Category: Science

Scientific development has constantly been redefined by paradigm shifts, from mystic worship of the stars, to Aristotelian study of natural science, to Newtonian physics of deterministic laws, to Quantum physics and relativity, and cutting edge biomedical technology. Inspired by such advances, mankind has gone on to create a variety of applications, from new materials for car windscreens, to sophisticated supercomputers, from tracking devices to satellites. Most people regard science as a tool which they can use to improve their lives. However, it is my belief that by doing so, and thereby creating the misconception that science is only useful when its findings have application, the score of scientific study becomes severely limited. Science, by definition is an explanation of natural phenomena, and a scientist by extension is one who attempts to explore and explain how the world works against us. The successful scientist therefore should not be defined as a person whose inventions improve our standard of living. Such a focus, while important for various reasons, should not be the be all and end all, and should include other aspects.

In order to provide a more nuanced view of the issue, one should first draw distinctions between types of scientists, mainly the theoretical scientist, who attempts to provide conceptual explanations to certain phenomena, the fundamental researcher, who does research to validate or invalidate work by theoretical scientists, and the applied researcher, who attempts to make use of such validated theories to create devices or techniques that can be used by others. Indeed, such a distinction quickly reveals the complexities of science, and a person who makes a claim that success in science is defined by one thing or another ignores the possibilities for varying levels and scales of success. However, one consistent determinant in measuring the success of a scientist is the degree to which he contributes to the field of knowledge from which he hails.

Like any academic field, the development of science is facilitated by the exchange of knowledge; it is then through intellectual discourse and discussion that news ideas are developed. The success of a scientist can therefore be measured by how significant his contribution is to the field. This is currently the case, where the number of citations, and frequency of reference to his ideas usually is a measure of the success of a scientist, rather than how much money is earned from his inventions. Einstein is regarded as an icon despite the fact that his theory is relativity has not had direct application to our lives. Rather his success has been defined by his vast contribution to the field of knowledge, and his ability to explain natural phenomena in the most elegant manner. Notwithstanding the current controversy if particles can actually travel faster than light, Einstein still continues to be a beacon for scientists. Hence should we define success as the sum total of the number of inventions a scientist produces and their resultant impact on humanity, and hold other scientists up to this standard, we change the way science progresses, or is seen to progress. While this might bring us economic and material benefits, it might also be detrimental for mankind in the long run.

Defining success as having a great impact on society also widens the scope of possibilities for future developments. Applied science provides immediate economic and social benefits, but it is fundamental studies that are instrumental in opening up new field for study and large scale development, usually without any intention to do so. Quantum physics for example, first started when scientists noticed properties of materials that did not square with conventional scientific knowledge of the 1900s. The theories and experiments were fascinating, and even shocking, in that they revealed a different set of laws, which seemed to operate on a small scale. And yet, this knowledge was not put into application until nearly fifty years later. If the reward system revolves around the visible impact the scientist has on society, and the scientist works towards that goal, then targeted fundamental studies will not be carried out on the same scale as before, and the rate of exploration of the realm of the unknown will definitely decrease. It is essential that we keep this in mind when discussing the role of a scientist.

It takes a long time to apply scientific theories to the world of consumers. As such, by attempting to measure and focus on the visible accomplishments of a scientist, we are blindsiding his actual contribution and ignoring the general scientific community that is extremely important to the field. Scientific research is a collective effort, and not a domain for stand-alone heroes. Noted that there are many Nobel laureates, but even they have a small team of researchers that aid and assist the greater discovery. Cell and molecular science wa simply a property of the human body until which time the collective efforts of doctors, engineers and scientists created new ways to approach medicine. Case in point is key hole surgery, a non-invasive surgical procedure that causes less trauma to the patient and facilitates in recovery. The multi-disciplinary nature of the field reminds us that it is difficult to pin success to specific individuals and by narrowing the definition of success, we are possibly discouraging co-operation across various fields.

Some might wonder why such a discussion is important in the first place. Does the definition of success smatter? In a capitalist society, the answer is yes. One must note that a main driver in the scientific field is funding, both from the public and private sector. The definition of success therefore affects which area receives more funding and which area languishes. By placing economic value on science, the scope for research has been greatly restrained and this trend may probably continue in the future.

