Education Learning centre

Posts Tagged ‘Science’

One need not make any extensive surveys of different media to provide evidence for this failure. It is enough to see how sports has managed to gain more coverage in various media over the last few decades vis-a-vis science. One may argue that this is so because there are always some sports events occurring all over the world which naturally draw the attention of media. But contention here is that scientific activity, scientific community and laboratories all over the world can also be turned into what are called ‘media events’ if enough pains are taken by science communicators to achieve this status for science. First and foremost it will require the maximum cooperation of scientists.

For instance, anniversaries of scientists, institutes, organisations and societies, including the World Health Day, etc., can be celebrated; discussions and debates with the concerned scientists organised; and doors of concerned laboratories and organisations thrown open to masses and media.

Be that as it may, intention through this paper is to highlight the essentials and limitations of science popularisation so that there appears a fundamental change in the way of looking at this subject. Hopefully, it will lead to more effective strategies to popularise science among the masses.

Science popularisation is mostly done by science- trained persons and professional scientists. It is therefore looked upon more as a scientific activity rather than anything else. But science writing is more of an art rather than a science. It is scientific only in the sense one should have scientific knowledge but all the writing abilities are required to make a good presentation of science. It is due to the present lack of emphasis on the art aspect of science popularisation that this field of activity has suffered to date. Those few scientists or science-trained persons who have consciously or unconsciously known the art of science writing and have practised it, have only been successful in popularising science.

The second reason why popular science does not tick with the masses is because it is not projected as a human activity but an activity of scientists who simply believe in the search for truth – and nothing but truth! The human side of science is totally neglected in all popular science presentations. The follies and prejudices of scientists, the emotional life of scientists, the irrational circumstances in which scientific work is often undertaken and discoveries and inventions made, etc., are quite often deliberately not highlighted fearing that it would give bad name to science and scientific research. In short, the human face of science or scientific research is often neglected in popular science presentations. There is therefore a strong need to give science a human face. It would not only mean adding human stories to popular science presentations but also talking about realities in scientific research.

The third reason why popular science presentations often go wide off the mark and make the audience yawn and go for something else is the inability of science communicators to distinguish between technical report writing and popular science writing, thanks to their scientific training or background. They try to cram into a popular science presentation as much as they know or find out about a subject.

Actually, popular science presentation should be like the tip of the iceberg. It should however make one not only familiar with the tip of the iceberg but also aware of the unseen larger part of the iceberg floating under the water. In other words, it should reveal little about science but enough to make one realise the existence of that science with its entire ramification. It should excite one’s curiosity enough so that one would like to probe further into that science. It should not necessarily tell everything about a science but at the same time it should not miss science.

The author’s experience with popularising science over the years has forced him to arrive at some postulates. They are merely based on experience and intuition. Any research has not been conducted to back them up with facts and figures. In fact, much research is required to prove or disprove them. If in case they are proved, they can easily be called the ‘Laws of Science Popularisation’ because despite the best of our efforts we have not been able to popularise science the way we want among the masses. There must be some hidden laws governing our efforts to popularise science. These postulates are stated as follows:

1st : Only those elements of science receive attention in a society, which suit its goals or which inspire awe.

2nd : A science communicator tends to impose his or her limited ideas of science, scientists and scientific research upon the audience.

3rd : The amount of space allotted to science in different media of a country is the index of the quality of life of its average citizen.

4th : The quality of science communication or presentation in a country is directly proportional to the quality of science produced in it.

5th : To popularise science is to humanise science.

One can deduce certain things from these postulates. The first postulate indicates that people at large read science because it serves their purpose or because the subject is topical, sensational or controversial or simply excites their curiosity. A handful only read science for the sake of knowledge per se. Much research is required to identify those subjects so that science could be more effectively popularised. For instance, health science and environment interest people at large, astronomy and space fascinate them, Nobel Laureates, UFOs, etc., are held in awe by them.

The Second postulate is dangerous for science itself. Consciously or unconsciously, the layman imbibes the limited or narrow image of science, scientists and culture of science from the communicator, whether he be Jacob Bronowski or Peter Medawar. Notions such as scientists are mad individuals or scientific research is yet another profession are creations of science communicators. That makes science communicator a very responsible person.

The third and fourth postulates are intuitive relationships between two unrelated things or activities. Further research is needed to prove or disprove these two laws by taking data from different countries. However, one must add here that in India we raise a hullabaloo to increase science coverage in our media at the first available opportunity but it often comes to nothing. Also, while writing a popular science article on a subject one often needs the assistance of a scientist doing research in that very subject. But in India the scientist of the concerned subject is often not available for consultation and as a result our writings lack the necessary quality, verve and colour.

The fifth, the last but not the least important postulate, though obvious, reminds us that we must give science a human face so that masses are not afraid of it. It is the basic aim of science popularisation.

The aim of drawing the ‘Christmas tree of science popularisation’ is to illustrate the importance of various media that take science to the masses, though every medium has its own significance and a vital role to play in communication. But unless a person climbs up the tree, as his or her interest in science is aroused or increased – in other words, unless one begins to read newspapers, magazines and then books – he or she would not have become fully science literate.

Necessarily, the percentage of people reading books would be very small as the top of a Christmas tree indicates. But it is a must to know this tree because the role of any medium should not be underestimated and every medium should be given equal importance simultaneously. For instance, if a student’s interest in science is aroused by science fair or ‘Jatha’ held in the town, it has to be sustained and maintained by wallpapers, newspapers and even books; otherwise, one’s interest would flag and eventually die. Other supplementing media should be made available to the student in form of public libraries, for instance. So, the Christmas tree of science popularisation needs to be watered and tended carefully to produce a science literate society.

