The Pale Blue Dot Is Us

After reading Sagan’s “Why We Need to Understand Science” I started to think about how it can be possible for people not to notice this decline in science education happening. Then it came to me that it is because of science that people are no longer sufficiently educated in the math and sciences. Science produces technology, technology produces such devices as video game systems, cell phones, computers, televisions, etc. All of these things are now occupying the time and mind of most adolescents who then grow up to be un-scientifically educated adults like the driver who took Sagan to his science convention. I agree that teachers and parents should encourage kids to learn, however, they are in competition with those productions of science they call electronics. Society is constantly changing which means the people that encompass that society change as well. Children do not learn the same way children were taught years ago. The teaching styles need to change in order to grab their attention and in order to get through to them so that they can start understanding what it is they are earning and what its for. The video on ‘Pale Blue Dot’ just emphasizes the underlying meaning of Sagan’s ‘Why We Need To Understand Science’ article. It shows that science is not just big explosions and chemical fusions, science is us. Science is our world that we live in, the world where we wake up and brush our teeth and do our hair. Science is not just a subject, it is, as Sagan writes, ‘a way of thinking’. It is a way of thinking about our life, our planet, what we do and how we come to do it.

Focused Freewriting: Orwell

1.            How would you classify Orwell’s purpose? Does he define? Advise? Argue? Critique? Explain.

Orwell’s purpose is to question the read on their current beliefs on what science really is. He writes in response to a claim that the world should be run by people educated in the sciences. Doing this would make people generally more intelligent, or so thought. But as Orwell defines science I believe he also argues against this claim of greater intelligence and would like the reader to is  it all from a different perspective. What makes a scientist more intelligent than any other form of profession? If anything Orwell points out the weaknesses of said scientists by drawing back examples of their  negligence. But to be fair he does redeem them at the end, not all scientists are so mindless to their own actions. But why argue that a scientist should be equal to that of say a poet?

2.            Locate a passage that is important to you, and one that is important for Orwell. For each, identity what led you to choose it as specifically as you can.

“Clearly, scientific education ought to mean the implanting of rational, special, experimental, habits of mind. It ought to mean acquiring a method- a method that can be used on  any problem that one meets- and not simply piling up the facts.” I chose this section of his text because I feel that it levels the playing field when it comes to intelligence. Now imagine in a college setting, where you are a undecided major and everyone around you sounds so sure of their futures. Now a days there are more science majors than you can hope to count and many others you might not be suited for that others are. Sometimes you can’t help but compare yourself to others and just feel hopelessly inferior. You cannot make that decision, but you just do anyway. But if you boil down all these possible studies you end up with what is stated in this passage. There is more to learning than just facts.

“I saw in a American magazine the statemant that a number of British and American physicists refused from the start to do research on the atomic bomb, well knowing what use would be made of it. Here you have a group of sane people in the middle of a world of lunatics.” I believe this is the most important section for Orwell. It provides a small glimmer of hope that all that he has mentioned in his arguement is not in vain.

3.            Orwell’s tone might be called cautious. Why? Look for words/phrases that indicate this caution/warning. What other attitudes or feelings does the text suggest? Point to words/phrases in the text that indicate other attitudes/feelings.

Upon reading Orwell’s passage for about the fourth time did I begin to see his caution and or warning. Although much of his statements are geared toward tearing down the current view of science, you can take them into a different perceptive if you focus on his examples; German scientists from the Nazi reign and from many modern ones today in powerful nations. When I first read this passage I practical ignored this part as I focused  mainly on the true meaning of science. The facts simply evaded me making me stumped on this part. The point Orwell was trying to make was that these scientists, no matter how knowledgeable they may be, lacked in common sense; more so responsibility for what they do. They could be considered loose cannons of destruction who could succumb to any order.

“The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with high gifts, is no guarantee of a humane or skeptical out look.”

This is what Orwell meant when he referred to the fear given off by science. We cannot deny the importance of science, but we also  cannot deny  the potential harm from science. More harm could potentially come “if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc.”

4.            Look at 2-3 different sections of the text where Orwell poses a question, and explain each question’s purpose in that particular section of the text.

– “But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated?” – Orwell asks this question in order to revert the attention to the original question that text was asking, the statement that Cook stated. But he shines a different light on the affects of scientific education. You think, most of us, that he would agree to some degree that we should all be educated in the “sciences”, but instead he openly states that it would do more harm than good. At this point Orwell makes himself clear on what side he takes on this argument while at the same time drastically changing it to what Cook did not mean to imply. Cook from the beginning was mostly supporting education in general while Orwell shifted it to another proposal of true human intelligence and morality.