The United Kingdom faces issues of cutting funding for their observatory programme. While astronomical observation does not have immediate economic returns, it is extremely essential for explaining phenomena of physics that cannot be replicated on earth. While some might argue that we should focus on areas that provide economic returns in hope of betterment of our lives, one must note that it is not the role of science to determine how technology should be applied. Its impact on society is facilitated by new technology and amazing discoveries, but is mainly determined by how such applications are used in society. In an ideal situation, therefore, we should attempt to maximise our research in a variety of areas and allow society to choose how these discoveries should be utilised.

Based on the synthesis of the above arguments, we can safely conclude that we need to re-examine the definition of a successful scientist. We cannot afford to choose a narrow definition that focuses exclusively on one area of study, and not the other, since such a move limits our ability to explore areas that have yet to be understood. In the same way, governments and funding institutions need to take into account his expanded definition of a scientist and not to simply individual fields that have monetary potential. It is only when we take a holistic perspective that we can fully appreciate the benefits of science, not simply as a tool to enhance living, but also to make use more enlightened and more aware of the world around us.

“Growing plants is both an art and a science”, commented late Californian horticulturist Davis Kennedy. I feel that this also applies to the farming of crops – plants that we grow for food. There are many aspects of agriculture. From the choice of crop, land and fertilizer to the manpower deployment or determination of the time to harvest – these are subsets of various disciplines, both technical and normative. It is rudimentary for any farmer worth his salt to be able to balance these aspects. Failure to do so would result in a less than ideal harvest. The effectiveness of farming is determined by the output harvested given a certain amount of input. In short, an effective farm employing effective farming techniques would be able to obtain a better harvest as compared to a less effective farm that uses less effective techniques. Of course, there are many forms of farming, ranging from growing crops to rearing fish and animals. There is even talk about farming in the context of accumulating contact information through the internet (phishing) or other means. However, this essay will put forth issues pertaining to subsistence farming, use of Genetically Modified (GM) crops and economies of scale. Also, we will be looking at the effectiveness of “effective” farming techniques and whether it is desirable to be “effective” in the first place.

Subsistence farming exists in many of the developing nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines. These farmers use traditional farming techniques that are passed down to them through their parents or older generations. Based on these skills, they go about planting crops for their own consumption, selling their surplus. Over the many years of experience toiling in their small farms, these farmers would devise their own modified techniques based on their experience, in order to improve their crop yield. Given the little education these farmers receive, their techniques do not have any scientific basis and are largely trial and error based.  An article written in June 2005’s issue of the TIME magazine highlighted the plight of Sumatra subsistence farmers. Although the issue in the debate was the problem with “slash and burn” associated with subsistence farming, it has brought to light certain insights about the farmer’s lives that are relevant to this essay. It was noted in the article that many families start subsistence farming in their backyard which ranged between 10 to 500 square metres. They usually do so either because of poverty and hence the inability to buy food or simply because their parents have passed down the farm to them. Given the small size of these farms, it is not feasible to use elaborate machineries like combine harvesters or diesel-powered tractors. . Even if the farmers had wanted to do so, they usually lacked the financial means. Consequently, their production methods cannot be scaled up to be comparable to large commercial farms. Their inability to exploit large economies of scale hence results in these subsistent farms being less efficient. However, if we consider the fixed, minuscule size of the farms, it becomes evident that it is unfair to make such a comparison. Subsistence farmers primarily farm to provide food for their families and perhaps to make a small living out of selling the surpluses. Hence, farmers are able to maximize the capacity of their small plot of land in a manner that produces the most output given the constrained resources. Hence it can be said that these farming techniques, despite not having any scientific backing, are efficient.

Arguably, subsistence farming does in a way use science, much to the farmers’ ignorance. Take for instance the use of animal waste as compost. Unmistakably, such fertilizers wouldn’t even exist without simple biological or chemical explanations. Many of the subsistent farmers are simply unaware that it is the insignificant bacteria present in the compost that makes all the difference. Neither are they bothered to find out since they are by no chance running a research facility. Thus, indirectly, subsistence farming still employs various scientific disciplines.

