Focused Freewriting: Orwell

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.

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?

Focused Freewriting: Orwell

1. I feel as if Orwell’s purpose from writing this was to advise the public support humanities rather than science. It seems as if science is already extremely popular with society at this era, but humanities are falling out of place. He also argues against Mr. J. Stewart Cook that science should not take over and be more involved in politics, in fact, Orwell’s entire essay is pitted against this idea.
2. One passage that is important to me is on page five. Orwell states that “if it boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history. Its probable effect on the average human being would be to narrow the range of this thoughts and make him than ever contemptuous of such knowledge…” This passage brings to the readers’ attention of the negative impact that getting rid of literature will bring upon society. It supports my opinion of this whole situation, and it goes to show that Orwell can see that everything, not just science, is needed in order for a nation to thrive. A passage that is most likely very important to Orwell would be in his conclusion on page six. He refers to the magazine article that he read and says: “Here you have a group of sane men in the middle of a world of lunatics.” Orwell is referring to the people who wanted to use the brilliant minds of these scientists for power. Orwell also goes on to say that these scientists have been educated in the humanities because they have a sense of right and wrong, rather than a sense of advancing science. This was a very strong argument for Orwell.
3. Orwell’s tone was cautious because he was trying to persuade people that having science take over with no balance between literature and history would detriment society. On page four, he states that the claim that those who have been scientifically trained to approach all subjects at matter in a scientific-fashion would be more intelligent than those who had no training at all is false. He cautions readers by labeling this a “great danger”. From a cautious tone of voice, I feel as if a scared tone is implied. Because Orwell is trying to advise the public, he knows that he can’t control the people to think from his point of view, he can only do his best to persuade these people to give it a chance, and even then, he wouldn’t know if these people would agree with him. It seems that whenever he cautions, he’s scared as well because there is always a chance of failure in life. He lists out all these points about how having science take over would create power hungry people, or that scientists would lose their prestige if everyone was able to call themselves a scientist; he even goes on to compare this situation to Hitler’s reign in Germany during World War II.
4. On the first page of his essay, Orwell asks the question, “What is science?” This question was probably posed to inform readers, before they read ahead, that there are two views to science. One that is “the exact sciences, such as chemistry, physics, etc.” and one that is a way of thinking that combines analytics and observation. On page five, Orwell asks if the people shouldn’t be scientifically educated at all. His belief is that scientific education should be available for people, but not everyone. This type of education will probably cause more harm than good. By answering his own question in this way, it shows that Orwell is not entirely biased; that his mind and his views are still open to the other side of the argument.
5. On the first two sentences of page six, it states that a hundred years ago, Charles Kingsley described science as making something smell in experiments, and that a year or two ago, an industrial chemist told Orwell that poetry seemed useless to him. This shows the reader how different people thought a hundred years ago. People depended on words (arts and humanities) to describe science, but now science seems to have no relation to what it used to be represented by, and thus, is a species of it’s own subject.
6. This essay asks readers to support arts and humanities more to balance out the popularity of science. Science has such a big impact on society in this era, that the arts have been forgotten. Orwell is asking those reading to promote the other subjects because science cannot rule alone. In Orwell’s last three paragraphs, he begins to shine light on what could happen if science took over: stating that this would make humanity narrow minded, and knowledge hungry. He even brings World War II as an example. When Hitler took over in Germany, science prevailed, but literature was lost. When the Allies asked their scientists to study the atomic bomb, they refused because they knew the dangers to humanity. Orwell brings to play two of the most threatening days of society to back up his claim that the arts and humanities will disappear, to no good result, if science reigns supreme.
7. He ends by saying that even people with the most knowledge in science, people who were given the title of ‘scientist’, have a background in arts and humanities. He refers specifically to the scientists who refused to conduct research on the bomb because these scientists showed that they still retained their morals, and that knowledge isn’t everything.  This allows readers to ponder about themselves and realize that these two subjects, arts and humanities, are just as prevalent in their lives as science is. Science is only part of the reason that our society has advanced to far.
8. All of these topics are linked to World War II. I believe Orwell used these topics to defend his reasoning because World War II is looked upon as one of the most catastrophic wars in history. Racial science was, to an extent, fueled by evolution, which was supported by Charles Kingsley. Racial science was what brought upon the idea that Germans were far superior to any other race to Hitler and the Nazis, which resulted in a cause of World War II. The Tribune in the 1940’s covered the war and was also pro-war. Orwell also wrote an article related to the atomic bomb for The Tribune. The atomic bomb was also the result of science.
9. This essay reminded me of the book, The Giver. The book follows a boy who lives in a utopia, a place free of diseases, emotions, diversity: anything that had the possibility to produce negativity. This boy was given the job of keeping the memories of pre-Utopian society, a place where diversity, emotions, but also death and diseases reigned, alive. In the end, the boy escapes this society because he believe that emotions, diversity, and feelings is worth all the nasty things that come along with it. I have stated before that I believe your passion is drawn into the forms of art and humanities. In a place where such feelings and emotions don’t exist, everything is dull. There is a specific part in the book where the boy asks his parents if they love him. His parents respond by saying that there is not such thing as love, that they, instead, “enjoy” him. Science can not accurately describe what causes love, but it can accurately describe what causes enjoyment. This is an example of the prevalence of science with no art or humanities in a society. The Giver is an excellent example of what could happen to society when science takes over.