– “But is it really true that a scientist, in this narrow sense, is any likelier than other people to approach non-scientific problems in an objective way?” – Orwell says this to humanize scientists. In the paragraph before he mentioned how the words of a scientists are held with much more regard and power than that of anyone else. Do they really deserve such influence? So Orwell poses the question to make the reader question their prestige. Isn’t true that you don’t have to be a scientist to think like one? Everyone can question and take different approaches to solve problems. Why should they be held much higher for there title alone?

5.            Identify a place in the text where Orwell compares/contrasts a) science and art/humanities and b) science and politics. How specifically does he do this? What effect does this comparison/juxtaposition have on the reader?

Orwell starts his first comparison when he refers to the value held in the words of a scientist compared to everyone else. The idea is that the world would be better off if run by scientists, because we all know they do not make mistakes and know everything there is to know about everything. (Sarcasm) To me it seems like Orwell put this in to almost offend the read and turn them against the “all knowing scientist” image. I can not say that Orwell goes into specifics on the comparison. An argument like that would go on for quite sometime and there is not much point to it for what Orwell is trying to prove.

I feel that he compares such fields as art and politics to an actual field of science, but down to the method not to the sciences mentioned. But he does not compare them to how the fields could use the method. Instead he states the potential for every person of any field to use this method effectively. He contrasts them when he refers to basic human morality and common sense. Someone with a background of poetry seems to hold more humanity than any man of physics or chemistry in some cases stated.

6.            What does this essay ask readers to *do*? Point to a place in the essay where you believe Orwell attempts to convince his readers to take some step(s).

I believe Orwell asks the reader to not only think of science as a method available to everyone but also to view the world with an open mind.  He expresses this when he poses the question in the third to last paragraph. Referring to science as a narrow minded affect, he implies that what ever else that involves thought would be compromised if it progresses. What good would studying of the sciences be if it all did become nothing but useless memorized facts? Where would be the the unique thought that would consider someone truly intelligent? Orwell wants us to see not so much what would happen if we were”scientifically educated,” but more of what would happen if we adopted to mindless thought that made these “sciences” so preferred over that rest of the human capability.

7.            How does Orwell end his essay? Where does the ending leave the reader? Why might Orwell have chosen to end this way?

Orwell ends his essay by referring to a group of physicists who refused to research on the atomic bomb because they knew its purpose and did not want it to come true. He ends it with a positive note, almost as if he left hope with his words that his message can still get through to people. Just as those men were able to think for themselves, Orwell hopes that his readers could follow suit with there judgement. Well of course most people aren’t physicists with the knowledge of forces that could level a state in mere minutes. But you can pull from them the fact that they were able to speak for themselves and perceive the consequences of their actions if they chose them.

8.            Explore the context of this essay. Look up The Tribune in the 1940s, “racial science” and Nazis, atomic bomb, and Charles Kingsley and explain how these people/places/things support Orwell’s argument about science.

All these things/people/places play an important role in the focus of this essay. You do not necessarily need to know them all in great detail to understand there importance; all you need is the date and the rest becomes self explanatory. WW2 had just ended shortly before this essay was written and you can imagine that the horrors of this revolutionary warfare were still felt strongly by those at home and the survivors. And what made this war far worse than those in the past? The answer would be the technological advances made by the scientists of different nations Orwell is referring to. Now you can imagine why he gives such a bleak outlook on the term “science”. Scientists were not only considered more intelligent but also a threat to be feared. If you wanted to argue it, you could say that these men “in lab coats” killed more men than the soldiers did. So for Orwell’s argument  to Cook’s statement, would it really be a good idea to make everyone into soulless killing machines? But this is an exaggeration of course. The importance of his argument is that science is being used out of its intended context; by Cook and by the readers of his time.

9.            What other texts (broadly defined) come to mind when you read “What Is Science”? What light do they shed on Orwell’s essay?

To be honest I can not say there is any other text I can remember that reminds me of Orwell’s text. In fact this perspective of his is quite new to me, but I can’t help but feel like I have read his text once before. I maybe cheating a little if I reference Sagan’s article on “Why We Need to Understand Science.” Since it is the only one I can think of at this time I don’t have much choice. That is what I get for reading the article ahead of time. Other than the title these two seem to approach the similar theme from different angles. Both use the term science to levy down an idea of how people should think. Now I have only read the the article once so my brief analyses may not be correct, but Sagan and Orwell do share something similar to this in there texts.

Focused Freewriting: Orwell

1.) Orwell’s purpose in his essay is to persuade his audience that a holistic education is vital in order to be a well rounded individual with cultivated morals. Orwell also defines the discrepancy between a “scientist” who deals with beakers and chemicals, and a “scientist” who thinks rationally. In this sense, Orwell  critiques scientists in their lack of ethical judgment for their role in the war.

2.) Orwell’s passion for balanced education is clear: “All it means is that scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history.” Orwell, a literary beacon for social injustice, takes a stand against major issues that plagued his era: Nazi civil rights abuses, morally corrupted scientists, and overshadowed literature/art education.