“Farming is all about economics”, commented Hugh Grant during a press conference about Monsanto’s latest “Roundup” seeds in 2004. As with any firm, the aim is to maximize profits. In other words, the objective of the firm is to operate in a manner such that the highest amount of revenue will be obtained by spending the lowest amount of money or resources. To many economists, this is a perfectly efficient scenario. Although such utopic conditions are rarely, if ever, fulfilled in real life, most large firms with the proper management do get close. Apart from the rudimentary scientific knowledge involved in the farming process, leadership is key. With the right leadership come the right decisions. Key decision-making processes greatly affect how a firm will perform. Likewise, the lack of proper direction and management translates to inefficiency which compromises the farm’s harvests and output. With a farm as large as Monsanto’s, we are looking at hundreds of square kilometres worth of agricultural area. Manpower comes in the hundreds or thousands. With such a vast scope for the management to handle, allocation of resources and deployment of manpower must be nothing less than optimal. Anything less and the consequence is simply the loss of productivity which would imply a loss in revenue due to poorer harvests. Therefore, when large farms are concerned, it is more than just science that ensures effective farming.

GM technology has all the hype of late. To some, it signifies pulling the starvation plug. To others, it is the epitome of disaster. Amidst intense debates in two opposing camps, GM Organisms or GMOs are touted by advocates to increase the quality and quantity of crops or reared animals. While there is scientific evidence of this positive outcome, critics of GMOs cite potential long term potential dangers of GMOs. Improvements in the quality of the crop, such as Golden Rice, which has beta carotene are said to solve problems in third world countries where vitamin A deficiency is a significant issue. Improvements in yield or quantify is evident in BT Corn, where corn is made to be pest resistant, thereby preventing crop damage from pests. This will therefore boost the yield of the crop, allowing the farmer to obtain a better harvest as opposed to normal corn, which will be wiped out by caterpillars. In either case, putting aside problems relating to GMOs, we can see that the use of GMOs can increase the productivity of a farm, thereby making farming effective. Hence, farming can be made more effective with the use of science.

After looking at issues relating to effective farming, it can be concluded that farming can only be effective through the use of science, or be made more efficient through scientific technology. However, we should be cautious not to be obsessed with science such that we examine it as the only factor affecting food supply. In the modern context, the government has a large role to play in ensuring the food supply. Stockpiling is practised in many countries for a variety of reasons. One of the main aims of such a policy is to ensure price stability for farmers since a good harvest leads to excess supply, which will cause prices to dip if left to market forces. The government acts to intervene by buying up the excess to maintain a price such that farmers’ incomes do not fall drastically. These stockpiles will then be put up for sale in a period of crop shortage, such as due to freak weather damaging crops, to prevent food prices from spiking. Sounds like a perfect plan? If only it were that simple. Effective farming would only increase the supply of crops which will force the government to siphon more of its budget for stockpiling. When too many stockpiles accumulate, the government will simply dispose of it as it would be the simplest solution. In summary, we should seek to question the objective of farming in the first place, rather than focusing on making Farming more and more effective. Effective farming may appear to be the ultimate solution to food problems. But in reality, with policies like stockpiling, effective farming through the use of science may cause society to be worse off than when less effective techniques were employed.

To quote Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist and mathematician, “Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both windows are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.” There are disparities between science and religion, such as the nature of factualness and neutrality against subjectivity. To elucidate, religion is defined as a set of beliefs and practices often organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer, ritual and religious law. Contrary to widespread conviction, there is congruence between science and religion as well. Given that there are points of comparison, it is hence a misleading fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict on one hand. On the other hand, just as there are dual surfaces to a coin, it is almost positive that science and religion will arise to conflict. Science and religion may perchance suffice as supplements to each other then.

            A derivation of conflict between science and religion ensues from the contrasting traits of legitimacy. In science, validity is incessantly revised. It is such that the more one discerns of the universe, the more interpretations one constructs, thereby drawing nearer to actuality. In contrast, religious facts are consistent and absolute.  Gospel truth is printed in the Holy Texts, which hails from the mouth of the Almighty Himself. Therefore, science is based on an empirical study of the material world whereas religion hinges upon individual or cultural assumptions, and divine revelations. The case in point includes conflict over cosmology, geology, astronomy. A mass of devotee within the conservative wing of Christianity claims that the earth is less than 10 000 years of age. They deduced that the creation and universal flood stories in the Biblical book of Genesis as being literally accurate although 95% of scientists reject a literal analysis. These scientists consider the earth to be approximately 4.5 billion-year-old, that no global flood has befallen, as well as that humanity evolved. Given the discrepant nature of reality, it is a precondition that science and religion will results in conflict.

