1. Orwell’s purpose in writing this essay is to alert his readers to what he feels is a common misconception of the time period and to try and get the reader thinking on a different path. in the beginning of the piece he defines what the two definitons of “science” are and how each one can be used or is used to serve different purposes. Orwell argues the point that a scientist in the being of a chemist or physisist is no more intelligent or scientific than perhaps an artist or historian. His belief is that scinece deals more with a method of thinking and questioning rather than with knowing certain terms, effects, and experiments that have been performed. Additionally, throughout his writing he critiques different members of society. In the beginning it’s a previousTribune columnist, Mr. J. Stewart Cook, who wrote about the importance of every member of society being more scientifically educated. Orwell doesnt think that this would be necessarily a bad thing but feels that Cook should have defined what he meant by science in his column. Additionally, he critiques the governments that run the world and the loyalty of the scientists who claim to be independent of these governments. He references WWII and states how, “The German scientific community as a whole, made no resisitance to Hitler.” and then goes on further to talk about the importance and involvement of general scienctists in the second world war and how they were spared of harm due to their involvement.
2. A passage that is important to me from this essay is the very last paragragh because it proves the point that some scientists who perhaps have been educated in other fields are smarter and wiser than the rest and willing to stand up for what is right and just. I feel that Orwell would find this passage to be equally enriching since he closes the essay off with it. He refers to the American Magazine that he had been reading and how it mentioned that American physicists had refused to do research on the Atomic bomb because of the drastic effects they knew it would have on mankind. It really ties together the point that he’s trying to get across to everyone by writing this article and makes you wonder if perhaps there are different definitions of science, and if perhaps they should be further explored or taught to us.
3. The tone of Orwell in the piece is clasified as casutious most probably because he doesn’t want to come across as too strong or overpowering to the reader in which case he might make the reader feel as though he is dictating what should be done about something. Throughout he uses many rhetorical phrases and questions to express what he means but to get the reader more involved and take a more of an initiative as well. By saying things like, “…is any likelier than other people to approach non-scientific problems in an objective way?” Orwell is able to get the reader on teh same page as him but in a less forceful manner. Another tone in the article is his upsetment with the people and their views on others. While he is cautious with his word choice you can still tell that he doesn’t agree with how the population views scientists or treats those who are just as intelligent as a scientist. He argues that, “no one would ever think of calling a statesman or a poet,” in the same was as a biologist and by saying this you can feel the tenacity in his voice.
4. Orwell uses questions often before introducing a point, or at the end of discussing a topic to engage the reader in what’s going on. Some of the questions that he asks are rhetorical and others are simply questions that he’s included in his writing. One question he writes is, “But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated?” he responds immediately by saying, “On the contrary!” Here he is using the question to show that he thinks that the general public should indeed be more scientifically educated, just that the information that is being taught to them should be tweaked a little. Another question Orwell includes in the essay is, “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?” It’s clear that here Orwell is trying to say in a nice way that he doesn’t think it matters whether you may have some prefix in front of your name or a title associated with it, that that shouldn’t make you who you are, but the thoughts you provoke and conversations you have should declare your scientific capability.
5. Orwell compares science and the arts on page 5 in the first paragraph when he discusses the lack of English writers receiving a title or distinction placed on them since Tennyson, but makes a point of clarifying that scientists are awarded knighthoods and baronetcies like they’re a treat to a dog. This comparison isn’t extremely specific and is really aimed to prove the continuing point that other professions aren’t viewed as highly as those in the sciences. The effect it has on the reader is that it really makes you question the value of a title that someone was rewarded by the English parliament if a majority of those titles were given to members of the science community and lack diversity. An example of where Orwell compares science and politics is on page 4 in the second paragraph when he describes the German scientists of the WWII era. How these people are supposed to be independent of the thoughts and ideas of their governments and yet when push came to shove they caved in and aided in the Nazi regiment. Orwell doesn’t list any particular German scientists who did this, but does give examples of some of the projects that they helped to create, like the jet plane or atomic bomb. This may make the reader feel as if these scientists aren’t loyal citizens or as trustworthy as you may think they are, and could really skew someone’s opinion on them in a negative way.
6. On page 6 in the third paragraph Orwell is indirectly asking his readers to go and ask or plead that the education of the sciences focus less on facts and more on the methods of thinking and communicating. He does warn though that the further you may press then the more likely it is that the outcome will be more facts being shoved into our heads and less intuitive thought processes. Additionally, one can argue that the essay as a whole is a cry calling out for help from the masses of people who read the Tribune to stand up for and change the education of science.
7. Orwell ends his essay with a thought provoking idea that these American scientists that he read about in an American magazine who refused to do work and research on the atomic bomb probably had a history or background in areas other than simply the sciences. That people who cared this much and were willing to put something of more importance in front science didn’t have interest that were “…purely scientific.” This ending leaves the reader thinking that there definitely is a benefit of having the education and curriculum that encompasses the field of science expanded to more than what it is. That if you want people to be better overall humans, then you need to change the current state of what’s going on. Orwell chose to end his essay with this reference because it clearly drove home the main points that he was trying to make throughout the whole piece and because it discusses an issue that many readers could relate to at the time.
8. Numerous of the people and things that Orwell mention in his piece help to show the bad qualities in a strictly science world. Racial science is the belief that one group’s beliefs or scientific views are therefore better than another group’s and are similar to the ideas that the Nazis had during WWII in Europe. These two things prove how narrow minded people and groups can be when they aren’t educated on a more worldly basis. Charles Kingsley, who was an English priest and professor, had a bit of a more equal view of the world. He believed in Darwin’s views on evolution and survival of the fittest, but since he had a background in scripture he also viewed things differently. He was understanding of the different sides of science and was more likely to have a viewpoint that more people could relate to than a normal scientist. Orwell uses the atomic bomb to prove the downfalls in science. It seems as though he feels that something with this much power and ability to destroy mankind should not be viewed as an advance in science, but rather a downfall. Each one of these people or things helped Orwell to establish his points in a unique way.
9. Other texts that I think of when I read “What is Science?” are The Hunger Games series. While this may seem a bit comical or abstract, in the series you have the districts who are indebted to the Capitol for their rebellion years ago through the use of science and nuclear weaponry. All in all it’s a struggle for the people of the districts to try and regain control over the land that they once knew and loved, but really what also has to be done, other than regaining control, is to modify the heads of states way of thought. They feel that the other people should suffer for what they have done, when really what needs to be done is have knife put into that old way of thought and have a new, more open minded and forgiving people take over control. While this isn’t exactly the problem of having the exact science or a more philosophical one, it is similar enough in which you could see the comparison between the two.
WRT 102.22: Science and Society 