Focused Freewriting: Orwell

1. By defining the word science, and advising the world how to be better educated, Orwell argues that more scientific education to the masses will be harmful to areas like history and literature. His main purpose is to convince people that they should not be so focused on learning the details of different branches of science; everyone should be taught how to have a more rational mind set when approached with difficulties, and people should have a well rounded education. Orwell critiques the actions of the scientists in the world and finds that they have lost all moral reasoning because of their attention being narrowed in on only their area of work. It would be wrong and harmful for history, art, and literature to be left behind and ignored just to teach the world more about the exact sciences. 

2. A passage that is important to me would be when Orwell mentions how he read in an American magazine 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 men in the middle of a world of lunatics.” Being a part of the math and science world myself, I hate to have to admit that more education in these areas are causing such problems by bad decision making of scientists in the world. As true as it may be, it is still nice to see that even Orwell sees a glimmer of hope for some scientists. Even though more education in the sciences to the masses may be bad, it does not mean that there should be no education at all in these subjects. So for those that do choose to pursue the sciences, I like that this passage proves that there is still hope and ethical thinking for them. I cannot deny that there are a lot of scientists that leave their morals behind, but I do hope that less and less scientists choose that devastating path.

A passage that I believe to be important to Orwell is the part about how politics, like during World War II, have affected the sciences and the arts; Orwell claimed that “scientific workers of all countries line up behind their own governments with fewer scruples than are felt by the writers and the artists.” I feel that this is important to him because it is a harsh statement to make; he is calling the scientists out for blindly following their government and helping to make a deadly weapon even though it is morally wrong. It is more personal to Orwell because he relates to the people in the literature world, due to his profession, and he is seeing that scientists are barely suffering from any repercussions or boundaries to what they can do. They are not using their ethics to make decisions, and Orwell believes that the artists and people in literature are in fact using their morals, but they are the ones that would be punished for it. Orwell is angry at how the scientists are being completely unethical in their thinking.

3. Orwell’s tone is viewed as being cautious because of his language; when referring to the two meanings of science being confused with each other, he calls it a “great danger.” Also when arguing that too much education in the classroom sciences is bad, he argues that it “will do little good, and probably a lot of harm.” His choice of words like “danger” and “harm” creates a very cautious tone that makes the reader fear exactly what Orwell wants them to fear; an overly scientifically educated group of people that lost all moral reasoning. In addition to having a very worrisome tone, Orwell has a very accusatory attitude towards scientists and everyone that is promoting more science education. He points out how when people are trained in one of the exact sciences, there “is no guarantee of a humane or skeptical outlook. The physicists of half a dozen great nations all feverishly and secretly working away at the atomic bomb, are a demonstration of this.” He also mentions how a lot of scientists believe that they can “claim to be somehow wiser than the rest of us.” Orwell is accusing the scientific community of not only being immoral, but also of being arrogant and pompous. So besides having a cautious tone, Orwell attacks the scientists of being unethical and pretentious.

4. Orwell poses questions several times as a way to get the reader to think about the situation more carefully; these rhetorical questions, in Orwell’s mind, have a right answer, and right after he asks the questions, he gives the reader his response. Orwell asks, “What happened to German literature when the Nazis came to power? I believe no exhaustive lists have been published, but I imagine that the number of German scientists…who voluntarily exiled themselves or were persecuted by the regime was much smaller than the number of writers and journalists.” Orwell poses this question to get the reader to really think about the difference between how the government and politics affected the sciences and literature. Orwell is claiming that scientists were not ethically prepared when faced with an unjust government; but those in the literature field chose to stick by their morals, even if it meant very severe punishment.

Finalizing his argument, Orwell asks, “But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated? On the contrary!” This questions is Orwell’s way to bring up the two different definitions of science again. He clearly separates the classroom sciences and the scientific and rational thinking. He wants to make it evident that when he says more education in the sciences is bad, he means more education in subjects like physics and chemistry. People should not ignore history, literature, and art; and instead of more learning about the different branches of science, people should focus on having a more logical and analytical mind.

5. Orwell contrasts science with art/humanities as well as with politics when he describes the difference between how German science and German literature was affected during World War II. Scientists during this time ignored their ethics and continued to follow their government and created a deadly weapon; “without them the German war machine could never have been built up.” Clearly politics played part in science; people of both lines of work were thinking immorally and it obviously led to horrible events. While the scientists were standing behind the government, the journalists and writers were “exiled…and persecuted by the regime.” Some writers even chose to leave their own country because of how awful the government was. The difference between how the physicists and the writers reacted to the politics during the time was Orwell’s way of showing how too much science education led to people losing all the honor and integrity left in them.

6. Orwell wants the readers to establish a difference between the two definitions of science, and to realize that when people say we need more science education, it means that people need to learn a rational method of thinking that can be utilized in any sort of problem. He has the this-is-what-you-have-to-do type of attitude when he says that scientific education ought to mean “a method that can be used on any problem that one meets – and not simply piling up a lot of facts. Put it in those words and the apologist of scientific education will usually agree. Press him further, ask him to particularize, and somehow it always turns out that scientific education means….more facts.” I feel that this is Orwell’s way of telling readers to fight for what he believes to be right, and when they do, they will encounter groups of people who are against this type of education. After a whole essay of arguing his side of the battle, Orwell expects readers to continue to fight for and establish the correct form of scientific education.

