stability of these points as well as the resistance to gravitational perturbations lets objects such as small asteroids and a lot of dust to gather around these locations (ESA). In recognizing the best locations for future telescopes, it is important to understand the future designs for each task that the telescope will be fulfilling beyond all telescopes land based or present space telescopes. Scientists must find the medium of fulfilling both areas of the given mission. Finding the balance between fixed orbit positions within any lagrange points is not rounding off to what scientists think is the closest position for the fix in orbit, but rather being precise within feet of accuracy. These loopholes are very temperamental. That one of the major flaws with dealing with fixed orbits beyond human control. Gravity, like anything else in space, either works strongly in the favor of positive results for research as well as negative outcomes. The success of the mission for the space telescope will be greatly affected by where the telescope is located. Scientists will be faced with the greatest challenge of placing these telescopes not just in these point orbits b ut maintaining these telescopes in the point orbits. Conclusions While it may seem like a simple history lesson about Galileo and Newton but if it wasnt for their influence in the science community, society would not be where it is now in regards to space exploration. From Galileo to Hubble, much of the tools that helped Newton are still helping us today with telescopes. From retaining the laws of Kepler, to the Lagrange points, everything used in NASA has something to represent scientist of the 16th century today. Only a few settings are ideal for space telescopes. The best telescope design will resemble the Hubble. Like Galileo to Newton, the telescope of tomorrow will be perfected and increased in size and complexity as scientists learn from past mistakes. The James Webb telescope will be the next generation, but even though it is the most modern telescope, scientists are still looking beyond the Webb on what and where to place the next telescope. The future of telescopes will be satellite based on Lagrange points 1, 2 and 3. With a given purpose for each point, the observation will be different from one another; this will open up a variety of experiments for NASA. The best place to observe the Sun will be at Lagrange point 1, for it is in the direct line between the Sun and the Earth. Though it falls in the criteria of being in a loop hole, being a fix orbit is exactly what a satellite telescope needs. It will require some rocket power to maintain its position in orbit. Given the circumstances of it position, it will only be able to observe the Sun, which scientist are still learning about today. With the only flaw of this point being the radio interference because of the Sun, there is still much to learn from the L1 point that a telescope will be an asset to better this research. The next best position for future telescopes would be L2, as it is an ideal place to observe the larger Universe, which is observing deep space. The reason for this is because the telescope would be free of the Earths shadow. This is very important when it come to exploring space in the means of using a telescope. Every astronomer knows that light is a major influence on telescope imagery. Light is what creates an imbalance in heat in space. Out of all the Lagrange points, L2 is the best. It is the most stable of the three points and it can increase the distance we can explore into deep sp