            Science is more objective proportionate to religion which is more idiosyncratic. Maximum communicability is the hallmark of scientific truth. As a result, science consists in great part in the endeavour to convey by means of a bureaucratic apparatus or medium such as mathematics that is altogether vulnerable to the scrutiny of any mathematically educated person. On the condition that an individual carries out a stringently classified experiment or manner of calculation that is non-comprehensible to anybody else, then it is questionable scientifically. However, religion is more intuitive, pertaining to one’s intimate soul of respective attitudes and emotions. It seeks to satisfy the desire for personal salvation. Therefore, the subject of impartiality will lead to conflict between science and religion.

            In addition, science and religion pose conflict over themes including human sexuality, medical issues. For example, plenty of conservative Christian communities school in that homosexual behaviour demeanour is anomalous, is perverted, is preferred, is not genetically determined, and can be corrected through prayer and counselling. Nonetheless, researchers into human sexuality by and large are convinced that homosexual orientation is normal for a modest percentage of the human race is innate, is undesired, is influenced by one’s genes to some degree, and cannot be changed through worship and guidance. Take euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, for another instance. Some faith groups champion that only God bestow life and hence solely God should reclaim breath. The opposing factual faction conjectures that when a terminally ill person is in intractable suffering and wishes to depart, physicians ought to be sanctioned to lend a hand in dying. Albert Einstein stated that “For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by, each other… yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what it does not open the door directly to what should be.” Thus, it is a fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict over ethics.

            Despite the numerous disparities between science and religion, both are an ambiguous contradiction of each other as there still remain similarities such as science and religion are ‘learned practices’ as well as both carry out significant purposes in Man’s life. No individual is born with an instinctive knowledge of the divine, likewise as no one is born with a hard-wired knowledge of science. They have their specific set of books from whence all information is inferred from, mentors acknowledged as scientists and pastors, philosophies of entity, directions and jargon. Albert Einstein also cited, “All regions, arts & sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed towards ennobling Man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Therefore, it is fallacious to postulate science and religion will always come into conflict since there are grey fields of harmony.

             Religion can exploit science as its tenet whereas science can facilitate religion with its findings. While religion can critique science for more clarifications, sources, or significance, science should mull over religion and human morals. Science and religion work together to form adequate explanations to figure out the genuine meaning of being thus prompt awareness of our insight of realism. Having the status of being complements, in a way, science and religion depend upon each other. They merely call for receptive minds to what both are assembling and explaining but without the other, their elucidation for gist remains superficial. Therefore it is not true that it is a fact of life that science and religion will always come into conflict. As Pope John Paul II highlights, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish… We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.”

Science has always served as a primary impetus that powers and accelerates human development. Living in this highly industrialised and commercialised world, the influence science exerts on us is so profound that it might be beyond our expectation or even control. Ranging from ubiquitous access to the internet to the development of controversial scientific fields such as nuclear power and genetic engineering, science seems more like a master who dominates our daily life as well as our future, rather than a faithful servant as we assume and expect.

“I think, therefore I live.” Man used to proudly regard the ability to think as the fundamental difference between human beings and other animals. Yet, we are deprived of such ability due to our overreliance on modern scientific inventions that we developed. With the instantaneous access to the Internet, people no longer need to sit in libraries all day long, looking through piles of books in order to get pieces of information. Such tedious selection process can now be easily performed by the computer at a click of button, which is indeed more convenient and efficient, yet the ability of analysis and critical thinking is less appreciated and valued. This can be evidenced by the increasingly frequent occurrence of plagiarism in both students’ essays and professionals’ research papers. Put the moral issue aside, the act of plagiary clearly shows that people are so indulged by the convenience of the Internet that we seem to be its slaves – it is doubtful how we are going to rely on our deteriorating thinking skills to distinguish right from wrong, the significant from the spurious.

Even though Hiroshima and Nagasaki are by far the only two places that have experienced massive destruction due to nuclear weapons, the fresh and vivid memory of 9/11 and Iraq war only reminds of us how thousands of innocent lives can be easily taken away due to people’s avarice for power. While we concede that weapons play an integral part in national defence, this clearly does not provide us with a satisfying explanation to the gigantic amount of nuclear weapons stored in superpowers, which, if used at one time, can ruin the world for a hundred times. “We live in a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants”, General Omar Bradley once declared, implying the huge gap between man’s development of science and ethos. This is the reason why despite the existence of the numerous peace agreements between countries, many people are still fearful of the outbreak of the third world war.

