Mind Museum Reaction Paper

Labrador, Ana Micaela

2011–02178

I was never seriously interested in Science. I did have my fleeting moments of wonder, as did every kid when it came to certain phenomenon, such as the mysterious appearances of rainbows, fire, the color of the sea; still, I didn’t grow up wanting to pursue such wonders and just took things at face value. I didn’t understand why things happened; I simply accepted that they did, and that was that. As I grew older, I only drew myself away from the prospect of taking an interest in Science. The daunting terminologies, combined with the complicated anatomical illustrations, deterred me from showing a more forward interest in the subject; I simply didn’t feel smart enough for such pursuits.

When representatives from the Mind Museum came to our STS class for a demonstration, I expected to be bored, bombarded with lengthy terms as if I were back in my Biology 1 classroom, trying to make sense of scientific names that I would surely forget as soon as we turned in our final exams. However, I was pleasantly surprised when these representatives, or ‘Mind Movers,’ as they called themselves, were able to hold my attention throughout the entire demonstration. What amazed me even more was that I didn’t find myself bored; on the contrary, I was rather drawn into the presentation.

What was great about the demonstration was that at the beginning, they made it clear that terminologies weren’t the sole importance of Science. Sure, it was good to know what certain processes and events were called – one cannot avoid such professionalism, after all – but they made it a point to emphasize that Science wasn’t reliant on sheer memorization of such words. What was important is that you understood what was going on. This direct, forward explanation at the beginning of the presentation made me feel more open to what other things they had to share with us.

As the presentation continued, they showed us a series of experiments that involved fire; I appreciated their choice of experiments, because it made me feel like a kid again – drawn to flashy, showy things. Never mind those images I’ve associated with scientists all these years of pouring different colored liquids into various glass tubes over and over again; the explosive effects of the fire were definitely more successful in capturing my interest, and at the end of the demonstrations, I found myself clapping and smiling in awe along with the rest of the audience.

I also appreciated how they showed us ways in which the body can be used to demonstrate the presence of Science all around us. It is a fact that the Philippines is not very immersed in Science, partly because of lack of equipment and tools. Such use of the body is a good and interesting way to learn, especially for kids, who are usually more physically oriented when it comes to learning activities.

I am glad that Mind Museum was able to somewhat transport me back to my childhood, in which I did not feel so much the ‘threat’ of Science, and was, instead, enthralled by it. The folks of Mind Museum did a great job in reigniting my bewilderment in Science once again. 

The Bride of Frankenstein

1. 1. How does Frankenstein the book and the film reflect upon the role of morality and science?

I think that the book and film about Frankenstein was trying to convey how science was able to play 'God' during the time of this movie. As we all know, at that time, religion was what's dominant, and as to Science, well, it is not as advanced as the Science we have today, so developments like creating a creature is revolutionary. Since that time, religion is the basis on whatever happens in the world, being able to dig that deep in science and being able to create 'life' can be regarded as immoral. This is because that time, their belief is that only God can create life and no one else, not just a mere human being can.

2. The difference between the movie adaptation of the monster and in the book is that the monster was able to carry a decent conversation. Why was the monster made dumb? Did it work?

I think the reason why Frankenstein was not able to create decent conversations is to demonstrate that Frankenstein was just a creation of a person. It's like showing that the creation is still inferior to the creator. Just like how religion states that God created us. And He is perfect, and his creations are not the same level as He is. He is God. And we are just his creations

Palaroan, Graciel M.
2013-60784

The Bride of Frankenstein Reaction Paper

Labrador, Ana Micaela

2011-02178

1.     How does Frankenstein the book and film reflect upon the role of morality and science?

Frankenstein is a good example of how the progression of science may sometimes aid in debunking traditional beliefs that have been deeply engrained in the minds of society. In this case, the time of Frankenstein had no absolute concept of any technology that could create and sustain life, and so the phenomenon of existence was mostly explained through religion. Both the book and film challenged this notion of religion and the notion of a ‘god,’ saying that mankind is his own creator. This goes against a lot of moral religious beliefs concerned with how only a ‘god’ is capable of creating life; it presents man as capable of altering nature, and, consequentially, altering society’s way of thinking.

2.     The difference between the movie adaptation of the monster and the book is that the monster was able to carry a decent conversation. Why was the monster made dumb? Did it work?

I believe the monster was made dumb to demonstrate how, ultimately, man is in charge of whatever he creates. For example, consider a mother raising a newborn child. The child cannot speak, and so the Mother must act as ‘God’ to the child, showing the child how to behave and act in hopes that the child will imitate. The child is technically less superior, dumber, and thus has the potential to be ‘molded’ in a way that the mother sees fit. The concept is similar in the case of Frankenstein’s monster. Once again, ideas of the concepts of morality versus science come into play: if man is his own creator, is it then acceptable to treat his creations as ‘lesser’? After all, Frankenstein’s creation was his own downfall, despite him being the ‘superior’. Making the monster dumb was an effective way to prove this point.

