Focus Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 9

Focus - Essay Example Organization The introduction of the essay is eye catching to the reader as the author makes a sounding impact with the first statement. Clearly, the reader can tell the intentions of the author from the introductory statement. As Regal introduces his essay, â€Å"For most of recorded history, the half-man, half-wolf lycanthrope reigned supreme as the creature travellers most feared encountering in the woods and along dark roads at night† (Regal 1). The statement points out to the reader that the topic in discussion is in the past. Though he is referring to these creatures at present, they are part of history which he talks about. The body explains the major points covering the topic of discussion to support his reasoning. Adequately, he explores the possibilities that could have led to the vanishing status of these creatures from the earth. In a candid way, Regal articulates historical and scientific possibilities that could have been the resultant factors to this condition. Conclusively, he has pulled all the major points together to summarize his work. In the conclusion part of the essay, the writer manages to conclude that Darwin’s theory of evolution could have been the biggest contributing factor to the loss of these creatures from the world. However, he fails to incorporate the historical beliefs ideologies to the conclusion part despite having focused on them in the body of the paper. Despite this though, the main points in the body of the paper have not been repeated but highlighted to give a summary. Support In the essay, the use of the Darwin theory backs the author’s ideas and opinions, making his arguments concrete and real. The assumption that a number of factors could have caused the loss of the werewolves in the world... In the past, people created all sorts of pictures and images for different reasons. The author has backed on this historical information and stories by the people of this time to draw a conclusion that these creatures actually existed. However, any type of information could have cropped up as a result of beliefs and practices by different people and societies. Regal (2) claims that these creatures were believed to have been as a result of witchcraft and black magic. This cannot scientifically be proven especially in a world that relies on science and evidence to prove various events and occurrences as well as phenomena. The author chose to take the claims of the people who existed in these times, legends and the film creativity as a fact, therefore drawing the conclusion that these creatures were in existence. Personally, I feel that this was a wrong move, as history can hardly prove that these creatures ever existed. Any form of scientific evidence to prove that these creatures ever existed could have given the author solid bargaining grounds. However, the use of a scientific theory successfully proves that somehow these creatures were in existence and vanished through the evolution process. According to Regal (5), the same forces of nature that led to the extinction of creatures like dinosaurs were responsible for the extinction of the Werewolves. In the essay, the author believes that these creatures were in existence in the world, and were a menace to the people especially the travelers.

How can theories of the social construction of technology (SCOT) help Essay

How can theories of the social construction of technology (SCOT) help inform the innovation processes by which novel technologie - Essay Example And, dialectically speaking advancements in one become the development of the other. It could happen in the other way around too; regressive societies could not only hinder technological reconstruction but also gave birth to regressive technologies as happened in Fascist Germany. The paper intends to analyze the complex paradigm in which social construction of technology and innovation and creativity in technological development go hand in hand. Social Construction of Technology, Innovation and Smart Technology Social reality must be identified as inherently pluralist. Berger and Luckmann note that â€Å"pluralism encourages both skepticism and innovation and is thus inherently subversive of the taken-for-granted reality of the traditional status quo. One can readily sympathize with the experts in the traditional definitions of reality when they think back nostalgically to the times when these definitions had a monopoly† (Berger and Luckmann, 1966, p. 115). Social construction of technology changes according to the nature of the prevailing paradigms of knowledge production. According to Thomas Kuhn, scientific development is no miraculous leaps by great scientists because â€Å"a new theory, however special its range of application, is seldom or never just an increment to what is already known. Its assimilation requires the reconstruction of prior theory and the re-evaluation of prior fact, an intrinsically revolutionary process that is seldom completed by a single man and never overnight† (1996, p.7). Certainly, many great technological interventions are known with name of individual scientists. However, every scientists work within a paradigm which is collectively constructed. Therefore, it is possible to argue that technologies are socially constructed. For instance, computer logarithms are the product of late capitalism but it would not have been possible without the ancient Indian invention of zero. Here, it is important to remember that scie nce is not supreme or infallible. Science and technology are necessarily social constructs and social products. Moreover, â€Å"science emerges as very human and – by necessity – constrained enterprise, even if its findings are subsequently presented as canonical† (Irwin, 1995, p.49). The terminology and language related to the technological discourses are crucial for understanding the social construction of technology. Therefore, Berger and Luckmann argue that â€Å"the common objectivations of everyday life are maintained primarily by linguistic signification. Everyday life is, above all, life with and by means of the language I share with my fellowmen. An understanding of language is thus essential for any understanding of the reality of everyday life† (1966, p.37). Language plays a major role in the social construction of technology as technology is a cultural product too. And, technology, on the other hand, changes language. For instance, social netw orking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have caused a metamorphosis in the way people use English language. Social construction of technology challenges the monopolistic claims by science and scientific community on the production of technologies. Non-deterministic â€Å"accounts of artifacts and technologies show that scientific knowledge plays little direct role in the development of even many state of the art technologies. Historians and other theorists have argued that there are