Science might allow us to have a greater control over the environment, yet we cannot control our innate selfish streak. Genetically modified food promised us to create an abundant world where global hunger is eradicated permanently. However, the truth of the matter is that we presently already have more than enough food to feed the world twice over without the technology of genetic engineering. According to the Economist, world poverty can simply be ended by pooling together the resources of the world’s seven richest men and redistributing it. On the other hand, GM crops could cause long term disturbance to our biodiversity and ecosystem due to their cross-pollination with natural plants. We sacrifice the environmental sustainability of our future generations, yet fail to solve the problem effectively even though we have always had the solutions in our hands as mentioned earlier.

We are over-dependent on the Internet, horrified by the potential hazards of nuclear power, and threatened by the environmental implications of genetic engineering. It is poignant to witness how we have become slaves to things we developed. Governments are setting rigorous laws and regulations to prevent the rampant and volatile development of science. Still, at the end of the day, if we are not able to control our own laziness, avarice and selfishness, we can never claim to be the master of science.

The study of science in its disparate realms, such as medical, political, and agricultural, has indisputably percolated the history of Man. Science, in its exhaustive gist, refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practices which is adequate to structure a projection or calculable outcome. It is a sustained effort to ascertain and foster human knowledge and intellectual capacity through disciplined research as means to improve the human condition by forging a superior quality of life for more individuals. This mindset remains rampant these days since scientists globally press on with developments and findings to existing ubiquitous challenges including climate change and poverty. However, it is facile to be cognizant of why some folks may remonstrate that Man has steadily overlooked the intrinsic worth of Science. Instead, critics suggest the humankind has transgressed perimeters, exploiting Science to a degree where its significance is corrupted. This essay aims to communicate that Man has not been inordinately myopic. After all, the intention of Science has propagated till today. Science has also heralded in a 21st century which is radically superior relative to the prior eras, with sanguinity and the makings for substantial advancement.

Civilizations’ annals may appear to endorse Man’s appalling background of our application, or more accurately, the abuse of Science. For instance, the breakthrough in analyses of nuclear energy pledged plummeting dependence on gradually depleting fossil fuels and natural gases. On contrary, it precipitated the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki of which its implications of the calamities on the Japanese society still spawn vulnerability in this day and age. The misuse of nuclear energy ushered in a time period of reciprocally assured ruination during the Cold War years as well as predominantly during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thus, cynics asserted that the human race has lost sight of the rationale of Science long ago. They contend that Science was acutely exploited and wielded by those in clout for detrimental ends and egocentric pursuits as a substitute to its premeditated function in ameliorating quality of life. 

In spite of an element of legitimacy in the detractors’ claims, they are but superficial and cursory evaluation. Beneath the exterior, there are plenty of world leaders and commoners alike who have stepped to the fore in rally critical of abuse of Science. This incited nuclear arms talks to preclude any additional demises from nuclear assaults between states. The signing of the primary internationally negotiated nuclear arms summit, the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, was ascribed to worldwide pressure and communities such as SANE. Therefore, whenever Science’s bona fide relevance seems to be undermined formerly, Man has arbitrated to suspend its misuse and circumvent further manipulation.

Moreover, a number of individuals may point to the example of South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, vilified for his sham allegations that he had determined an innovation in stem cell examination. Instead of employing Science to factually develop and expand accessible details on the function of stem cells, Hwang belied information thereby contravening the exact tenet all scientists adhere to which is every hypothesis structured has to be validated by perceptible and tangible support. 

Regrettably to express, several scientists increasingly pervert results, arguing that “trivial” margin of error will not yield disparities. Hence, Man has lost track of the objective of Science in the rat race to emerge as pioneer, blinded to the system and regulations which lend scientific findings its cogency and ascendancy.

Science has been drawn upon for ethical and benign incentives, realizing its inherent merit and capacity. The case in point, Science in agriculture has considerably progressed in recent decades with the Green Revolution and new school practices of husbandry to meet the demands of the planet’s burgeoning population. The upsurge of automated farming by means of Science to discern precisely the pertinent environment sought for maximum crop growth has observed a contemporaneous rise in agrarian output in states as heterogeneous as Germany, Australia in addition to Africa. Therefore, Science has been channelled to increase the quality of life for Man in Third World and developed states similarly. The figure of campaigns against international food shortage and pro alleviating famine unmistakably attest we have not turned a blind eye to the indigent in industrializing states amidst growth.

