#2

            As Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, once said, “Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.” In Paine’s time, this was intended for British conservatives who wanted the colonies to remain a fringe part of Great Britain. The colonists comprehensively laid out their grievances in the Declaration of Independence, listing every instance of how they felt manipulated and mistreated by the British government. In spite of the vast array of valid reasons for seeking independence, the British were not willing to simply grant this to the colonists. To gain their freedom, the colonists had to declare war.

Nowadays, the same dead-end described by Paine can be applied to arguing with conservatives whose views will not budge even slightly, even in the face of clear, compelling scientific evidence. Someone who is well-educated and capable of understanding breaks in science may still not trust the discipline because of their political alignment with a party that distrusts science and allots to them more money or power. The support behind a scientific theory can grow and solidify until it really can’t be denied anymore, but someone who is simply unwilling to hear it for other reasons will continue to deflect reason. Unlike the colonists, however, scientists cannot wage war on those who are too stubborn to hear valid points; newer, craftier means of establishing their truths in society must be innovated.

The pen is supposedly more powerful than the sword. Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense, did not corroborate this, but perhaps the way he went about writing it did not maximize persuasion. Journalism today is geared at being generalized to accommodate all audiences. To entice educated conservatives to read science writing and at least open their minds to the possibility of some of it being true, maybe science writing has to be handled much more carefully. A less one-sided article may appeal more to readers whose stances lie on both ends of the spectrum, and to the moderates as well. If an article presents a scientific finding, then gives fair representation to any rebuttals that have surfaced against that finding and allows scientists to address the rebuttals, perhaps faith in science by more skeptical groups will begin to strengthen. The greater implications of the scientific finding for humanity should also be discussed from both perspectives. Stem-cell research has the potential to cure a lot of sick people, but it also compromises what others believe to be innocent lives. The strongest way to attain the trust of both sides is to let them know that their views are considered—in that way, perhaps each science article should encompass its own mini-debate.

If science writers can begin to bear this in mind about their audience, maybe scientists can as well. A scientist who does not belittle those who are less trusting in science has a better chance of overcoming their reservations.

#1

Democracy is defined as “a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” This, like most definitions I have read, does not dictate whether or not the choices that people make when provided with this power have to be informed. A conservative may believe wholeheartedly that global warming does not exist because that view is consistent with the platform of their political affiliation, but have no understanding of the scientific evidence presented demonstrating climate change over time. A liberal may endorse stem cell research without empathizing with those who believe that innocent “lives” are being sacrificed. The people are at liberty to become as informed as they want—a lot of this information is readily available on the internet or at the library, and can vote outside of their political affiliation if they so please. As most sources pose, however, most people do not go out of their way to educate themselves on the issues, simply sticking with one political party. It is their own decision to be ignorant and vote the way they do, so is this not a democracy?

            The idea behind a liberal education is to produce graduates who are more well-rounded and open-minded than they were before entering college. This is supposedly achieved by not only a diverse array of general requirements, including classes in art, science, math, literature, history, politics, economics, and more, but also classes that challenge students’ values and ethics. Ursinus College attempts this with the Common Intellectual Experience (CIE), in which all of the first-year students are randomly placed into sections of a discussion-based course in which students read various philosophical texts. The fundamental views of the students vary widely, especially in the way of religion and morality. The aim is not necessarily to change students’ views, but at least to entice them to question what they’ve believed for their entire lives and confirm those beliefs with more assurance. The majors of students vary as well. Students majoring in biology or environmental science most likely understand today’s scientific controversies and possess an educated opinion, but probably do not have as strong of a grasp on the actual politics. For other students, it may be the reverse. By intermingling, hopefully students of different backgrounds and interests are able to educate each other to result in everyone having at least a basic understanding of all of the prominent disciplines today.

            When looking at the strict definition of democracy, it does not seem as though a liberal education is necessary. A liberal education may lead to people knowing what they’re talking about and voting for more often, but it is apparent that people can be ignorant and still have strong beliefs on any issue. People are able to elect the officials who will represent them the way they want either way. However, if a ‘strengthened’ democracy implies that people not only strongly believe in something but also thoroughly understand it, then maybe a liberal education would do so.

            One problem with a liberal education—when looking at it pragmatically—is that most students are lazy. Art students will enroll in “rocks for jocks” to fulfill their science requirement. Science students will take “photography 101” to fill their art requirement. Most students at liberal schools are still focused on their major and will choose to neglect exploring the other fields in any sort of depth. So perhaps a stricter form of ‘liberal education’ is necessary, in which students are forced to challenge themselves outside of their primary focus, but when a level of curriculum rigor is forced upon students through what classes they enroll in, is the education still ‘liberal’?

#0

Hello world,
Welcome to my blog. Hope you enjoy!