Month: October 2018

The chapter I chose to focus on in the They Say/I Say book was chapter 16, Writing in the Sciences. I chose this chapter specifically because my essay talks exclusively about the importance of science versus art and this chapter show how to argue from a scientific perspective rather than an artistic one. This chapter specifically talks about how to respectfully argue against someone by bringing up their argument before using yours to prove them wrong.  I used this tactic to effectively argue against the implement of art in STEM in my essay.

This is from my original essay:

“STEAM is not necessary to advance society while STEM subjects are.”

Revised Version:

“While many may believe that art is something necessary for human growth and development, the only constant that has helped human advance through history is STEM subjects.”

While science is an amazing tool for humanity to learn about the natural world, it is not appreciated, but rather is disregarded and many want to avoid it or change what it is. Mark Boslough talks about this issue in his article, We Must Protect U.S. Investment in Scientific Knowledge. He says, “Such thinking has encouraged belief in pseudoscientific and unscientific ideas ranging from crystal healing in Taos to flying saucers in Roswell.” Here Boslough is trying to say that many people who don’t believe in scientific principles have begun to reject science by taking non scientific ideas and pretending that they are scientific. This misuse of science can also be seen in an article by Jonah Lehrer called The future of science is…art? In this article, Lehrer tries to argue for the inclusion of art into science and specifically states, “If we want answers to our most essential questions, then we will need to bridge our cultural divide. By heeding the wisdom of the arts, science can gain the kinds of new insights and perspectives that are the seeds of scientific progress.” When Lehrer says this he is trying to say that in the modern era science has answered all questions that it possibly could and that we’ve hit a dead end and the only way to keep making progress is to include art within science. While it seems that Jonah appreciates science and genuinely thinks the inclusion of art can genuinely help, he is still wrong in his thinking. Like Boslough described that people would reject science and want to change it, the second it looks like science has slowed it’s progress, Lehrer wants to change the process that’s been helping humans survive for thousands of years. Simply speaking science is something that we as a human race cannot lose faith in, for it has helped us in the past and will continue to help us in the future as long as we do not try to change it.

While Yo Yo Ma may believe that STEAM is the best way to give our youth a proper education, I disagree. There are many complications that may surface when trying to change a curriculum. Many schools have to completely adjust the way they tech entirely, between changing teachers, choosing which subjects are mandatory, and supplying the kids with the proper tools to lean. Honestly, art is not something pressing enough that all these troubles need to be addressed. Art is also something that is subjectively useful, whereas you can’t say for sure that it will help every student. Art is a subject that many people are naturally inclined to, so implementing it as mandatory would be unfair to those who aren’t artistically strong. Not to mention art is a subject that requires much more funding than schools can afford due to the supplies needed. Honestly STEM is an effective way to teach children and doesn’t need to be changed.

The essay was originally published in an online magazine, World-Post, which features people like Elon Musk, Tony Blair, and Eric Schmidt. The writer of the essay is Yo Yo Ma, a cellist and songwriter, who is known for winning many awards for his musical performances, including 17 grammies. His biography gives light as to why he’s such an advocate for art. My purpose in reading this is specifically related in the fact that I’m learning STEM subjects now. Yo Yo Ma is intending to make the audience aware that art has a equally vital part in teaching youth how to learn as math and science.

3 Words:

Integrative Awareness- innately human set of skills for healing and wholeness through movement, touch, enhanced awareness and changes of consciousness, used to describe how art can affect thinking

Lewd – crude and offensive in a sexual way, used to describe a dance

Virtuosos-person who has an extreme talent or skill, used to describe preformers

I had added these two quotes to my essay because I felt my main issue was not enough quotes to back up my commentary. The other quotes in my essay had seemed to be pretty decently placed and didn’t necessarily need editing.

-This is shown when Haas and Hahn finished one of they’re projects, “we needed to change, like, the venue because it couldn’t hold all the people, and everybody came together.”

-They had a thought, “could we just make something that looks nice so that if people look at the place and they already know that they are going to dislike it, and all of a sudden, they’re confronted with something beautiful?”

