Response to Sagan

Sagan’s piece begins with an anecdote which talks about his meeting with his driver, Mr. Buckley. He explains how amazed he is at the fact that the general public does not really not know much about what real science is. They are all convinced that UFOs, and crystals, and such is what science is. Sagan is appalled that the people do not have an interest for real science, but it is because of the fact that they do not know anything about “real science” but are only aware of the “pseudo-science.” Sagan rapidly lists in question for the many facts about science that he finds interesting that the public is unaware of. The whole introduction is a realization that he has that people are really not as smart as they are thought to be, or think of themselves to be. Sagan then moves onto to accept the fact that science has its pros and cons. He accepts the fact that scientific discoveries have led to political war weapons being created, harmful chemicals being created, but he also mentions the positives that they have done: found cures for diseases, discovering planets, etc. Sagan, unlike Orwell, thinks that science is useful to the thinking process. He states that “this is central to success.” I’m sure Orwell would pounce on that statement and argue it at once. Sagan also reviews the fact that Americans are not as smart as they think they are. He uses statistics to prove his point on how poorly America is doing compared to the rest of the world. The fact that kids don’t like going to school in American compared to other nations is a very big issue playing into this. The biggest reason why Americans do not know much about science is the fact that everyone is so hesitant. Kids are hesitant to ask questions, scientists are hesitant to share their findings, and adults just don’t have the patience to answer their kids “ridiculous” questions. Sagan concludes his piece by saying that their is a solution. He turns his so-far pessimistic piece and sheds some optimism. He says that if teachers wanted to teach, and were given better benefits for teaching, there would be so much more learned. There is an urgency in his voice as he says science should be taught–the real science. There are so many interesting things to be learned, but they are not being taught in the way that they should be or presented with as much as enthusiasm as it should have.

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. 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.