I felt the anecdote about the scientists who refused to work on the atomic bomb had the most impact on me: “[…] in short, people whose interests were not, in the current sense of the word, purely scientific.” This last sentence beautifully united the essay, and shows readers the positive effects of a balanced education.

3.) Orwell cautiously takes a jab at the Nazi regime, while keeping his integrity intact in fear of retaliation by governments who exile outspoken writers: “[…] I imagine that the number of German scientists — Jews apart — who voluntarily exiled themselves or were persecuted by the règime was much smaller than the number of writers and journalists.” This comment is directly aimed at the “usefulness” of scientists for the war, and the prosecution of dissenters.

4.) Rhetorical questions are posed throughout the essay in order to invite the reader to think more deeply about the human condition and moral injustices that occur in the world: “On the other hand, what happened to German literature when the Nazis came to power?” Nazis purged writers for dissenting against the government. Orwell also redefines his argument, acknowledging the importance of science: “But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated?”

5.) a) Orwell acknowledges the “lower” status seen by writers and artists, however exposes scientists for their flagrant behavior, lacking in the moral tools of those who studied humanities: [Scientists] line up behind their own governments with fewer scruples than are felt by the writers and the artists.”

b) Countering Cook’s claim that scientists should be immersed in politics: ” A scientist’s political opinions, it is assumed, his opinions on sociological questions, on morals, on philosophy, perhaps even on the arts, will be more valuable than those of a layman.” Orwell chastises the intellectual halo dubbed upon scientists, arguing that the scope of a scientist is purely linear.

6.) Orwell challenges readers to adapt a broader scope of thinking. His essay appeals to educating the masses with arts and science, in order to create a well-rounded individual with proper morals. This is seen towards the end of the essay: “Clearly, scientific education ought to mean the implanting of a rational, sceptical, experimental habit of mind. It ought to mean acquiring a method — a method that can be used on any problem that one meets”

7.) Orwell ends his essay through an anecdote of a group of American and British scientists who refused to work on the atomic bomb, knowing the disastrous impact their work would bring. Orwell credits these scientists with their brave decision, however states they must have “some acquaintance with history or literature or the arts”. This statement shows the lasting impact a holistic education can have on one’s decisions. The last paragraph is a writer’s last chance to leave an impression on the audience, and Orwell utilizes this with a strong example of how educational diversity triumphs over purely science. This impacts the reader, and transcends the piece into a memorable lesson.

8.) The use of several references is seen throughout the essay which further solidify Orwell’s views on science and education. The magazine that Orwell wrote and edited for, The Tribune, put a left wing slant on the news and continually rallied against Hitler during WWII. These views align with Orwell’s, as throughout the essay he chastises the Nazi regime and the atomic bomb for its blatant abuse of science and destruction on humanity. Orwell also points to German scientists, who believed in “racial science”, or the idea that pseudo scientific hypotheses can be used to justify racial superiority. Orwell also references Charles Kingsley, who although was an English priest, became accepting of the ideas of science proposed by Charles Darwin, and lived harmoniously between religion and science.

9.) The dystopian ideas proposed in Geroge Orwell’s “What is Science?” compare similarly to Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”. In Atwood’s novel, society is ruled under one regime, where citizens have become slaves to those of higher authority in the government, and where defying the government meant execution. In the novel, women become completely obsolete, with the exception of making children. Although Atwood’s fictitious novel is a distant reality from today’s world, the ideas proposed are not far from those seen in Orwell’s essay. Orwell reveals the crowd mentality of the German citizens who blindly follow a morally corrupt leader, also indicating the impending dystopia the atomic bomb would bring.

Response to Sagan’s “Why We Need to Understand Science?”

The essay “Why We Need to Understand Science” written by Carl Sagan expatiate on the importance of science. It consists of  three components: the definition of science, the reason why Americans fail on science and how to flourish science. Carl Sagan was a renowned astronomer, astrophysicist and a writer who worked to bring science into the popular culture of the late twentieth century. This essay was firstly published in 1989 in Parade Magazine.

In the beginning of Sagan’s article, he talks about a conversation between a driver and him. He finds the big danger which science faces-most general public cannot distinguish science and pseudoscience. Young Americans spend time on boring TV shows rather than science. Newspapers gives more room for pseudoscience column rather than science column. As a result, science is not popular among common people in America and decline every year. From his article, we can find that during 1980s, Americans are weak on science. In some international tests, American adolescents are the bottom of all children from different countries. In other words, the high level education on science in America is weak during 1980s. Thus the purpose of Sagan’s essay is to state the importance of science and persuade public to pay more attention on science. His article is not only for common readers but also for government and the media. He provides some great ideas on arranging newspapers’ columns, on supporting education from general taxes either. He hopes that government and the media can do some changes in order to boom science.

