gre writing issue sample writing 109
- Some people believe that scientific discoveries have given us a much better understanding of the world around us. Others believe that science has revealed to us that the world is infinitely more complex than we ever realized.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
People would say that modern science has vastly advanced our understanding of the world around us. Apparently, it is not difficult to enumerate a number of remarkable successes scientific discoveries have provided to us. However, this simple-minded optimism appears to ignore a gush of mysteries to which even the sophisticated modern sciences cannot still answer correctly or that they have produced when they solve other simple questions.
Of course, few would disagree that our understanding on the world has been greatly improved by virtue of increasing knowledge from science. Compared with the past where most of natural phenomena were simply interpreted or (mis)believed by quite limited objective knowledge, our time seems to be blessed with somewhat advanced intelligences or, at least, to overcome such absurdities as horrible superstitions and ill-defined concepts. Instead of considering many diseases to be inevitable scourges from the heaven, people today simply visit to their personal doctors and come by hospitals; because of growing knowledge on biological, biochemical processes of even most complicated diseases, we feel assured for those diseases in the face of which most medieval people had to have despairs or wished only for miracles. Just as modern medical science has provided us with a level of confidence and certainty, a variety of other scientific endeavors have accumulated their share of in-depth understandings and presented us with pride and hope.
Then, is it safe to assert that science has fully enlightened us? Definitely no. Much has been explained by modern science, but quite a few questions still remain unanswered and wait for our additional explorations. Especially, for most microscopic orders, the primary lesson from our increased knowledge is that we are still at the basic level. The complex processes of molecular biology make a once arrogant biologist humble. We, people who are confident with the dream to conquer the most egregious cancers, still do not know clearly about the fundamentals of the simple flu virus. Different from an undergraduate in psychology who might be proud of his sound knowledge on many advanced psychological theories, professionals in this area used to say it seems almost impossible to understand their primary interest, the self.
In addition to the micro mechanisms, the rapidly changing world today also casts doubt on the omnipotence of science in making humanity assured. For most social, behavioral sciences, even the most insightful and accurate predictions from them have always been found to be outmoded and out-fashioned. For example, the rapidly changing modern global financial market does not allow a sophisticated economic theory to cope aptly with it; instead of providing an effective and useful solution to the recent global crisis of financial market, the so-called “most scientific” remedies have only aggravated it and even expanded its complexity.
Should we trust the ability of modern science despite its limitations? In terms of gradual change on our total knowledge base, we have ample evidence to find hopes from science and trust it. In terms of the nature of the world that has unfathomable micro orders and is subject to unpredictable changes, however, optimism to the power of science seems premature and naïve.
The speaker asserts that gaining knowledge tends to make us feel uneasiness rather than certainty. In some sense, it is true that things become more complex and ambiguous as we are exposed to new information and different perspectives. Only by exaggerating the initial displacement caused by new knowledge, however, the speaker is overlooking the more important contributions of gaining new knowledge made to our understanding; increase in accuracy of our decision and supplement of our opinion with valuable criticisms.
Of course, it is undeniable that we are, sometimes, likely to be confused and embarrassed when we meet most of totally innovative and radical knowledge. Especially when the existing systems are considered tolerable and effective, people tend to show more indifference or even hostility than sympathetic adoption to every type of new knowledge and perspectives. In politics, for example, the new concept of civil equality and abolishment coined by Abraham Lincoln encountered public resistance and even hostility related partly to public’s embarrassment about the new concept of politics. In our daily lives, we tend to snub the innovative ideas and technologies partly because we do not want to be tangled by the burden to understand the new system even when they are known to be more effective and beneficial than the existing systems. This suggests that new knowledge produces more suspicion, discomfit, and uncertainty than reassurance. \\\\\\\\