Author Archives: Kevin A

Kevin Aucapina D594 Group Work

The Group has come to an agreement on a topic although I feel like we still need to modify the wording of our problem we chose in order to further have more to write about. As of now we managed to pull a handful of sources that will help support our argument. As of now we as a group decided to investigate police body cameras and how they need improvements to help prevent further injustice in the united states and perhaps even the world.

Kevin Aucapina (thoughts on assignment 2)

This assignment was very difficult at first because I was unable to find sources that talked about the historical background for the term “hacking”. After visiting the library for help, I still couldn’t find sources to help me with my assignment. So I finally decided to change my term to “programming”. After a few quick searches on the library database, I was able to find multiple good sources that helped me throughout my essay. In these articles I found a lot of helpful information and dates.

Kevin Aucapina

After reading the notes that I have gotten back, I realize that in order to improve my work I have to use more transitions words and be sure that they fit my work. I also realized that I have to work on making the paragraph shorter but at the same time add in every important detail that the article offers.

Kevin Aucapina, Elizabeth Kolbert Thoughts

I really liked this article “Thats what you think”, because it can be used to relate to our everyday lives and our current issues. One of 2 lines that I really enjoyed was on the second page (left side), the author defines “confirmation bias” as “the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them”. A very well known idea is that bad people generally don’t think that they are bad, which questions whether anyone would know if they are doing the right or bad thing. With this years riots and protest, this quote really gives us a good idea of what is going on.

Kevin Aucapina, John Arnold Made a fortune at Eron. Now he’s declared war on bad science.

This article talks about a subject that has interested me for a long time. How often are science research incorrect or false. Could it be possible that scientist may sometimes corrupt or change their findings to please the public or possibly gain fame. In this Article, Brian Nosek questioned exactly that. He wanted to make sure that all research was reliable rather than altered in order gain attention, gain more funding or simply please the public with positive results rather than good ones. He wanted to ensure that these results were reliable. He had developed an a system that could help scientist keep a public journal that could be used to verify that scientist could stick to their findings, rather than switch or alter their results in favor of themselves. This system would keep a public log of their hypothesis, methods and findings. He also had a plan to redo about 50 experiments to verify their findings. He wanted question their findings and determine how many times these findings could be proven false. The project would be called  “The Reproducibility Project” and with the help of John  Arnold and the Laura and John Arnold foundation, he would determine that only 40% of the findings could be verified. As stated in the article, this would cause one of the biggest science stories and crisis among the field of science and psychology. John Arnold and his foundation helped Brian Nosek with his research with a grants of 5.25 million and up to 10 million more. This made it possible for Nosek to reach his goals.

Kevin Aucapina ENG2575

I have difficulty reading long articles or stories, especially in public areas. In order to understand and properly read articles like these I make sure to read them in quiet areas. If I do not understand what I am reading I will start over from where I began, until i understand what I have read.