What is special for in Sagan’s article is he always use his own experiences to express his views. These experiences are really common, even they happened during our daily life. When readers read his experiences from the article, they may put themselves in his shoes and resonate with Sagan. This is a good way to convince readers and to persuade.

In the video “Pale Blue Dot” based on Carl Sagan’s book”Pale Blue Dot”, we find we are living in the same home-earth. In the universe, our home is just a blue dot. It has meaning for us because we give the meanings for it. We discover the connection between the universe and it. We discover the connection between it and us. We find it interested and be curious about knowing those mysterious, think deeply, then become more interested in it. Sagan wants to tell us–these simple, basic steps are the components of science.

 

Work Cited: http://blackboard.stonybrook.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2611048-dt-content-rid-10801508_1/courses/1134-WRT-102-SEC22-40032/Sagan.pdf

 

Focused Freewriting: Orwell

1) Throughout the article, the readers can pick up on the sense that Orwell is arguing that the lesser focused on sciences be taught more in schools. Overall, Orwell draws distinct points which signify his stance that literature, art and the other “sciences” be focused more upon. For example, towards the end of the article, Orwell recalls that Charles Kingsley (a well renowned priest, professor, and historian) once told him that science was merely “making nasty smell in a laboratory”. On the other hand, Orwell had a chemist tell him that there was no point in poetry. Orwell uses these two personal examples to emphasize the gap between those involved in the physical sciences and those who are a part of the less-focused sciences, thus strengthening his argument.

2) While writing this article, Orwell kept in mind that this his argument would read by the likes of well educated individuals, specifically scientists. One passage within the article that struck me as interesting was his use of the phrase “Science is international” and how he criticizes it. The passage gives a clear description of the pressure felt on those who work from the government and how those people reacted to it. For example, the scientists during the Nazi reign in Germany stayed with their government, despite it being a morally wrong choice while writers and artists were forced to flee or be persecuted. The scientists, who by definition are those who studied and researched the physical sciences, were more willing to give up their belief of what is right than those who free-thinkers of the society. Was that the image of science back in the 1940s? That the scientists are no more than mere puppets run by the government? It goes to show how not all science is worthy of the spotlight.

3) It can be said that Orwell uses caution when describing how we as a society need to focus more on the “other sciences” (those which are not physical sciences). The most extensive example of his concern is his inclusion of the quote “Science is international”. Nothing about science is international. It is all becoming a technological race of some sort to see which country has the most innovative thinkers and inventors. It is often said that the scientists who are more patriotic and nationalistic are less moral than other thinkers within that country, writers and artists for example. This is further explained in the example he gives with Hitler during his reign in Germany. Although a number of scientists were exiled or persecuted during this time, the number in total was much smaller than the amount of writers and journalists. This goes to show that there were much more scientists than writers who had chosen to betray they’re morals and work for what was ethically wrong just so they wouldn’t have to lose their homes. One could also say that this brings up the question of whether it is acceptable to do something morally wrong if your life depends on it, but that is a discussion for another time.

4) There are multiple times within the article where Orwell poses a question. Some of those questions he answers immediately, giving an explanation of his views shortly after, while other times he answers rhetorical questions, leaving it up to the reader to decide what the correct answer is. Two notable examples of Orwell’s question-asking are noted towards the end of page 5 in the article. In the second to last paragraph on that page, Orwell poses the question “But does this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated?” to which he gives his response without hesitation in the next sentence. The purpose of this question is to completely steer the discussion in a new direction. Preceding this question, the readers believed that Orwell was completely one sided on this topic (which he is, to some extent). However, this shows that Orwell is not an advocate of fully removing science from the educational world either. Another question he poses is the very last sentence of the last paragraph on page 5, where he talks about the “prestige” among scientists, and how it comes into play seeing as anyone with a thought process can be seen as a scientist. Previously, scientists were looked up to and held in high regard by strong powers such as the government simply because thy were scientists. This was due to the scientists’ claim to be more knowledgeable than the general public. Orwell brings up this point as a way of explaining how scientists are not all that much different from the general public. Sure, they are more intelligent than most people, but if a group of people was to be removed from society, take writers for instance, it would have at least an equal effect on society if scientists were removed.

5) The very last paragraph of the article starts off with two distinct takes on science and humanities. The two statements said by Charles Kingsley and the chemist Orwell had spoken to show how one group in society perceives the other. It is interesting how Orwell had placed this comparison at the very end of the article as a way of summing his views up. Throughout the article, he had been giving insight as to how he felt about scientists, but only at the end did he give an example of how writers feel about scientists. Another passage in the article where compares two groups is his take on science and the government. Orwell uses the government in Germany during World War 2 to show the relationship between sciences and politics. The way Orwell words it makes it seem like scientists are soulless, evil puppets who are controlled by the government while in reality, that is not always true. Orwell places this relationship between the scientists and government into the essay to show that the artists and writers during this time period were relatively given less credit for the work they do as compared to scientists.

