Today is the day of science. Over the past few decades, scientists of all kinds have been debunking centuries old notions of beliefs, tearing them down, and building a new infrastructure based on proven science. One of the biggest notions is that of human nature. What makes us truly us? Is it the way we are nurtured? That was a belief long, and still, used as proof of how we as humans become the people who we are today. However, today is the day of science. Science is finally going for the KO in this fight, proving that your genes determine who you really are, and not the way you were raised. This notion of belief has come under fire, but so has the first insertion that the sun is at the center of our solar system, or the world is actually
…show more content…
An oddity that refutes scientific evidence would be the existence of feral children. In 1920, a little girl was rescued from a wolf den in India (Havliand 121). This girl was described as “wild” and lacked even the most basic personality traits that makes us human. She was not able to walk on two legs or even feed herself (Havliand 121). There have been other reports of feral children as well, for example; there was a reported 10-year old boy found in the Syrian desert in 1946, and a child found in the woods in Paris in the 1800’s (Havliand 120, 121). Nurture enthusiasts claim these children lack these most basic personality traits due to the lack of nurture, and it certainly seems like they are correct. There has been no scientific evidence that supports a link between genetics and feral children. Another example of nurture being an immense factor on human traits is during a woman’s pregnancy. Pregnant mothers can nurture their children when they are still inside the womb, usually this is a bad thing. For instance, if a mother was to drink copious amounts of alcohol and smoke cigarettes, their child will most likely come out with extreme mental and or physical damage. Even science cannot prove that 100% of a human’s personality are contributed by genes. Naturists even state that extreme …show more content…
This new theory proposed that there was just not one intelligence people could be inclined in, but rather 8 different intelligences (Hock 102). These intelligences are as follows; linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturist. One with a high linguistic intelligence would be well versed in word phrasing, word usage, and know many word’s meanings. Logical-mathematically intelligent people would have immense knowledge of numbers, quantities and casual relationships. Musically intelligent people would have an inclination in the ability to write and perform musical acts and be able to have complete control over pitch, rhythm, and timbre. Spatial intelligent people would have increased visualizations of images. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligent people would have complete control over one’s body, and is able to perform feats of bodily movement. Interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligent people would have awareness of other’s feelings, emotions, and goals, and awareness of one’s own feelings, emotions and goals respectively. A naturist has advanced recognition skills in relation to the classification of objects in the world (Hock 102, 103). What this all means is that people who are extremely advanced in one of these intelligences must have had a
An oddity that refutes scientific evidence would be the existence of feral children. In 1920, a little girl was rescued from a wolf den in India (Havliand 121). This girl was described as “wild” and lacked even the most basic personality traits that makes us human. She was not able to walk on two legs or even feed herself (Havliand 121). There have been other reports of feral children as well, for example; there was a reported 10-year old boy found in the Syrian desert in 1946, and a child found in the woods in Paris in the 1800’s (Havliand 120, 121). Nurture enthusiasts claim these children lack these most basic personality traits due to the lack of nurture, and it certainly seems like they are correct. There has been no scientific evidence that supports a link between genetics and feral children. Another example of nurture being an immense factor on human traits is during a woman’s pregnancy. Pregnant mothers can nurture their children when they are still inside the womb, usually this is a bad thing. For instance, if a mother was to drink copious amounts of alcohol and smoke cigarettes, their child will most likely come out with extreme mental and or physical damage. Even science cannot prove that 100% of a human’s personality are contributed by genes. Naturists even state that extreme …show more content…
This new theory proposed that there was just not one intelligence people could be inclined in, but rather 8 different intelligences (Hock 102). These intelligences are as follows; linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturist. One with a high linguistic intelligence would be well versed in word phrasing, word usage, and know many word’s meanings. Logical-mathematically intelligent people would have immense knowledge of numbers, quantities and casual relationships. Musically intelligent people would have an inclination in the ability to write and perform musical acts and be able to have complete control over pitch, rhythm, and timbre. Spatial intelligent people would have increased visualizations of images. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligent people would have complete control over one’s body, and is able to perform feats of bodily movement. Interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligent people would have awareness of other’s feelings, emotions, and goals, and awareness of one’s own feelings, emotions and goals respectively. A naturist has advanced recognition skills in relation to the classification of objects in the world (Hock 102, 103). What this all means is that people who are extremely advanced in one of these intelligences must have had a