Focused Freewriting: Orwell

Orwell’s purpose was to influence and to basically share his thoughts. He advises us to include the liberal arts when educating the masses about science and he argues with supporting facts and logic to back up his claims. He also critiques J. Stewart Cook’s statement in order to provide a base for his argument by partially opposing it. A passage that I think is important to me and Orwell is the passage that outlines the definitions of science. He points out the common meanings of the word and points out the danger in confusing semantics. This was important because it laid down the foundation for his argument and presented many interesting points that most people had probably never thought of, such as what becomes of the prestige of “scientists” if becoming one was as easy as “implanting of a rational, skeptical, experimental habit of mind.” Orwell’s tone could be described as cautious because he didn’t completely disagree with J. Stewart Cook’s statement, he just wanted to ensure that topics such as literature and history supplemented the education of science, to provide people with multifaceted points of view and methods of thinking. Orwell contrasts science and literature/arts in this statement, “A hundred years ago, Charles Kingsley described science as ‘making nasty smell in a laboratory’. A year or two ago a young industrial chemist informed me, smugly, that he ‘could not see what was the use of poetry’” He compares the way the people from the different backgrounds pettily criticize the other subject of study. This comparison shows the reader that not one viewpoint is superior. The “nationalism test” is what Orwell uses to compare science and politics, showing the reader that not even scientists can resist nationalism easily, or even easier than artists and writers can. The essay does not really ask the readers to do anything explicitly, it just provides Orwell’s viewpoints and tries to convince the reader to see things his way. In this statement, “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 attempts to convince his readers not to neglect literature and history in the education of the masses. Orwell ends his essay with the idea that the people who refused to work on the atomic bomb were people who had a more colorful background and acquaintance with literature and arts than the people who did work on the bomb, which makes people really think: did they really have more cultural background than the “father of the atomic bomb” J. Robert Oppenheimer, who even quoted a scripture called Bhagavad Gita from a Hindu epic, “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”? The time in which Orwell published this article, the 1940’s, was full of misuse of scientific prowess and destruction of the arts at the hands of the Nazis, with human experimentation and concentration camps, among countless other crimes against humanity. It was easy to criticize science’s moral utility at that time, so one could see where Orwell was coming from. Some other texts that come to mind when I read this passage by Orwell was, coincidentally, Orwell’s other works such as 1984 and Animal Farm, novels outlining and portraying dystopian societies and how they came to be. He is basically warning society not to degrade in such a manner, and is accomplishing that in the essay as well as these novels.

Orwell’s Quote

George Orwell wrote an essay called “What is Science” in which he explains his different definitions of science. This political novelist and journalist wrote in this essay this quote,  “…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)

My interpretation of this quote is Orwell is saying there is more education that is important than just sciences. If people knew just sciences it would cause harm. I agree with him in this quote because I believe knowing just one subject very well may be good but not enough. I think to be considered educated involves  being well rounded not just knowing one subject like the hard sciences. One definition he gave of science was a body of knowledge or mode of thinking which isn’t limited to scientific thinking, that could mean any other subject of education. He states sciences such as physics and chemistry aren’t enough and how detrimental he thought it would be if we only learned that. He stresses the important of literature and history which is true, all subjects have had their contribution to our society over the years. While some people think one subject is more important than others it think  its still important to know of all of the subjects collectively. Like our school system, we don’t just learn science all four years, we are required english, history, science, math as well as other classes we must complete before graduating. I feel without education outside of just one subject can really be the best they can be. If a psychologist only learned science how would they learn to communicate with their patients? That would hurt the field of psychology not being able to be well rounded because they haven’t be taught anything else but the hard sciences as Orwell pointed out.

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.

Response to George Orwell’s Quote

His quote reminds society not to neglect liberal arts when educating the masses in scientific subjects. Pure scientific topics may have a negative impact on society as a whole if arts and history are not there to complement and guide that information, and to use these areas of creative intellect to control what we do and what we shouldn’t do with new scientific information and discoveries. Innovation is born when science meets the arts and when these subjects borrow from each other, society can benefit immensely by the results. I agree that this statement applied during Orwell’s time, but I don’t think that it is as relevant to today’s world. I feel that our society is currently lacking in human resources in terms of science, technology, and engineering, and I think that we should encourage young people to enter these careers and to educate the populace to a fuller extent on these subjects. During the Cold War, American scientific progress grew at an unprecedented rate. We built, engineered, calculated so much, we even put a man on the moon. Since then, Americans as a whole have not been nearly as enthusiastic about scientific discoveries and achievements. We were driven, maybe for the wrong reasons, but we became great, achieved the impossible, and realized a dream. What happened?