The Rhetoric of Cancer

In BBC’s 24^th of November podcast documentary entitled The Rhetoric of Cancer, Andrew Graystone, through quick narrations and comprehensive interviews, narrates on a conquest to find a new language that could be used to describe his journey with cancer. This language is what he hopes to share to those who have gone to the same experience as he did.

I believe that sensationalizing cancer will not do any good to the patients (but neither will it harm them), just as the disabled prefer being treated like any ordinary person. Helping them acquire a sense of belonging is through imposing that cancer does not build a barrier between normalcy and strangeness. There are alternative methods in committing recognition of their victory in the struggle.

In general, I agree with the statement that the immensity of looking at cancer as something that should be fought off is more worthwhile than as an inevitable part of the body. The speaker justifies his belief that patients should learn to live alongside cancer by linking the act of repelling it to declaring civil war with the body. However, as stated, not all types of cancer can be skilfully managed; there are victims whose lives depended on whether the repulsion of the disease becomes a success. There is no point in creating campaigns about combating the disease if the mindset advocated is “learn to live alongside cancer.” What I presume to be wrong here is that people look at it as if it is a war when in fact, you can drive off this disease of the genes without instituting the concept of warfare. Think of the cells not as a team working to conquer the body; the person owns them, he is in control, he has the upper hand, he has the weapon. In reality cancer may seem or really is an enemy that cannot be overcome, but I believe that that psychology will strengthen their will. Battling cancer is battling death for many so it simply frightens me that it should be compared merely to a body part that someone hates.

In fairness to the totality of the podcast though, the talk about the cells having virtual switches was beautifully delivered. Cancer is definitely abstract thus it is something we can never fully understand, but placing it in a context such as it becomes part of a system a person can have control over, it is like shining an unprecedented light on familiar things.

Apple Czarline C. Cruel

2013-59992

Bride of Frankenstein Reaction Paper

1. How does Frankenstein the book and the film reflect upon the role of morality and science?

          I guess that the book and the film were trying to articulate that we cannot take on the role of God. From all the advances in technology and miraculous discoveries and investigations in science, the implications of experiments and creations must be thoroughly investigated. I think this is the point Frankenstein's author, Mary Shelley, is making. For instance, we are facing the same problem today with GMOs (genetically modified organisms), stem-cell therapy, etc. All have a great potential to help humanity but also carry a dark side.

2. The difference between the movie adaptation of the monster and in the book is that the monster was able to carry a decent conversation. Why was the monster made dumb? Did it work?

          In the film, the monster was not able to carry a decent conversation. I guess that the monster was created to be dumb to show that he was different and he was just merely a result of a scientific experiment. It only shows the dominance of human over a piece of experiment. Thus, there is a fine line between God's creation and man-made creation. Again, morality and science are lifted up.

Marquez, John Michael C.

2013-19628

REACTION PAPER (No. 6): Bride of Frankenstein

Thea Selina G. Morales

2013-59204 

1. How does Frankenstein the book and the film reflect upon the role of morality and science?

                I think that Frankenstein exemplifies the significance of the balance between morality and science.  A fine line must be drawn between the two.  As you can see in the film, going beyond the means of nature or messing with the natural cycle of Mother Nature has its consequences.  I must say that defining a line between morality and science is difficult.  With the continuous advancements in the field of science, sometimes it is hard to say whether these improvements are to be considered as mere developments or already crossing the line in the sense that it yields negative effect in our society.

2. The difference between the movie adaptation of the monster and in the book is that the monster was able to carry a decent conversation. Why was the monster made dumb?  Did it work?

                For me, the disability to carry a decent conversation makes it clear to the audience that the monster strays from what we consider to be the norm.  I think that the monster being dumb symbolizes the superiority of the human being against something that is merely a result of science experimentations.  With this being said, the concept of morality vs. science is also raised.  Frankenstein possessing this characteristic is effective in pointing out that crossing the line towards immorality has its defects.  

The Bride of Frankenstein: Reaction Paper

1. How does Frankenstein the book and the film reflect upon the role of morality and science.?

Both versions of Frankenstein essentially serve as cautionary tales, depicting the risks of delving too deep into the mysteries of life. Like The Fly, Frankenstein was produced at an era in which science was beginning to develop at increasingly astounding rates. Society generally feared that science was moving too fast, that the power it granted humanity was to some extent affecting the way we viewed our traditional values and mindsets. Frankenstein can thus be perceived as an attack against the most extreme forms of scientific arrogance and hubris which might threaten to ruin the fabric of society.

2.  2. The difference between the movie adaptation of the monster and in the book is that the monster was able to carry a decent conversation. Why was the monster made dumb?  Did it work?

What I find interesting about the movie adaptation is not just that the monster is dumb, but that throughout the movie it begins to learn some manner of speech. This creates a sense within the audience that the life created within the monster is one that, while imperfect, has the potential for growth and development. This makes the monster almost child-like in our eyes, and incites our pity, especially when it cannot communicate its usually harmless intentions. Of course, the monster's lack of speech also dehumanizes it to an extent,  making it less relatable and more intimidating to the audience. On these levels, the change from the book was an incredibly effective one.

Marco Del Valle
2013-20474