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.

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?

Response to Orwell’s 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).

What Orwell is conveying in this statement is that scientific teachings have to do more than just spew facts into our brains, instead they must get down to a deeper and more personal level of thought.  I agree with him on this to an extent.  It is necessary to know where different discoveries have come from and to be more connected with your intellectual side of reasoning, but whether the two should be connected is a different story.  Like church and state I think the teachings of science and scientific thinking should be separate.  You can’t be learning about the human body or use of the atom as you also are informed on how to be a more subjective thinker and person.  Therefore, education should contain two aspects, one in which you learn about the exact sciences as Orwell described in his first definition, and another dealing with how thinking more critically can improve your self-worth.  I feel that in today’s world this is what goes on because you have your science classes, such as, biology and chemistry, and then your moral reasoning and thinking classes, like philosophy and history.