Although Science has been manipulated and exploited by Man to serve cataclysmic mainspring sporadically, it remains a phenomenal reservoir of information for humanity. Man has harnessed Science to better understand the Earth as well as to improve our quality of life to an unparalleled height which was solely a vision of our forefathers. The movement for advancement and progress by means of Science is expected to continue unflaggingly in the foreseeable prospects thus Man is not sightless of the purpose of Science.

Mathematics has always been used as a tool in our routine life, in its most basic applications of monetary exchange and transactions, estimating the travel time required to get to our workplaces so as to avoid being late, to its more complex deployment in the value-analysis involved in stock exchange in the global business market. Yet, the intrinsic value of mathematics is found not only in its concrete uses – being used as a mere tool – but more predominantly in its power to empower people and the world we live in. By taking a deeper and closer look into the power of mathematics, mathematics can effectively be seen as a language – a medium for interaction and communication. It can also be seen as a rich source of enhancement for the human mind, taking mental activity and capabilities to new heights. Most of all, mathematics should not be seen as a mere mash of numbers, questions and results, because by looking beyond that, we would see the large amount of information those “mere numbers” can tell us, where mathematics itself, can be seen as an entity, the engine that drives how we live and how we will live in the distant future.

By looking at the application of mathematics in our everyday lives, it is obvious that is used in extreme magnitudes in almost every aspect of our daily life. Because of this, mathematics is gradually seen as a form of language, with its basis of operation being the analysis and observation of sequential patterns, and the whole simple yet potent idea of counting. Studies over the years have shown us that the frequency of a cricket’s chirp over specific time frames is relative to the temperature of the surroundings at that point in time. Counting and identifying the sequence and patterns of clicks and beats have also given birth to the “MORSE code”. The whole concept of code-deciphering in various artifacts and transcripts is also based on pattern observation, a key component in mathematics. Taking into consideration that English, Chinese, French and Russian are languages that can only be used to communication by people who know them, since mathematics is something that lives among us in our everyday lives all over  the world, there comes a possibility that mathematics could be the universal language of the future. Even during our daily conversations, there are instances where mathematically based observation is applied to allow us to arrive at certain conclusions. For example, too long a pause in between dialogue between friends can indicate either awkwardness, boredom or confusion. In the same light, panic or excitement can be observed when the pauses in between dialogue is abruptly cut off or too short, allowing us to conclude a certain level of anxiety and panic in the other party’s speech.  All of such observations are again, also based on the mathematically-based concept of counting and speech-pattern analysis. Modern lie detectors in crime investigation sectors not only use heart rate and blood pressure as a gauge, but also the complex analysis of such speech patterns. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that mathematics is not just a mere numerical tool, but a form of language that holds within it messages that we can uncover and allow us to arrive at various conclusions from a more careful observation of a simple string of patterns and numbers.

Moreover, mathematics is also seen as a source of enrichment to one’s mind. Because of the sometimes thought-stimulating aspects of math, the human mind is made to work more actively and process information at higher levels, thus familiarizing the brain with such demanding levels of mental activity and allowing individuals to attain a so-called “more intelligent mind”. The whole idea behind mathematics taking its place as a subject in educational institutes is not because of the direct usefulness of the various mathematical concepts taught. How often do we actually apply the mathematical concepts of the binomial theorem and Maclaurin’s series in our daily lives? With the modern day calculator at hand, none of those mathematical concepts are needed, and none of them would even prove to be useful in any way at all. Then why are students forced to learn such concepts of calculus if they are seemingly useless in today’s world? The reason is simple, and it is plainly because such concepts are supposedly difficult to grasp and questions pertaining to such concepts often difficult to answer, requiring deep thought and analysis in working towards the right answer. Based solely on this aspect, such mathematical concepts thus encourage the mental activity of the students, forcing them to think at higher levels and enabling them to grow more accustomed to high levels of thinking and the vital ability to think “out of the box”. With this accomplished, students would then grow into individuals with a higher mental capability, more prepared to tackle the many challenging problems and issues that they would most likely face especially in the working world, along their road to future success. Thus, mathematics is more than just a tool we make use of in the process of our daily lives but a form of “vitamin” that spurs us on to attain higher mental capabilities and a deeper understanding of how to go about solving problems and finding solutions whatever they may be, whereby such intellect is crucial to one’s success in the ever-changing world.