6) Towards the beginning of the article, Orwell states, “If you ask any scientists, or indeed any educated person, ‘What is Science?’…” It is not explicitly said that the reader must do this, but Orwell threw this bit in for a good reason. He believes that by the reader asking a scientist about what science is, then that reader will be given an answer that reflects the views of not only that one scientist, but of all the scientists out there. Orwell wants the reader to feel that scientists have this ego within them, and that by asking any scientist about the premise of science, then the reader will be given a one-sided response that will show the attitude of scientists.

7) Orwell ends his essay in a way that shows not all scientists are soulless wanderers controlled by big government. The very last paragraph describes that while scientists and followers of the fine arts will always clash due to their differences, there will be a few notable exceptions that have made the best of both worlds. Seeing as there were scientists who refused to work on the atomic bomb shows that not all scientists are controlled by the government and that they also have morals. Most importantly, Orwell states that these scientists may have been educated in literature and history, and that is what caused them to back down from taking on the plan for building the atomic bomb. A good scientist is not one who is the most knowledgeable on a number of subjects, but the one who is not interested solely in the scientific aspects of the world.

8) In the 1940s, George Orwell was an editor for the newspaper The Tribune. Due to this, one can assume that other members of the staff share somewhat the same views as him. Orwell also makes a reference to Charles Kingsley, who was a historian in the late 19th century. Around the time of writing this article, much was going on in the world in terms of science and technological advances. The atomic bomb had been created, as noted by Orwell in the article. One could imagine all the excitement felt by the world with these new advances coming about. However, as Orwell states in his essay, there was also a bad side to all of this occurring. The new advances in science were also being used by the Nazis during World War 2 and it was not something the scientists themselves could control.

9) There are no relative texts that came to mind as I was reading this article, however, it did remind me very much of high school. In high school, we were given required to take all of the major science classes (Chemistry, Biology, and Physics), while classes like art and creative writing were only offered as elective. (We did have to take English Literature/Language and history classes, but let’s ignore for the sake of this argument). Many of the students in high school dreaded taking science courses, simply as they had already decided that they were not going to do much with science in their future. In the words of Orwell, science was “forced upon them, doing more harm than good”.

Focused Freewriting: Orwell

1.           Orwell starts off this article with defining the meaning of “science”. Throughout the article, he then proceeds to persuade us through arguing and trying to prove his point. The point he has been trying to make is that the word science should be viewed differently than how many believe it as. It should be more of a broad definition rather than just the exact sciences.

2.           “Science means something that happens in a laboratory: the very word calls up a picture of graphs, test-tubes, balances, Bunsen burners, microscopes. A biologist, and astronomer, perhaps a psychologist or a mathematician is described as a ‘man of science’: no one would think of applying this term to a statesman, a poet, a journalist or even a philosopher. And those who tell us that the young must be scientifically educated mean, almost invariably, that they should be taught more about radioactivity, or the stars, or the physiology or their own bodies, rather than that they should be taught to think more exactly.” This was the main point that Orwell was trying to argue against so I feel that this was a passage that was very important to him. He points out what everyone or at least most people believe but he argues against it throughout the article.

“Science is generally taken as meaning either (a) the exact sciences, such as chemistry, physics, etc., or (b) a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact. If you ask any scientist, or indeed almost any educated person, ‘What is science?’ you are likely to get an answer approximating to (b). In everyday life, however, both in speaking and in writing, when people say ‘science’ they mean (a).” This passage stood out to me as I first read this article. Before reading this passage, I never really thought about the other ways of defining the word science. Orwell mentions how others would usually view what science is and then opens our eyes for us to realize what other ways that the word science can be interpreted.

3.            In my opinion, I felt that at some points, Orwell did portray being cautious, but at other times he wasn’t. Orwell states, “But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated? On the contrary! All it means is that scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history.” I believed this showed a bit of caution because he doesn’t fully try to disregard the act of being scientifically educated. He just tries to prove a point that one is better than the other. However, there are times where I felt that he was not cautious at all. For instance, the times where he uses sarcasm to prove his point. “I think sheer professional jealousy is part of the reason for this. For if science is simply a method or an attitude, so that anyone whose thought-processes are sufficiently rational can in some sense be described as a scientist — what then becomes of the enormous prestige now enjoyed by the chemist, the physicist, etc. and his claim to be somehow wiser than the rest of us?”

4.            In the sixth paragraph, Orwell talks about the extent of subjectivity in science. He asks the question to merely to prove it wrong throughout he rest of the paragraph. He believes that the education of “exact sciences” does not teach you morals or ethics. He uses the example of scientists creating German war machines to prove his point.

In the eighth paragraph, Orwell poses a question to readers to clear things up but at the same time, still standing behind what he believes. He’s clearing up that he is not trying to fully deny the thought of being scientifically educated but still persuading at some extent, that being educated with just the sciences will do no good.

