October 3, 2006; Hw #1 Reading Reflection
To begin, I really wasn't enthused about reading the Nazi atrocities of World War II; however, with all emotion [pathos] aside, the author of our text does present the issues of science and technology [more of a pseudo-science, in the specific instance of the Nazi regime] in a logical manner despite the fact of how incredibly horrible this subject is.
The Nazi doctors submerged themselves into believing these 'experiments' were for the good of the Aryan nation, to avoid 'awareness of, and guilt over their partication in a murderous project." {see page 92 of "Ethics in Technical Communication}
Under Nazi Anti science {pages 92-95}--
some explanations, on a societal level--
racism;
conformity to the government;
on a personal level--
sadism/cruelty;
revenge [some individuals believe they were 'slighted' because of their unethical beliefs and/or behavoir]
A number of ethicists, such as Ellul, Winner, Marx, Monsma, Weaver all are concerned about how science and technology are seemingly indifferent to traditional values.
Treating humans as objects (objectivization) as opposed to human beings that are equal to the researcher, is simply dangerous, and can lead into the same situation as Germany had in WWII, with the Nazis.
In the regard to this course, [Tech. Writing] I do see the need of those that are [and will be] technical writers to be balanced in their writing, meaning, not so heavy on the tech side, but also not "mushy" [sentimental/emotional]. With all things, a balance.
2 comments:
Very interesting reflection. I liked how you made a list of some of the explanations on a societal and personal level. That was a really good idea. I agree with you about not really being enthusiastic about reading this chapter. For myself, it was kind of hard to get started. However, the author did do a good job of being mostly unbiased. I hope that after I get my degree, I can be one of those technical writers who are balanced in their writing. :) Nice job! I really enjoyed reading it.
I think that it's very important that researchers don't forget that their human test subjects are real people too. Another problem was that they used pseudo-science for the purpose of justifying their actions instead of using real science first and basing decisions off the results.
Post a Comment