Organizational Behavior Trends Essay -- Human Resources

Organizational Behavior Trends Outline: 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Definition of OB and related terminologies. 2.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Role of decision making in OB environments. 3.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Conflicts involved in decision making processes in organizations. 4.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Rifts between managerial level staff and operations level workforce. 5.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Stakeholders in decision making in a corporate hierarchy. 6.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Self-inflicted ethical dilemmas and differences, causes for it. 7.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Values and goals affecting causing ethical dilemmas in OB 8.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Globalization and its strategic alliances. 9.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Impact of technological advancements in organizational environments. 10.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Techno stress and other stress factors in organizational environments. 11.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Survey results of organizational stress and prevalence. 12.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Pros and cons of stress factors. 13.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Resources Abstract:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This paper will provide a basic description and evaluation of the trends in Organizational Behavior (OB). It then goes on to expound on the influence of ethical behavior on decision making in an organization and its prevalence in modern day corporate environment. It also explores the ethical area of Organizational Behavior and how it can cause friction in the organization stemming from personal and career oriented causes. The final parts of this thesis speak about work stress and technological aspects of OB. Firstly one must know what OB is. It’s an interdisciplinary field of study and practice, investigating the impact of individuals, groups, structure and environment on behavior within organizations. The primary concern of OB is with people, what they do and how their behavior affects individual, group and organizational performance. Life is full of decisions. Each day, people are faced with different problems requiring answers and solutions. Decision making is the process of defining problems and choosing a course of action from among alternatives. Decision making at best is a challenge for employees in general and managers in particular. For example, many decisions management faces turn out to be ethical decisions or have ethical implications or consequences. Once we leave the realm of relatively ethical-free decisions (such as which production method to use for a particular product), decisions quickly become complex, and many carry with them an ethical dimension. Decision making in itself is not a simple p... ...t" or "a great deal." This survey also revealed that most workers make a direct connection between workplace stress and accidents or illnesses. The majority of those surveyed agreed that stress is a leading cause of accidents and mistakes in the workplace (78%), and that people who experience a great deal of stress have higher absenteeism (76%). Workers also believe that high levels of stress cause or exacerbate illnesses. The majority of people surveyed (74%), also agrees that three-fourths of all illnesses seen in medical practices are caused or made worse by stress. Despite the negative effects of stress, which range from on-the-job accidents to adverse impact on personal lives, nearly two thirds (63%) of all workers feel there is nothing that can be done about stress which it's something people have to get used to. Bibliography 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ronald R. Sims - Ethics and Organizational Decision Making: A Call for Renewal. Quorum Books - Westport, CT, 1994. 2.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ronald R. Sims - Managing Organizational Behavior. Quorum Books: Westport, CT, 2002. 3.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  http://www.doit.wisc.edu/news/story.asp?filename=38&print=1 4.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  http://www.kensington.com/html/1393.html

Contrasting Theories on the Extinction of Dinosaurs Essay -- Compare C

So what killed the dinosaurs? Without having any background education in science it is hard for the general public to comprehend such matters and they rely on the knowledge of the scientists in this field. Although there has been much research on the subject nobody has come up with a conclusive answer. And we are left to read the countless articles, all having their own opinions as to the mass extinction. One such theory is that a shift in the solar system could have caused the mass destruction. According to an article published in Nature magazine, â€Å"A bizarre wobble 65 million years ago, perturbing the orbits of Mars, Earth and Mercury, may have caused the demise of the dinosaurs, new models of the Solar System suggest.† The article suggests that an upset could have â€Å"disrupted the trajectories of asteroids-normally safely confined to asteroid belts-sending one or more into the Earth.† This is an easy enough idea for the general public to understand yet it is not stated if they know what caused the upset in the first place. And this is where we depend on the researchers to come up with a way of finding this out. They designed a model that would mimic the Solar System 100 million years ago, â€Å"based on natural variations in planetary orbits, their proximity to the Sun and their gravitational effects on one another.† What they did find was fluctuations in the model dating back 65 million years ago right when the asteroid supposedly hit. Even though it sounds like good solid evidence a lot of scientists are still not sold on the idea and need more convincing. In another article it is suggested that had a meteorite, large enough to cause mass extinction, hit the earth there would have been widespread wildfires wiping out eve... ... lack of information spreading to the general public. In the end we are left with countless more articles to read and decipher. Works Citied: 1. Ball, Philip. â€Å"Roast dinosaur off the menu?† Nature 03 Dec. 2013 Nature News Service/ Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2015 http://www.nature.com/nsu/031201/031201-3.html 2. Clarke, Tom. â€Å"Chaos killed the dinosaurs.† Nature 28 June 2011 Nature News Service/ Macmillan Ltd 2015 http://www.nature.com/nsu/010628/010628-15.html 3. Dalton, Rex. â€Å"Hot tempers, hard core.† Nature 04 Sept. 2013 Nature Publishing Group 2015 http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf?file=/nature/journal/v425/n6953/full/425013a_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions 4. Pearson, Helen. â€Å"Asteroid let dinosaurs rule.† Nature 17 May 2012 Nature News Service/ Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2015 http://www.nature.com/nsu/020513/020513-11.html