5.           a) In the seventh paragraph, Orwell compares the German scientists to the writers and journalists. He believes that the number of German scientists who “voluntarily exiled themselves” are much smaller than those of writers and journalists. This comparison is to justify the point that he is trying to get across. That the way scientists think is a lot different than the way writers and journalists do.

b) In the sixth paragraph, Orwell compares science with politics. He complained that the “The German scientific community, as a whole, made no resistance to Hitler.” He believes that scientists could not really tell from right and wrong, or if they did, did not really do much about it. In the end, they still helped and aided Hitler in creating these weapons for war.

6.            Right at the beginning of this essay, Orwell says, “At the same time, scientists should be brought out of their isolation and encouraged to take a greater part in politics and administration.” He doesn’t necessarily say that being educated with the exact sciences is a bad thing. He just wanted to get through people’s head that science is not always just about those specific subjects of science. He doesn’t agree with those who believe that being educated with just the exact sciences make you more intelligent than others. He wants people to be more knowledgeable about the world around us rather than just learning how the body works.

7.            Orwell ended his essay talking about reading an American magazine, learning that “a number of British and American physicists refused from the start to do research on the atomic bomb, well knowing what use would be made of it.” Orwell believed that they had “acquaintance with history or literature or the arts” rather than just knowledge of science. Orwell ends this essay, backing up his point of why people should gain knowledge of other things as well. What he learns in this American magazine, shows readers that there is a benefit of having the education of history, literature, humanities, and art.

8.           Orwell uses different people or things to support his argument about science. The Nazis were a group that portrayed racial science. Racial science is believing that a certain belief is superior than another. The Nazis believed that their Aryan race was superior to any other, which led them to exterminate anyone who they believed were inferior. Orwell believes that they were not well educated with the world around them, which is why it led the Nazis to believe in what they did. Orwell mentions the atomic bomb a lot in his essay. Orwell uses the atomic bomb, something well known for killing many people during World War II, probably to show how strongly he feels about his point. He uses something so dangerous to show how much harm he believes educating yourself with just the sciences itself will do.

9.          Even though this essay was published in 1945, there is still truth behind what Orwell is saying. If you think about it, society now still views these scientists or doctors as having the upper hand. They probably make more money and require more years of school than other fields of study. I personally agree with Orwell and believe that this shouldn’t mean that these sciences are more important than other subjects. It is however, to some extent, still how people view this situation.

Response to Sagan’s “Why We Need To Understand Science?”

In this essay, Sagan outlines, essentially, why we need to understand science. He summarizes the state of American general scientific and mathematical knowledge using statistics, comparisons to other countries, and even a personal anecdote. He provides some historical examples of how science could be used for great things and also terrible things, and how mistakes are becoming much too tragic. At the end of the essay, he outlines a plan and things that we could do to improve our situation.

The author is Carl Sagan, a well known and respected late science communicator. His purpose of writing this was to warn the United States that it was falling behind in the world fast in academic terms and how to remedy this problem. The essay was published in 1989 when American academic success in education the populace was limited. The section on where he outlined all of the statistics showing America’s severely poor academic ratings were essential to his essay because they showed the reader that there was a serious problem and the extent of the problem. This engages the reader and compels the audience to continue reading the essay.

The video “The Pale Blue Dot” featuring Carl Sagan’s famous monologue about our planet was very thought provoking and inspirational. It made the watcher realize how insignificant we really are in the grand scheme of the universe, but at the same time so comfortable in our insignificance.

Focused Freewriting: Orwell

1.Orwell did both advise and argue. In his article, although he defined the meaning of science in the thrid pargraph, the definition was not his main purpose. This definition was a tunnel to tell us sientific education was important. However, humanities education was more important. Orwell focused on humanities education, so defining what is science was not his main idea. I think he did advise because he used a question in the last second paragraph. The question led us to consider the importance of humanities education. Furthermore, as we all konw that question means a kind of discussion and advice. Therefore, he did advise. Moreover, he put lots of evidence to prove that without literature education,scientists might do something harmful to humanities. As we know that argument should be based on ture evidences. In addition, he didnt criticize the shortage of scientific education,but give advice that there should be both sicentific and humnities education .As a result, I think he did both advise and argue.

2.In my opinion, I think the sixth paragraph is the most important to me and the ninth paragraph is the most important to Orwell. As a reader, when I was reading from the topic to the fifth parargraph, I thought the main purpose of this article was trying to tell us the benefit of scientific education. However, when I read to the sixth paragraph, I began to realize that the author was not only trying to tell us the benefit of scientific education, but also some other stuff. This paragragh mentioned Hitler and German scientific which made me realize here was a turn in this article.