All hail, King Science!

The quote “…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,” is very debatable. Many people would agree that science is what moves us forward in society, and in an age where technology reigns supreme, wouldn’t you agree? No. Like I have said before, science is not as important as literature, in fact, there is no subject that is more important than the other. Humanity requires the creative thinking that literature and history provides, and the methodical problem solving skills that science has to offer.

Take the iPhone, for example. It is one of the most advance devices available to the public. Through further examination of the phone, you realize that not only is the technology very advanced, but it’s aesthetics are also top quality. This is a combination of intelligence and creativity; one being supplied from sciences, and the other from literature. Was all it took to create the iPhone, one simple prototype? No. It took multiple tests and trials before it was perfected. This is something we’ve learned from history: that we need to make mistakes to become better.

Apple is a prime example of why you cannot simply get rid of these humanity subjects for science. Science comes from your brain. You learn how to manipulate equations, you learn which wire to cut, you learn why soda explodes when you add Mentos to it, you learn what the big, shiny, red button does when you press it. Humanity subjects study human conditions. It’s self-explanatory; they have the word “humanity” in the phrase! The iPhone, or any Apple product, is simply the result of combining your brain with your heart. You combine what you learn with what you love to do, and there it is: a master piece. But you can’t simply have only one of the two and expect something spectacular to come out of it. What are you going to use your brain for if you have no passion to do anything with it? What are you going to do with your heart if you can’t applying it? This is the case with science, and literature and history. Literature is an art meant for people to love and escape to. History is meant for people to look back and learn from their mistakes. There is no rational in getting rid of these for more science. What good is science alone?

Orwell’s Opinion on Scientific Education

In George Orwell’s essay, “What is Science”, science is defined into two meanings. It is chemistry, physics, and biology and also a way of thinking. In his essay, Orwell challenges the idea to implement more scientific education because he does not believe that learning how to mix chemicals and use test-tubes will make a person well-rounded. It will do the complete opposite because students will only focus primarily on making new scientific discovering. Thus, it creates a limit on the students’ education.

George Orwell believes that science is not the answer to all of life’s problems. Science has a huge contribution to technological advances and inventions that impact our lives in a positive way. However, Orwell does not approve more scientific education in the curriculum when it comes to teaching more exact sciences. Unlike history and writing courses, science lacks social interactions. It does not teach any morals or ethics nor does it discipline the mind to become better human beings.

As quoted from Orwell’s essay, ““…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 fears that more scientific education will create narrow-minded individuals. Subjects such as history, philosophy, and literature, will submerge underneath chemistry, biology, and physics.  Orwell wants to diversify the curriculum to create a better and stronger society. Although technology is useful and convenient, science does not have a formula or an equation to teach life lessons. In Orwell’s opinion, a strong community consists of journalists, philosophers, scientists, engineers, artists, historians, and writers. Diversity is essential in expanding our knowledge. It will bring great benefits for students to take not only science classes, but also classes that teach them various lessons, philosophies, and culture.

Analysis of Orwell Quote

“…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).

This above quotation is from George Orwell’s “What Is Science”. What he means is that compressed exact sciences are unfavorable to train general public and vitiate the education of thinking. I think he is right on this point. We learn science because we are curious about how and why things exist in the world, not simply facts that those objects exist. If we just cumulate these facts in our mind and ignore training thinking in critical, that is not the aim of learning science. Deficiency of thinking creatively and reasoning things can damage the education of history, philosophy, literature as all these disciplines train us to learn from previous experiences, learn ethical and moral situations then apply in present and future. Therefore, think in stereotype becomes the instrument of those disciplines’ downfall. However, it doesn’t mean we don’t need to learn science. In the contrary, we need to learn the exact sciences as well as the scientific method of thinking. In other words, we should combine these two definitions of Science. During World War 2, some intelligent people became experts in their own specialized fields. They were known as they had abundant knowledge of exact sciences. But they lacked critical thoughts and they were unable to think in an objective way. As a result, they did so many things which always challenged moral and justice, such as dishonesty. This example can support Orwell’s view.

In contemporary, this concept is also useful for current scientists, even for common people such as students and  office people. For example, when scientists areis doing research on the new thing, they should learn not only properties of it, but also how these properties of the new thing could benefit people’s life, how it comes from, how it related to other things, etc.