Here is an original paragraph. from my essay that was way too long and needed revision:

The EA are an extremely strong willed and persistent group that believe there’s only one way to effectively help those in need. EA stands for effective altruism and is the practice  of selfless concern for the well-being of others. They pride themselves on living by this belief and trying to help those in need as effectively and efficiently as possible. Because of the need or want to be incredibly effective, they reject most other methods of help besides their current strategy of just giving money to those in poverty. They specifically believe in measuring good deeds worth by how effective they are in comparison to just giving money. Southan explains this mentality of the EA by simply paraphrasing, “does your preferred good deed make as much of a difference as simply handing over the money? If not, how good a deed is it really?” This mentality seems very counterproductive because the EA is focusing on criticizing those who are trying to make a difference instead of those who aren’t trying. Also, I believe that there isn’t really a way to justify quantifying those deeds with monetary values. If a deed is truly good and the person is genuinely trying to help, then there is nothing wrong with that. The main point should be that the person wants to help, rather than bashing them for not helping enough. Another important ideology of the EA is the thought that there is no physical difference from helping those around you and those in need anywhere else in the world. One philosopher who heavily talked about this idea is the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer who brought up this hypothetical situation, “Suppose you saw a child drowning in a pond: would you jump in and rescue her” The overwhelming response to the answer is simply; yes. Singer than goes on to say that anyone who would save the child and not help those in poverty around the world is inconsistent. They believe there is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios and that if you’d save one you should save the other. I beg to differ in this case, because there are some obvious differences that the EA is ignoring in this scenario. One major difference is the difficulty in solving the two scenarios. To save the child you just pull her out of the pond, while stopping poverty and hunger around the world is and incredibly complex problem with no easy answer. There is also a huge difference in the distance of the two scenarios because the child is right in front of you, whereas the people in poverty are thousands of miles away from you so a huge disconnect is formed. The EA are blissfully ignorant in thinking that anyone can help very easily and are ignoring many complications involved. Instead of criticizing those who are doing their best to try and help, maybe they should try and reduce the overwhelming effects of barriers like distance, difficulty and ignorance.

Here is the revised version:

The EA are an extremely strong willed and persistent group that believe there’s only one way to effectively help those in need and while this seems like their intentions are good, their methods aren’t. Effective Altruism is the practice of selfless concern for the well-being of others. They pride themselves on living by this belief and trying to help those in need as effectively and efficiently as possible. Because of the need or want to be incredibly effective, they reject most other methods of help besides their current strategy of just giving money to those in poverty. They specifically believe in measuring good deeds worth by how effective they are in comparison to just giving money. Southan explains this mentality of the EA by simply paraphrasing, “does your preferred good deed make as much of a difference as simply handing over the money? If not, how good a deed is it really?” This mentality seems very counterproductive because the EA is focusing on criticizing those who are trying to make a difference instead of those who aren’t trying. Also, I believe that there isn’t really a way to justify quantifying those deeds with monetary values. If a deed is truly good and the person is genuinely trying to help, then there is nothing wrong with that. The main point should be that the person wants to help, rather than bashing those that are trying for not helping enough. The EA’s intentions of helping are very good, but their method of comparing whose help is most effective is counterproductive.

Another important ideology that the EA take to heart is the thought that there is no physical difference from helping those around you and those in need anywhere else in the world. One philosopher who heavily talked about this idea is the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer who brought up this hypothetical situation, “Suppose you saw a child drowning in a pond: would you jump in and rescue her” The overwhelming response to the answer is simply, yes. Singer than goes on to say that anyone who would save the child is inconsistent and a hypocrite for not helping those in need around the world suffering from poverty, hunger, or disease. They believe there is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios and that if you’d save the child you should be helping those around the world. I beg to differ in this case, because there are some obvious differences that the EA is ignoring in this scenario. One major difference is the difficulty in simply fixing the two scenarios. To save the child you just pull her out of the pond and she is no longer suffering, while stopping poverty, disease, and hunger around the world is and incredibly complex problem with no easy answer. There’s millions of people suffering and trying to help them from being tormented by poverty, disease, or hunger is a near impossible task. There is also a huge difference in the distance of the two scenarios because the child is right in front of you, whereas the people in poverty are thousands of miles away from you so a huge disconnect is formed. The EA are blissfully ignorant in thinking that anyone can help very easily and are ignoring many complications involved. Instead of criticizing those who are doing their best to try and help, maybe they should try and reduce the overwhelming effects of barriers like distance, difficulty and ignorance.

The methods I used for the revision was first splitting the ginormous paragraph into two to allow an easier read. This also lets me focus in on individual points in each paragraph. I adjusted the introductory statements in each to make them focus on the points in each paragraph. I also specified some of my details by adding in a sentence or two when explaining my points. I also edited some sentences just so that they were worded more clearly.