To Orwell, I think the sentence in the ninth paragraph clearly indicated his main idea. “All it means is that scientific education for the masses will do little good,and probably a lot of harm….to the detriment of literature and history(5.)”This sentence showed his purpose of the article. Therefore I think it is important to him.

3.Orwell’s tone be called as cautious because of his word choosing. Such as in the second paragraph”most of us would agree with this,”(3.) He was careful at exact words and phrases, in order to make his words pursuasive. This sentence meant that not every one agreed with this. There might be a little amount people didnt agree with this opinion. In the forth paragraph, “an answer approximating to b..”(3.) He used approximating to indicate the trend.This sentence meant that the answer closed to b,but not exactly b.

4.The first question i saw was in the seventh paragraph,”On the other hand, what happened to German literature when the Nazjs came to power?”(4.) Here Orwell was trying to make readers interested in what he was going to talk about. Furthermore, he answered the question in the next sentence. Therefore, the question was another stucture of topic sentence in this paragraph. Moreover, when I read this article, I was really asking the question too. As a result, I think he successfully made me interested in the answer about the German literature at that time.

The second question I saw was in the tenth paragraph”For if science is simply a method….and his claim to be somehow wiser than the rest of us?”(5.) This question was a rhetorical question. Althought it seemed like he didnt answer it, he already had the attitude to the question. We can get the feeling in this question. The question meant scientists should not be called as scientists if they only have scientific education.He hided his attitude in the question .Therefore ,he made the topic clearly.

5.a)”..but I imagine that the number of German…the number of writers and journalists”(4.)In this sentence ,he compared the different behaviors between German scientists and writers. He noted that German sicentists didnt exil themslves that much because they didnt even realized the evil they had made. However, the writers and journalists did. He compared different attitudes in order to say that humanities education was even more important than scientific education. This comparation cleary let us know the different result between scientific education and humanities education.

b)”The German scientific community, as a whole, made no resistance to Hitler.”(4.) Here is the sicence and politics. When scientists met the politics problem, they didnt know what was right or wrong. They helped Hitler to result in a war which relyed on high-tech and non-conscience. The relationship made readers know that scientists might help politicians do bad things without humanities education.

6.”At the moment,science is on the upgrade, and so we hear…. a little education”(6.)In this sentence, he was trying to pursuade his readers should not only care about scientific education, but also humanities education. As he said before, scientific education didnt product scientists who brought benefit to the wrold. Therefore, he wanted readers care more about humanities education, although scientific education was more and more important to develop a country.

7. Orwell ended the article with a bunch of hopes. He happened to read about some scientists refused to make harmful weapons. Therefore, he thought these scientists were well-educated with humanities. In this way, these peole realized the most important thing in the world was not the development of science, but the peace and human’s life in the world. He brought us some hope which made us have more passion to get both scientific education and humanities education to make the world better.

8.As we all know that the Nazis were evil and Hitler was insane. They murdered 6 million people at the World War two. The reason why they were able to kill so many men was literaly relyed on the technology. It followed that there must be some scientists helped them with weapons which used for killing people. However those sicentists definitly highly educated with science, they still did harm to human society. In this case, Orwell easily followed that it was because of lacking of humanities education. Wtihout humanities education, human may become wild animals which are killing each other even with scientific knowledge.

9.Like what I wrote in the previous post, the article reminds me of “Sense and Sensibility”. In this novel, Austen suggested that we should equiped with emotions and intelligence. She laughed at Marianne’s emotional, and hated John Willoughby who didnt have emotions. Although this novel was about love and marriage in early 18th century, it clearly indicated the importance of both rational brain and emotional feelings. However, in Orwell’s words, we could get the importance of intelligence and conscience to the society.

Response to Sagan’s “Why We Need To Understand Science?” / Pale Blue Dot

The essay “Why We Need to Understand Science” by Carl Sagan is mainly about the importance of understanding science. The whole article is divided in to five parts according to the subtitles. It begins with a story which happened to Sagan. Mr. Buckley was so excited in pseudoscience, but unfortunately he knew little real science. It is always wise to start with a story because story attracts readers’ attention immediately. People are probably not strange to this interesting story; it looks nature, and Mr. Buckley could be anyone between you and me. After the introduction, Sagan presented his definition of science, stated the poor scientific education situation in the U.S, and explained why people should receive that kind of education respectively. The whole article is in a very logical order. In the main body, there is a huge amount of data, numerous comparative examples with other countries, such as British Columbia, Japan and Korea. Nothing could be more convinced than the exact statistics he used. Besides that, Sagan used logical reasoning and detailed explanations to prove his point.

Carl Sagan was an astronomer but also a writer. He often expressed his opinion on science through writing. At that time, the 20^th century, he experienced the American’s ignorance on science. Therefore he wrote the essay as a warning, also urging the public to take this issue seriously.

