The moral nature of thinking keeps shifting from time to time. Despite the emerging differences in scientific and enlightenment writing, one apparent issue is the inability to agree on what reality is. Scientists seem to disagree on various issues, an aspect that raises questions concerning the constituents of reality. Morally, scientists need to observe the professional ethos of conduct. However, due to some reasons, observing ethics is often difficult to realize. Scientists play a big role in influencing public opinion. However, in truth, perceptions, prejudices, and biases based on individual backgrounds influence how the scientists carry out their work.
Based on the views of Heese, “the mind has a big influence on what the world is” (114-39). Using the placebo effect, Heese demonstrates how reality is created. Alternatively, patients are made to believe that they are being treated. The use of any curative may not actually have an effect on reversing the pain or discomfort of the patient. Instead, the minds of the patients play a big role in influencing the healing or the pain relief process. In this case, using perception, the mind creates reality. The author proceeds to highlight further that attitudes are critical in shaping reality. For instance, prolonged negative attitudes contribute towards the occurrence of peptic ulcers. Attitudes are shaped by the subconscious mind. Thus, the mind is instrumental in the creation of reality. The above illustrations clearly underscore the notion that there is a connection between consciousness and causal reality. Thus, the extent to which the scientific community uses personal attributes to influence followers may have a big bearing on what observers see.
In the views of Spedding, Ellis and Heath, “the way we think is as important as what we actually think” (57–74). Thus, it is evident that the manner in which people think is a product of their thoughts themselves. The thinkers are the ones who decide what to ponder on. The author proceeds to point out that the way of knowing, the false and limited habits, and the common sense are the underlying attributes that shape reality. Put simply, knowledge is the people’s own creation. Spedding, Ellis, and Heath claim that people have produced a surface or object world where they are mere objects themselves (57-74). Spedding, Ellis, and Heath further outline that what people perceive and fail to perceive presents the complete reality of consciousness – the “inside” of all those things that exist. Heese supported such views by indicating that “science is but an image of the truth”. This implies that science is not the truth but a mere representation of it.
Clearly, Owen demonstrates that reality is a human creation (67). The human conscience dictates what the human mind perceives in addition to the aspects that are not perceived. Based on their various perceptions, people draw a distinction between the inside and outside issues. As such, knowledge is created out of the conscience of human beings. This establishment implies that both Owen and Harman believe that reality is a creation of the human mind. However, the views held by these authors may not be accurate since some aspects are universal. As such, the issue of perceiving aspects selectively is not absolute. Although some aspects follow the line of the thinkers, relying on the views, they posit, may compromise any attempt to explain universal attributes of humanity.
Based on the views of Spedding, Ellis, and Heath the real world is so diverse such that fully knowing it is quite complex (57–74). Owen backs the assertion by claiming that trusting senses to understand nature is simplistic, since the senses give a distorted view of nature. The author alleges that the senses reduce the wholeness into small parts, which are labeled as the reality. Surprisingly, a big percentage of observers seem to agree with that proposition. The most perturbing aspect, based on the views of Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, is that such observations are taken as objective reality. The development of scientific methodology reflects the path that observers use to support their findings. In science, adherents explore ‘reality’ based on what they think the truth is. Dissecting the views of Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, it is convincing that reality is a creation of the human mind or sensations (57–74). The extent to which the sensations are accurate is a serious concern which is hard to handle.
As pointed earlier, reality becomes elusive since each person holds different perceptions, which influence what reality is, as well as its constituents. For instance, young people believe that the older generation has plotted to interfere with their progress by holding them back. In most societies, it happens that the elderly people are the ones who occupy the positions of influence. As a result, they are in charge of policy-making. Hence, they design policies that they believe could guarantee development. However, the younger generation questions the wisdom of the older generation based on their actions. The younger generation specifically claims that the elderly people are interested in maintaining the status quo since it benefits them. However, the older generation refutes such claims asserting that whatever action they engage in is meant to serve the society’s best interests. Since a majority of people takes sides on such issues based on age, then one would argue that Heese was right by observing that the “will and affections” play a big role in influencing thoughts. Similarly, by claiming that “in order for the light to shine so brightly, the darkness must be present” implies that in understanding an issue, the contesting parties must take a clear position. Based on this article, what people read could be seen as the creation of scientists, an aspect that raises moral questions concerning science.