I am practicing my English writing as a non-native speaker. This is my first post so far. Thank a lot for your advice
A renowned bookwriter once firmly announced that scientists are in fact artists. This notion garners the acceptance of a mior of the society, who believe science is more related to personess than to solid facts. Nevertheless, others argue that concrete evidences seperated from emotion are what science should aims to. While there are valid arguments to the contrary, I wholeheartedly concur with the notion that being impersonal helps science prevent wrong thinkings, gain worldwide popularity and boost the interest of doing science.
The first merit to mention is that scientists being emotional usually invent things later shown incorrect. In addition, those who are confined to certain religions or beliefs find it arduous to accept any discoveries challenging their thinkings. It obviously hinders the pace of science development. To put this in perspective, for centuries people had believed that Earth is the center of the galaxy. When the contemporary scientist Gallileo proposed that our planet revolves around the Sun, he was drastically criticized. This belief was correct, but it was unaccepted in asmuchas people believing in the superior of human and the Earth could not stand this idea. To sum up, this can lead to enduring misunderstanding of science facts.
Another point worth mentioning is that this helps science reach everyone's mind. Regardless of our own distinct religions, science should be regarded as universal truth Thereupon, science should only be judged on its authencity, not its background. To clarify my point, during World War II, Albert Einstein emerged as one of the leading scientists of that time. He proposed the Relativity Theory, which has been very useful for the society. In spite of the war condition, people around the world, though dubious, still welcomed his discovery. On the contrary, many science inventions are still criticized only for religional reasons. Therefore, we must seperate science from emotion. Only then, the effects of science can reach all corners of the globe.
Last but not least, science must be seperated from art. That's what stimulates student's as well as researcher's interestes. To contrast, putting too much personal beliefs on science only ruins its austere beauty. For instance, last year the Educational Department of USA conducted a survey to see how students responded to their science's studying. It was conducted on the Northern America, including 10 religional schools and 10 non- religional ones. Those on the former was taught math, physics and chemistry whereas those on the latter only studied concrete facts. The result showed that only 24% students from religional schools showed interestes on science, while more than 70% students from the other schools found these subjects thrilling. Suffice it to say, putting science apart from personal thinking is a good solution to increase the interestes of students.
In a nutshell, when it comes to preventing false-enduring discoveries, gaining worldwide popularity and booming students' concern for science, it is wise to make science impersonal. Nevertheless, a great proportion of people still involve in science with too much emotion. They must ruminate on this issue more painstakingly for the future sake!
A renowned bookwriter once firmly announced that scientists are in fact artists. This notion garners the acceptance of a mior of the society, who believe science is more related to personess than to solid facts. Nevertheless, others argue that concrete evidences seperated from emotion are what science should aims to. While there are valid arguments to the contrary, I wholeheartedly concur with the notion that being impersonal helps science prevent wrong thinkings, gain worldwide popularity and boost the interest of doing science.
The first merit to mention is that scientists being emotional usually invent things later shown incorrect. In addition, those who are confined to certain religions or beliefs find it arduous to accept any discoveries challenging their thinkings. It obviously hinders the pace of science development. To put this in perspective, for centuries people had believed that Earth is the center of the galaxy. When the contemporary scientist Gallileo proposed that our planet revolves around the Sun, he was drastically criticized. This belief was correct, but it was unaccepted in asmuchas people believing in the superior of human and the Earth could not stand this idea. To sum up, this can lead to enduring misunderstanding of science facts.
Another point worth mentioning is that this helps science reach everyone's mind. Regardless of our own distinct religions, science should be regarded as universal truth Thereupon, science should only be judged on its authencity, not its background. To clarify my point, during World War II, Albert Einstein emerged as one of the leading scientists of that time. He proposed the Relativity Theory, which has been very useful for the society. In spite of the war condition, people around the world, though dubious, still welcomed his discovery. On the contrary, many science inventions are still criticized only for religional reasons. Therefore, we must seperate science from emotion. Only then, the effects of science can reach all corners of the globe.
Last but not least, science must be seperated from art. That's what stimulates student's as well as researcher's interestes. To contrast, putting too much personal beliefs on science only ruins its austere beauty. For instance, last year the Educational Department of USA conducted a survey to see how students responded to their science's studying. It was conducted on the Northern America, including 10 religional schools and 10 non- religional ones. Those on the former was taught math, physics and chemistry whereas those on the latter only studied concrete facts. The result showed that only 24% students from religional schools showed interestes on science, while more than 70% students from the other schools found these subjects thrilling. Suffice it to say, putting science apart from personal thinking is a good solution to increase the interestes of students.
In a nutshell, when it comes to preventing false-enduring discoveries, gaining worldwide popularity and booming students' concern for science, it is wise to make science impersonal. Nevertheless, a great proportion of people still involve in science with too much emotion. They must ruminate on this issue more painstakingly for the future sake!
