The Golem: What You Should Know About Science

Reading the Golem was really challenging and enthusiastic, mainly at the thorough, and, for the most part, lucid and relevant approach they look at real situations and cases as the principal content of the Golem. The book is simple and straightforward, addressed for the citizen living in a technological society, and the writing is generally clear, concise and to the point. The Golem addresses the idea of how scientist and sociologist do it, and debate within each other in descriptive and normality, in other words, controversial science. It consisted of (7) seven controversial cases of experimental science on the frontier of research and aims to solve the problem of how to present science to the citizen living in such a way that one will understand the frontier research sufficiently well to make intelligent decisions on science policy (Nickles, 1993). In addition to that, I would say that the key to understanding all of their work is their sensitivity to time.

I found that the first chapter of the book, about edible knowledge is fascinating and interesting. The chemical transfer of memory in worms and rats, requires an extensive comfort and expertise, or in a better way, skill. Other than the worm example, it came across my mind about article I read about the brain transplantation in Salamanders, a similar approach to memory transfer by Pietsch & Schneider (1969) where brain transplantation was employed as an approach to the question of memory transfer. They trained amblystoma larvae in a light shock escape avoidance paradigm, and obviously, found no evidence for memory transfer in the studies. Indeed, the criteria we employed did not satisfy what seems, in retrospect, to be a minimal condition for judging memory, namely a paradigm where hosts would have required no training. And perhaps 'sensitization' might be a convenient and simple way of dismissing the entire issue at hand. Nevertheless, I would agree with Collins and Pinch argument about memory science of this kind was never quite disproved so much as we lost a lot of attention and interest on it due to a number of factors. One of which was the discovery of a new form of brain peptide research that had more easily measurable and easily agreed about effects.

In chapter 2, in addressing to the question on page 107,