The word immediate came into my mind while reading was astonishing, especially at the part of describing the American average level of scientific education. I was even slight unbelievable on how could such a great amount of people can’t do algorithm. The key was because of the lack of motivation, Sagan explained. People do not see any extraordinary tangible benefits in short term. In my country, China, almost everyone is told that learning can change people’s life since young, which looks similar to the thought in Great Depression. Thus I think letting everyone be well-educated in science and changing their opinion toward science is an essential way to solve this issue. As Sagan mentioned, what people need is a “mind wide awake”. Personally, a practical way to motivate people is comparing statistic on both with and without deep scientific education. Unlike words, numbers have massive visual impact and also spiritual shock. However Sagan did a little weak on how to wake people’s mind, since I feel that he put too much effort on revealing the U.S situation. But in all, I totally agree with his idea. I think exact the same that science is the key to push the society moving forward. We need science; more importantly, we need to know what science is. The modern world is considered as a time of advanced technology; don’t you feel scared living in such a place if you do not understand science?

It is a 2-minute video made by Joel Somerfield based on Sagan’s book “Pale Blue Dot”. The animation describes the living environment on the earth meticulously from the inside of the blue dot, by using many pairs of antonyms, such as joy and suffering, hero and coward. From the outside, the tiny earth is only a “mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam”. The sentence ends as the whole video ends. The ending leaves much free space for views to think. Even though plenty of words were used to describe the inside, the outside impressed viewers a lot more.
One of the most significant features is comparison and contrast, such as the pairs of words, the outside and inside, the long time spent on inside and a moment of the inside. Everything has two aspects, and so does the earth. No matter how abundant the earth is or how many creatures live on it, it is only just a dot. It brought us a vastness of the universe and humanity’s insignificance. In this case, both positive and negative thinking can be applied to a same item. It reminds me of a famous example, when an optimistic person saw a half bottle of water, he felt that the half was filled with water, while the pessimistic person considered that the half was empty. Since everything has its positive side, why not keeping a peaceful mind while suffering. The earth could be a dust; people could be dusts as well, so that nothing deserves too much sadness. Also, it indicated clearly the impossibility of against nature. The animation truly touched me, and made me think. Human are so poor that the only thing to be relied on is a dot, earth. Protecting the earth will never be late.

 

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s science!

In his essay, Carl Sagan talks about a meeting with his driver, Mr. William F. Buckley. He opened Sagan’s eyes to how little people knew about real science, as opposed to fake science. Unfortunately for him, the science he was presented on TV was all psuedoscience. The real science never reached him, nor did it reach millions of other Americans. Sagan goes on to say that it is dangerous to remain uninformed about certain scientific topics such as global warming, toxic and radioactive wastes, acid rain, etc. He believes that people are scared of the power that science will put into one’s hands, but he rejects this fear by noting that advances in medicine and agriculture has saved more lives than wars have killed, and other accomplishments that have improved society such as advances transportation, and communication. But just how bad is the problem? Apparently, the American 17 year students placed last in their knowledge of algebra, and third to last in their knowledge of chemistry. Sagan proposes that the problem isn’t because American students are stupid, they just have no incentive to work hard. He says that more money needs to be dedicated into providing adequate knowledge to American students. This would mean higher salaries for teachers, more scholarships, better equipment, including laboratory sciences into graduation requirements, etc. But due to the fact that kids in the United States have their eyes glued to the television screen, providing more educational shows would be the most effective way of  raising interest in science. In fact, through Sagan’s experiences, students are always curious about science, but the problem is that the older they get, the less question they ask in fear that asking a question will result in people thinking that they’re dumb. Sagan believes that the more scientifically educated our citizens are, the better our security is. What is a few weapons systems compared to an army of scientifically developed students who can think for themselves? And in response to Sagan’s dedication and ideas to raising interest in science, the video “Pale Blue Dot” was created to bring to life Sagan’s famous monologue. This video combined beautifully created animation and soothing music to promote and dramatize Sagan as his voice narrates the video.

 

Carl Sagan is a well known astronomer, astro-physicist, and host of the TV show, “Cosmos”. He wrote this essay to promote education, primarily science, to the public. He believes that the United States is poorly educated in numerous, if not all, subjects; that other countries such as South Korea have their students spend so much more time on studying than America does. He wants the attention of everyone: the government, the parents, the teachers, and most importantly, the students. He’s writing down so many different ways that the education system could do in order to provide more adequate education in science to children. This would require the help of the government to pump money into teaching and promoting science. But in order for this to be successful, the teachers and parents need to take action and educate the students and children of America. However, if the ones being taught cannot bring themselves to learn, then it’ll just be a waste of money. That’s why more interesting ways of promoting education such as television shows will be provided. Sagan brings up a very interesting point when he said that the “public understanding of science is more central to our national security than half a dozen strategic weapons system” on page eighteen. In other words, why have a only few computers with no one knowledgeable to operate them when you can have educated people making more of these computers and actually use them?