Lord of the Flies Essay

1-Ralph calls the assembly and reminds everyone of their agreement to maintain fresh water supplies, observe sanitation measures, build shelters, and keep the signal fire going. He then addresses the growing fear that he knows is beginning to overwhelm many of the boys by opening up the floor for discussion. 2-Jack takes the conch to point out that if a beast were on the island, he would have seen it during his hunting trips 3-.Piggy adds that the field of psychology can be used as a tool to explain logically the experience of fear, thereby invalidating it 4- Simon attempts to explain that the boys themselves, or something inherent in human nature, could be the beast they fear. His unsuccessful explanation leads to talk of ghosts. But the assembly ends chaotically. 5- Ralph ,piggy and simon are left lamenting the orderly adult-dominated lives they had before coming to the island. 6- After the assembly, all the boys go to sleep. Above them an aerial battle is taking place. A casualty of the battle floats down to the island on his opened parachute. The wind drags the body to rest at the top of the mountain. The breeze inflates the parachute occasionally, making the body appear to sit up and then sink forward again.  7- Samneric, tending the fire on the mountain, catch a glimpse of the body’s movement and hear the parachute inflating.  8-They flee to Ralph in a panic with a story exaggerated by their fear. 9-At dawn, Ralph calls an assembly, where they decide to investigate the only spot on the island left unexplored: the castle-like rock formation at one end. Ralph goes first by himself, followed a few minutes later by Jack. After they establish that the beast is not there, the other boys join them in the castle and want to play there a while. They resist when Ralph announces that they need to all go check on the fire, but he forces the issue and Jack leads the way back up to the fire site.

Humane Education Essay

The material devised and discussed briefly by Dr. Chauvin argues primarily on the validity of humane education and the rationale for the possibility of an educator promoting and advocating the concept. It is not something new. Observations concerning infants and people in general who tend to be attracted to animals have become important aspects not only in the educational setting but also specially in the therapeutic set-up and this is probably the main reason that educators are encouraged to implement or even just entertain the idea in the classroom setting. There writer did explain the advantages of having a pet and how teacher or instructor paves the way for the students to imitate him/her in the care, attention and manner of attending to a creature. The article tackled as well the precautions a person or family must bear in mind or understand before embarking on owning or taking care of an animal by primarily providing brief descriptions of the animals least likely to be of help to the animals most likely to possess value of developing â€Å"humaneness† to a person or child. The article posited that certain limitations must be in place where the school setting is concerned once the students and/or teacher decide to own a pet or animal. II. Discuss the pros and cons of animals in the classroom The pros: A child or person has direct physical access to an animal. Vicariously watching what the particular animal may need and how it will be in association or relationship with people or fellow creature itself (Chauvin, p. 21). It allows the opportunity for students to learn what it is like to be responsible and how or manner of learning the skills that are necessary to be able to work and behave with creatures but most especially towards fellow human beings (Chauvin, p. 21). The trait of empathy is an important characteristic for any person to possess. However, while some have this to some degree, many individuals still do not have the trait or has become elusive for them. It usually takes time and effort to be able to learn and adapt the skill of empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel what the other person feels much like putting oneself in the shoes of another (Chauvin, p. 21). The cons: The article or material warns of problems that may be faced by a person or child especially if he/she did not bother to take the time to learn the basics about the project. Moreover, it implies that anyone interested must be prepared for the setbacks or downsides (Chauvin, p. 21). Anyone on this kind of project must appreciate or anticipate the expenses that might be incurred; more of which are unforeseen most of the times (Chauvin, p. 21). III. Why you will or will not have animals in your classroom. It is a very wonderful and amazing idea because it removes boredom and predictability when this is followed. But if I were to decide I would probably have it like a â€Å"show and tell† type rather than having animals left in the classroom. It is indeed costly on effort, time and money/expense. Not only that, the hidden danger of dealing with animals which will not rule out the possibility of attack on the child/individual (Chauvin, p. 21). The â€Å"show and tell† type may be revised to suit the rationale and intentions of this project to encourage students towards becoming more humane or empathetic. This can be done by having the activity done on a regular basis so that students are followed up what they do at home with their pets and do reflections whether something in the attitudes and behavior of the student has changed considerable or not. Importance of â€Å"humane† education is not just a very trivial thing or idea. The project is significant on the matter of coexistence especially that this planet has become one global village as they say. Reference: Chauvin, Wynter. Animals and children