7. Orwell manages to end the essay on a fairly positive note; he brings up an example of physicists that were exactly the opposite of what Orwell was claiming was so bad about scientists. There were a group of physicists from Britain and American that,  unlike his previous example of German physicists. refused to work on the atomic bomb. They were fully aware of its intended use, and they decided to stick to their morals and not continue with the project.  He ends the essay this way to prove that not only there are some, though few, scientists who choose to do the right thing despite the government, but to also have this group of people act as a role model for other scientists or people who do decide to purse the science field.

8. Nazis and the atomic bomb are huge factors that led Orwell to argue against furthering scientific education. Orwell is very obvious in stating how the atomic bomb affected his opinion on scientists during World War II; he saw a group of scientifically intelligent men who chose to create an extremely destructive weapon despite their morals, or lack thereof. But not only were physicists the ones who were being unethical, there were scientists that supported the idea that a race could be scientifically superior to other races. There were also inhuman experiments conducted by scientists that were being overseen by the Nazis. Overall, Orwell was witnessing behavior that was beyond unacceptable, and a lot of it was due to the decisions made by scientists and political figures.

9. What immediately came to mind when reading this essay was the countless conversations I have had with people that question why I purse both math and art. It is beyond frustrating when people claim that it is useless to continue with art when I am a math major; there is no harm in not only doing the two things that I love, but in diversifying my abilities and seeing/doing things from a different angle. What really made me think of this was when Orwell said that “we hear, quite rightly, the claim that the masses should be scientifically educated; we do not hear, as we ought, the counter-claim that the scientists themselves would benefit by a little education.” Orwell just ends his argument with a bang; what’s wrong with incorporating a little art or literature in the lives of all those science crazed individuals?

Response to Orwell Quote

In the essay “What Is Science?” George Orwell brings up the interesting point 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” (5). Orwell is clearly convinced that too much focus on the education of the different branches of science will lead to the downfall of history and literature. It’s not necessarily bad to educate a person in the sciences, that is the classroom type of sciences, but it becomes harmful when there is such an excess of education in science that it leads to the ignoring of other topics.

Looking at it from the standpoint of a student living half of a century later, it definitely proves true in certain ways. Even something as simple as script, and even legible handwriting in general, has gone out the window; people have either become too dependent on technology, or they just do not care enough to keep more of a focus on preserving an old craft. With more education being centered primarily on science, there is more attention being shifted from literature, art, and history. Orwell has a very valid argument when stating his concern, but I believe that he has a very biased opinion because of this strong literature background; yet, he was being the exact thing he was arguing the world needed more of, a rational thinker. He includes the example of how a lot of scientists lost all moral thinking when faced with decisions about whether or not to stand behind their government to take part in dangerous activity when creating the atomic bomb during World War II. It is a bold statement to claim that science education will be at the cost of other areas of knowledge, but it does seem to be apparent that less focus on these other areas may lead to forgotten arts and unethical thinking. Instead of more education in the different types of sciences, there should be more of a push for teaching people how to have a more rational and experimental mind when facing various issues.

George Orwell’s “What is Science?”

­

As a novelist and journalist, George Orwell was very passionate about the education of future generations; in the article “What Is Science,” Orwell addressed the idea of more education in the sciences. Orwell both defined the word science and argued that more education in the sciences would not have the positive effect that was expected. Science was split between two different meanings; it was either referred to the subjects, like chemistry and biology, or to the method of scientific thinking where a valid result was determined from obtaining observed facts. Orwell felt that the two definitions were far from interchangeable. Many people automatically assumed that more knowledge in the sciences referred to learning more about the sciences that were taught in the classroom. But more knowledge in those fields did not necessarily mean an overall more educated or moral group of people. Orwell believed that it was foolishly assumed by people that scientists had a more intelligent view on unrelated topics, like politics, than non-scientists. Coming from a time period where World War II was fresh in everyone’s head, Orwell mentioned the German lifestyle during wartime to prove how untrue it was that scientists had a trusting view on politics. Orwell felt that scientists accepted certain immoral actions taken by the government; since scientists received little limitations to their work during World War II, they kept quiet and stood behind the unjust government. But those in jobs like German literature had to face many repercussions and restrictions dealing with what they were allowed to write and publish because of political issues. This did not necessarily mean that people should not be more scientifically educated in the classroom subjects; it just may lead to the downfall of literature and history among the masses. It also would not respect other areas of knowledge if education focused primarily on science. Instead, Orwell proposed that scientific education should mean having a more rational and experimental mind, not necessarily more knowledge in the sciences. Unfortunately, “The idea that science means a way of looking at the world, and not simply a body of knowledge, is a practice strongly resisted;” many scientists, according to Orwell, disliked this idea because they would appear to be less impressive and prestigious with others being so educated. Orwell did point out how the feeling was mutual in the literary world; those who dedicated their lives to history or literature also felt that they were in the superior field. But Orwell noted that he was living in a time period where people were focusing on more education in the sciences, so it was rare for a promotion of more education in history and literature. Being a man very devoted to literature, Orwell wanted to reach out and convince the general public, who were essentially the ones who were going to be educated, that a world with more education in the sciences was not guaranteed to be a successful one.