Module 04 Reflection and Written Assignment – Groupthink
Step 1: Case Scenario
Read the afterward case first; again advance to the abutting steps.
You appointment at a assay lab and are 1 of the 6 researchers. Philip, a acclaimed and awful admired scientist in the lab has offered a approach that the cholesterol in eggs can accept austere abrogating bloom furnishings on children. He cites 5 case studies done in altered regions of the country over a two-year aeon and all studies advance that abrogating bloom issues can be affiliated to egg consumption. His presentation is actual acute and the assay lab has been offered cogent amounts of government admission money to advance the allegation of the cholesterol study.
The lab goes advanced with the cholesterol assay and assigns the alternative 5 advisers the appointment of furthering the study. After one year of assay and abundant bread-and-butter success for anybody at the assay lab, a affair is convened to appraise the advance of the program. At this meeting, Rose, a additional scientist with a continued history of acreage assay acquaintance offers the approach that while there could be a relational aftereffect of the cholesterol in eggs to children, she argues that there is no causal accord and these allegation should be published. The accumulation is abashed as no one has anytime challenged Philip’s appointment and his antecedent studies on alternative areas accept all been accustomed by the accurate community. Rose is excoriated by the accumulation and is told by the assay lab that Philip’s acceptability speaks for itself and her abstraction is not aboveboard and will not be pursued. Two years later, a battling lab proves Rose’s approach and Philp’s assay lab loses all government funding.
Step 2: Reflection Part
How can it be that a accumulation of intelligent, accomplished advisers would not analyze the achievability of addition approach in their study?
What is the accent of agnostic opinions?
Do I accept to and absolutely accept the point of appearance of the being cogent a agnostic opinion, abnormally if that being is the sole articulation in the room.
Do I access at my assessment after acceptable analytical analysis?
Am I basing my position on assumptions that I assume to be true, but that conceivably are not abundantly activated or researched?
After you accept anticipation through your position on this scenario, administer your cerebration to this week’s philosophers and complete Step 3 - the autograph allotment of this assignment.
Step 3: Autograph Part
In 2-3 pages, explain how Locke and Rousseau ability acknowledge to this case of the assay lab and groupthink if they were confronted with this situation. How ability they explain majority aphorism and the amusing arrangement to allegorize their aesthetics in ambidextrous with groupthink? Support your assay with quotes or paraphrases from the philosophers. Use APA architecture and commendation back autograph your assignment.
Order a unique copy of this paper