All in all, mathematics is not just a mere tool in our daily lives, but in actual fact the basis of all science and perhaps, all life. To provide a more absolute understanding of the value of mathematics, everything we live on has to do with mathematics, and everything around us functions by mathematical platforms, even us, as illustrated earlier. The houses we live in and every patch of man-made surface we set foot on, even the lights and air-conditioners we so conveniently turn on, are all constructed based on architectural analysis and measurements, as well as mechanical and electrical engineering which revolve around concepts found in mathematics. The computers and televisions we tend to seek daily entertainment from, even the electronic games we play and the computer applications we use to do work in the office, are all results of advanced and complex programming, another high level mathematical concept. In addition, processes crucial to the state of every country such as economic evaluation of market value and exchange rates, as well as statistical studies conducted to obtain relevant information from the population are also mathematical in nature. With so many things around us brought about by mathematics, and with so many crucial and important aspects functioning based on mathematical ideas, it would be foolish and naïve to still view mathematics as a mere tool, instead of something that empowers us with the many vital must-haves in life.  With the sheer extent of benefits and promises brought to birth by mathematics, it can possibly be said to be the engine of our universe.

Mathematics shows us how to find logical paths to truth, how to unambiguously describe those paths to others, and how to recognize descriptions of faulty paths that lead in the wrong direction or in circles. With it in our arsenal, we are endowed with the ability to think critically, avoid error and derive solutions to any brain-racking issue. Mathematics enables us to communicate,  to enhance our minds, and to develop the many things we find almost impossible to live without in our lives. Mathematics is not just a mere tool in everyday life, but an entity that brings about infinite possibilities.

Bleak, dystopian views of a world dominated by science have been around for quite some time. Literature and popular culture have successfully embedded in our collective psyche such nightmarish worlds as Orwell’s “1984”, Huxley’s “A Brave New World”, or more recently, the Wachowski brothers’ “The Matrix” – all of which are worlds in which science and technology have a powerful influence. However, one might argue that if we continue to use science in a way that is guided by sound morals and a desire for the greater good of humanity, then a world dominated by science need not necessarily be a nightmare for future generations. Science may not be a perfect dream in which one has nothing to fear, but it certainly does not have to be a nightmare that strikes terror in our hearts.

Some may argue that a world full of surveillance technology is reminiscent of a nightmarish world where Big Brother is always watching. Privacy would become a thing of the past and there would be no guarantee that the surveillance information gathered will not be abused. While it may be true that surveillance technology in the wrong hands may violate one’s right to privacy, one must remember that in most democratic countries today, there exist checks and balances on the powers of governments to prevent or at least minimize this sort of violation. The answer to Juvenal’s famous question “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (ie. Who guards the guards?) is a range of checks and balances like legislation, the media, and lobby groups.

Others may say that a world where biotechnology plays a dominant role cannot be anything but a nightmare – one characterized by Frankenstein food, armies of clones or a highly stratified society where being born an Epsilon Minus condemns one to a life of drudgery. Biotechnology may indeed have its dangers, but so does just about any other tool wielded by mankind. We do not refuse to use fire just because fire can pose a great danger if it goes out of control. In the same way, we should not refuse to use biotechnology just because there are risks associated with it. The fact is that biotechnology if used with prudence and caution, could do a great deal of good for humanity. Laws have been put in place to ban the practice of human reproductive cloning; research is being done to find viable alternatives to the sacrifice of embryos upon the extraction of stem cells; etc.

Yet others may say that the spread of nuclear power technology around the world ensures that our world will meet a nightmarish, apocalyptic end in the near future. Already, intransigent states like North Korea and Iran, as well as terrorist cells the world over, are suspected of being in possession of nuclear weapons. It will only be a matter of time, they argue before these are unleashed upon the world. The concept of “mutually assured destruction” is an insufficient deterrent to some of these groups as they may have no qualms about sacrificing their own lives besides those of others.

The fear that groups in possession of nuclear weapons may use them to destroy others and themselves is indeed very real. That is why the international community continues to engage with North Korea and Iran today, to try to broker agreements for disarmament. There has been some success lately, with North Korea pledging to disable its nuclear facilities and declare its nuclear programmes in exchange for energy aid and political concessions. At the same time, there is greater global cooperation today in dealing with terrorist networks and there have been some successes in foiling terrorist attacks. Etc.

Thus, science is to some extent a nightmare rather than a dream because it has the potential to threaten people’s privacy. It also poses dangers in the field of biotechnology. The fact is science can be a dream if used with prudence and caution. It has the potential to do a great deal of good for humanity.