assignment 1 The idea of living in a country where “all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence” seems unreal for me. However this idea does not seems so crazy for Neil deGrasse Tyson, who believes this idea could work in a country. But could it really work?                 The ‘Rationalia’ proposal is about that every idea need to be based on something. It means everything has to follow a process which is gathering data, observation, experimenting and having a conclusion. For a policy to get approved it needs to have the weight of evidence to support it, if it does not have it, then it will not get approve. I found it very interesting how white supremacy supported African slavery and how there was an effort to restricted the reproduction of other races. I feel like this would turn into a chaotic country because there are so many things that science cannot explain, scientist have theories only. Like most of the ancient civilization that had big constructions, ex: The Incas in Peru, there is no explanation for how the Machu Picchu ruins were constructed, or like the Pyramids in Egypt. As the scientist keep researching, new theories originate and no conclusion is made.                 I do not think religion has all the answers also. Why were women not able to touch their husbands or feed their animals while menstruating? Why a women would be considered contaminated or not pure base on something as normal as menstruation. Or the idea of it is okay for men to have multiple wives but it was not okay for women to get married twice? I do believe that there is a God, but the idea of the men been superior in both science and religion makes me feel frustrated as a woman. It would be very difficult for a country to be ruled by science or by God only. I feel that there should always be a balance between science and religion, even though both want to compete with each other and have the ultimate opinion. There are somethings that I disagree with both of them.  There is no need to keep fighting against each other, even the pope supported the scientific view of evolution, and as the article “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” by Stephen Jay Gould said “The Catholic Church had never opposed evolution and had no reason to do so”.  For some people like me, science and religion go together. assigment 2 In the first reading “Reflections on Rationalia” by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Tyson discusses an idea of developing a virtual world in which all its policies have to be founded based on evidence, meaning that the state would be undergoing constant research, forming a foundation for its government and how its citizens should think. Within the proposal for the new state, Tyson says that a great amount of funding will be given to the continued study of the human sciences, along with extensive training for the young to learn how to obtain, analyze and gather conclusions on data, and citizens would have the freedom to be irrational, simply no policies will be made with.

1. assignment 1
The idea of living in a country where “all policy shall be based
on the weight of evidence” seems unreal for me. However this
idea does not seems so crazy for Neil deGrasse Tyson, who
believes this idea could work in a country. But could it really
work?
The ‘Rationalia’ proposal is about that every idea
need to be based on something. It means everything has to
follow a process which is gathering data, observation,
experimenting and having a conclusion. For a policy to get
approved it needs to have the weight of evidence to support it,
if it does not have it, then it will not get approve. I found it
very interesting how white supremacy supported African slavery
and how there was an effort to restricted the reproduction of
other races. I feel like this would turn into a chaotic country
because there are so many things that science cannot explain,
scientist have theories only. Like most of the ancient
civilization that had big constructions, ex: The Incas in Peru,
there is no explanation for how the Machu Picchu ruins were
constructed, or like the Pyramids in Egypt. As the scientist keep
researching, new theories originate and no conclusion is made.
I do not think religion has all the answers also. Why
were women not able to touch their husbands or feed their
animals while menstruating? Why a women would be considered
contaminated or not pure base on something as normal as
menstruation. Or the idea of it is okay for men to have multiple
wives but it was not okay for women to get married twice? I do
believe that there is a God, but the idea of the men been
superior in both science and religion makes me feel frustrated
as a woman. It would be very difficult for a country to be ruled
by science or by God only. I feel that there should always be a
balance between science and religion, even though both want to
compete with each other and have the ultimate opinion. There
are somethings that I disagree with both of them. There is no

2. need to keep fighting against each other, even the pope
supported the scientific view of evolution, and as the article
“Nonoverlapping Magisteria” by Stephen Jay Gould said “The
Catholic Church had never opposed evolution and had no reason
to do so”. For some people like me, science and religion go
together.
assigment 2
In the first reading “Reflections on Rationalia” by Neil
deGrasse Tyson, Tyson discusses an idea of developing a virtual
world in which all its policies have to be founded based on
evidence, meaning that the state would be undergoing constant
research, forming a foundation for its government and how its
citizens should think. Within the proposal for the new state,
Tyson says that a great amount of funding will be given to the
continued study of the human sciences, along with extensive
training for the young to learn how to obtain, analyze and
gather conclusions on data, and citizens would have the freedom
to be irrational, simply no policies will be made without
convincing evidence. He also mentions that anything can be
proposed for policy as long as there is research done to prove or
deny the claims leading to the policy. Interestingly, citizens
would feel the need to “pity newscasters” for reporting any
“opinions as fact” and there would be a freedom of religion,
however, it would have little influence on policy without proof,
and citizens would be responsible for developing an office of
morality.
The second reading is a critique of Tyson’s elaborated
idea by Jeffrey Guhin, who disagrees with Tyson and called the
concept of Rationalia a “stupid idea”. In his piece he discusses
that people believe science was expected to do more than teach
about how life is, and claims that experts usually get things
wrong due to overconfidence, and that being human leads them
to make mistakes just like ordinary people. He strongly believes
that “science has no business telling people how to live their

3. lives”, and that evidence from past theories and experiments
shows us to be skeptical and cautious of trusting science as a
way of life. He notes that people generally like science, and
those who are religious only choose to deny specific claims that
conflict with church doctrine. Towards the end of the piece he
says “Science may give us data, but that doesn’t mean that data
points to truth- it just means that’s what we currently
understand as truth” and closes by noting that Tyson admitted
that Guhin’s field of sociology is harder than his own field of
physics, and uses that as a challenge to how Tyson can give
advice on a topic he knows little about.
The third reading talks about the issue of creationism,
which according to the author, Stephen Jay Gould, is a belief
carried by American Protestants who consider every world in
the holy bible to be true. Gould was having a discussion in the
Vacation at a breakfast with French and Italian priests, all while
being a Jewish agnostic who teaches undergraduates at Harvard
University. He is asked if the topic of creationism has come up
in his courses, and recalled an event in which a student came to
talk about his and his roommates conflicting views, questioning
how he could consider himself a Christian and also believe in
evolution. This is when he considers if science and religion are
in battle together, and cites two roman catholic popes on their
views of the relationship between science in religion based on
the Humani Generis of 1950 and Proclamation of 1996, the
latter given just a year after Gould’s visit to the Vatican. He
says that through these works, followers of faith are given
permission to believe in science about the human body and how
it works, but only up to the church’s authority and must be
accepting of the church’s teachings on creationism.
If writing an opinion piece on Tyson’s “Reflections on
Rationalia”, I would definitely support the idea of this virtual
citizenship for the rules and requirements appear clear and easy
to follow without causing harm. The current political climate in
the United States as of this year, 2017, shows that as a nation,
people are suffering under the control of legislators and

4. executives of power who are acting without use of evidence to
back up claims and make important decisions. Rationalia
requires evidence for the formation of policy, which makes
sense, and should be required of all policies, if there are enough
statistics to support a claim; it allows a policy to be more
reasonable. Its citizens have a freedom of religion, which is
appealing, because even if people don’t agree on all aspects of
life, they can still practice their faith their own way. I agree
with the idea of increasing funding for the human sciences
because studying human behavior should be given greater
importance than studying business or trade in order to improve
life.