In “On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense” Nietzsche sets out to show that humans have developed our own senses of truth and formation of concept, which are mere lies. He says it starts with a stimulus that creates an image metaphor, which leads to a sound metaphor, which creates language. In Ignorance: How It Drives Science, Stuart Firestein’s explains that knowledge does not come after ignorance, it is the other way around. Nietzsche asserts that there is no thing as absolute truth. To him, all thinking and perception comes from a particular perspective, and every perspective produces a different view of truth. Firestein argues that in science, knowledge enables scientists to propose and pursue the interesting questions. The pursuit should
…show more content…
When he discovered this problem, his relationship with Syngenta, one of the largest agribusinesses in the world, ended three years after they asked him to research atrazine. After Hayes’ relationship with Syngenta ended he continued studying atrazine on his own, and was convinced that Syngenta representatives were following him. Tyrone Hayes’ findings are especially valuable because his research exposed a company that set out to destroy his work reputation to discredit his work. Hayes responded by publicly campaigning against Atrazine and Syngenta, with presentations at conferences and seminars. Over the course of Hayes’ research, he wanted to know more about atrazine. Once he left Syngenta to carry out the research on his own, he was acting on presupposed knowledge and believed that there would be a black cat in the dark room. Syngenta foresaw that through Hayes’ research and experimentation, he would become a whistleblower on the company and discredit them. They knew the type of research he would do and had to prevent it from damaging profits. Interestingly enough, Aviv does not discuss how much more knowledge about Atrazine Hayes discovered after leaving Syngenta when he carried the research out on his own. The article mainly focused on Hayes’ dealings with the Syngenta and how he carried out his …show more content…
The rest of the experiments, by Hayes and researchers at two other universities, indicated the opposite” (Aviv). In this case there was more than one evaluation and there are more studies that disprove Hayes’ theories than those that prove it; however, it should be noted that the opposite party funded them. All of Hayes’ studies indicated that atrazine impeded frogs sexual development. The E.P.A looked more specifically into the experiments and found methodological flaws in each experiment, and later approved the “continued use of atrazine the same month the European commission removed it from the office” (Aviv). Comparing the E.P.A decision to the European commission, we see the latter minimizing the importance of truth and fact, and the former using truth and fact as a basis of their argument. The European commission is taking a standpoint of avoiding any possible risk, but there is no evidence supporting their claim. The E.P.A is using the fact that there were methodological flaws in all the experiments, deeming all findings invalid. In literary terms atrazine is innocent until proven guilty, where Europe is branding atrazine as guilty until proven
When he discovered this problem, his relationship with Syngenta, one of the largest agribusinesses in the world, ended three years after they asked him to research atrazine. After Hayes’ relationship with Syngenta ended he continued studying atrazine on his own, and was convinced that Syngenta representatives were following him. Tyrone Hayes’ findings are especially valuable because his research exposed a company that set out to destroy his work reputation to discredit his work. Hayes responded by publicly campaigning against Atrazine and Syngenta, with presentations at conferences and seminars. Over the course of Hayes’ research, he wanted to know more about atrazine. Once he left Syngenta to carry out the research on his own, he was acting on presupposed knowledge and believed that there would be a black cat in the dark room. Syngenta foresaw that through Hayes’ research and experimentation, he would become a whistleblower on the company and discredit them. They knew the type of research he would do and had to prevent it from damaging profits. Interestingly enough, Aviv does not discuss how much more knowledge about Atrazine Hayes discovered after leaving Syngenta when he carried the research out on his own. The article mainly focused on Hayes’ dealings with the Syngenta and how he carried out his …show more content…
The rest of the experiments, by Hayes and researchers at two other universities, indicated the opposite” (Aviv). In this case there was more than one evaluation and there are more studies that disprove Hayes’ theories than those that prove it; however, it should be noted that the opposite party funded them. All of Hayes’ studies indicated that atrazine impeded frogs sexual development. The E.P.A looked more specifically into the experiments and found methodological flaws in each experiment, and later approved the “continued use of atrazine the same month the European commission removed it from the office” (Aviv). Comparing the E.P.A decision to the European commission, we see the latter minimizing the importance of truth and fact, and the former using truth and fact as a basis of their argument. The European commission is taking a standpoint of avoiding any possible risk, but there is no evidence supporting their claim. The E.P.A is using the fact that there were methodological flaws in all the experiments, deeming all findings invalid. In literary terms atrazine is innocent until proven guilty, where Europe is branding atrazine as guilty until proven