RESPONSES TO READING
Another Way of Journaling
I read with interest “On What Science is”. The text flows smoothly. First of all, the author started with a question about what science is. And he provides answer through four easily understood examples. Those four examples given are an ecologist, a chemist, an astrophysicist, and a biologist. He explained that those experts devote their time, energy, knowledge, and patience to learn more about how nature works. He added that they also want to show that their works will lead to new ideas where nature can be explained better.
Then, the author proposes another question to help readers understand more about why people carry out scientific action. He gives two answers for the question. The first, people do scientific action because of the individual perspective. To earn paycheck is one of the personal points of view of doing research. While others do research as they have a contract or MoU for that. But the noble reason is that to test new ideas or to disprove old ones.
Secondly, is because of the societal perspective. This perspective offers three reasons of why somebody does scientific action. They are because: 1) the desire to improve people’s lives; 2) the desire for economic development; 3) the fact that humanity’s increasing control over the planet; 4) need answer to curiosity, and 5) get satisfaction.
Next, the writer explains how research becomes scientific knowledge. He wrote that there are three steps to fulfill. Firstly, the researcher writes her work on a paper called a manuscript. In the manuscript she include why her research is significant, what method she employ, and report the result of her observation. Secondly, she sends her manuscript to a scientific journal to be reviewed by experts. Third, after it is approved by the reviewers, the paper is issued. Fourth, as the paper is read, challenged, and noted, it becomes knowledge.
Finally, the reading talks about science and constant change because there is ‘question everything’ and consideration that ‘science is a history of corrected mistakes’. Leaving the ego of the scientists themselves, so that new ideas replenish the old ones and different interpretation come up.
Compare to Churchman’s writing, this piece of writing is not too difficult to understand. The writer put his ideas systematically and effectively. He directly serves the readers with definition after he put a question as title. He straightforward adds and elaborate things needed related to science. The elaboration makes the issue discussed clearer through samples. This causes the readers to be smart up as he indirectly has enriched his readers’ knowledge. For example he wrote: “Consider some examples”. And he indeed gives some examples after that. He wrote in his next sentence: an ecologist…, a geologist …, an astrophysicist. He also expanded the examples into two different categories; they are observational science and experimental science.
Personally, first time when I flip through the pages, I cannot say that I like the reading. Because my mind is still occupied by the difficulty when I read the previous reading written by Churchman. But as I read more I realize this piece of work introduce me to a new style of writing and had brought me to new awareness. The awareness to see things from many different angles before come to a final conclusion and decision.
The writer shows that life is full of choices. He teaches the reader to choose options offered wisely. As he wrote: “This leaves people with a choice today. One option is …. The other option, or perhaps the other option ….” (page 19). He shows that there are still options among options.
I also learn that the author had developed his writing adequately. He attracted readers by giving question as the title. My eyes do not need to go here and there as the answer lies directly at the beginning of the paragraph. His purpose to make readers understand what is covered by science is achieved through clear examples and accurate choice of vocabularies.
He starts the explanations by offering question first. This helps me to understand what is being discussed. He wrote: “So why do science?” He offers two reasons for that. l learn that this make me as his reader knows the things that he is digging up.
The writer states his accurate observation towards science. He stated that science probably and never can give statements of absolute eternal truth. Science only provides theories.
Consider the statement above I can say that as long as human never stop looking for the truth; science will undergo to facilitate to findings that drive human to a better life.
I can conclude that after reading and writing this entry, I realize that it is not an easy task to be an analytical reader. I think I should practice more and never give up.