According to the postulates forwarded here there are (as yet unknown) limits to the extent science can be popularised among the masses. It is not possible to have a fully science literate society. Moreover, science communicators need to take into account aforementioned aspects about science popularisation for more effective communication of science to the masses.

ProVFX Visual Effects and Editing School has been written by Pranay Rupani who is a Freelance Writer

: The Greek Philosopher, Aristotle(384-323 B.C.) remarked long ago that man is a social animal. Human beings are gregarious and so associate with their fellows in manifold forms of activity. The mutual relations that grow up between them are the very bonds of society. From various points of view these social relations can be made the subject-matter of a systematized study. The knowledge derived from each point of view, when properly co-ordinated forms a distinct science. The sciences which treat of man as a social and spiritual being and study his activities and operations as such, may be designated as social sciences.

: Social Sciences are to be distinguished from Natural Sciences. Man being a product of nature may be studied as such. The scientific knowledge of man as a mere physical being, without regard to his specific nature as a moral and social being, is the subject-matter of the natural science of human biology or physiology. The physical scientist is concerned, however, not so much with man as with natural phenomena. He has to explain the actual occurences in nature and this he does by establishing that, a certain event is the necessary consequence of another event. The physical scientist conceives phenomena of nature as united by an irrefrangible law of causality. By means of natural laws discovered by him a physical scientist is able to predicate what actually happens in a given conjunction of events.

: In the social sciences we are concerned with man as a moral or social being and have to arrange human acts according to the relation of means and purposes. The social scientist has to investigate what means should be adopted to answer certain social purposes and prescribe suitable rules of human conduct. Rules of human conduct enforced by political authority are laws. Jurisprudence as a social science addresses itself to those who study law as a system of knowledge. It treats of the activity of man in society from the point of view of its legal significance.

: The most general of the social sciences is sociology. It deals with the general principles underlying man’s thought and action at all stages of social development and in every relation of life. That branch of this science which treats of primitive man and his social institutions is designated Anthropology. Juristic science or Jurisprudence is chiefly, though not exclusively, concerned with man in a well-ordered social organisation, in an advanced stage of civilisation. Anthropological research, however, has shed much light on many juridical questions and has enabled us to penetrate to the origin of many legal institutions.

: Ethics is another social science. It expounds the principles and moral considerations which affect man’s conduct and which constitute his criterion of right and wrong. Closely allied to Ethics is Theology in which the principles inculcated are presented as immutable and eternal principles endowed with divine sanction and as matters of unquestioning belief and implicit obedience. Juridical science too is concerned with human conduct, but its principles are changeable, being man-made, and have no claim to divine sanction differing, however, from ethical precepts in that their enforcement may be compelled by human authority.

: Psychology is yet another social science. It treats of man’s mental states and processes, his emotions, thoughts and sensations. Jurisprudence is concerned with man’s external conduct and not with his thoughts and mental processes, but important branches of it, such as Penology, have benefitted much from the knowledge made available by psychological research.

: Social relations may be studied from the point of view of man’s activity in satisfying his wants, in producing and distributing wealth. This is the subject matter of the science of Economics. The intimate relationship between Economics and Jurisprudence was first noticed by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and the interpretation of jural relations in the light of economic factors is receiving the serious attention of jurists.

: Societies have developed compex organisations for their government. We may study the principles on which societies are governed and by which the relations between men and their governmental organisation should be regulated. The result of this study is the science of Politics. In a politically organised society there exist regulations, which may be called Laws, authoritatively laying down what men may or may not do. The study of the fundamental principles underlying these laws is the science of Jurisprudence. The closely allied science of Legislation deals with the principles by which the improvement of law may be effected.

: 

: Etymologically, as we have already seen, Jurisprudence means ‘Knowledge of Law’. The celebrated Roman Jurist, Ulpian (180-228) defined Jurisprudence as ‘The observation of things human and divine, the knowledge of the just and the unjust’. This definition is too broad and might well apply to religion, ethics or philosophy.

: Salmond defines Jurisprudence as the “Science of the first principles of the civil law”. Jurisprudence thus deals with a particular species of law, viz., civil law or law of the State. This kind of law consists of rules applied by courts in the administration of justice. It has characteristic features that distinguish it from law of every other kind. Of laws which govern the conduct of man in society we have three kinds: the laws of the theologian, the moralist and the jurist. It is with the jurists law only that Jurisprudence is concerned. The laws of the theologian or religious laws derive their authority from a divine or super human source. They are intended to regulate human conduct as well as beliefs and are enforced by spiritual rewards or penalties in the other world, that is, by utra mundane sanctions. The laws of the moralist are man-made. They exist in societies, the most primitive as well as the most civilised, and are enforced by no determinate authority save public opinion which visits the contravention of those ridicule social ostracism and the like uncertain penalties. The laws of the jurist are easily distinguishable from those of the theologian and the moralist. They regulate external human conduct only and not the inner beliefs, therein differing from the laws of the theologian. In their mature condition they exist in politically organised society, that is, a society which has an organised system of Government for its members who occupy a defined territory and over whom it can exercise an unlimited amount of control. They are enforced by courts or judicial tribunals of the society which apply a variety of sanctions ranging from capital punishment to a fine. The certainty of the sanctions and the existence of a dterminate authority for enforcement distinguish the jurist’s law from that of the moralist. It is the jurist’s law or, as Salmond calls it, civil law, that is the fit subject of Jurisprudence.

: Austin refers to jurisprudence as “the philosophy of positive law”. By Positive Law or Jus positivism, he means the law laid down by a political superior for controlling the conduct of those subject to his authority. “Positive Law” as used by Austin is thus identical with “Civil Law”. The term “Philosophy” used by Austin in describing Jurisprudence is somewhat misleading. Philosophy deals with the most general theories about things, human and divine, while Jurisprudence restricts itself to the general theory of man-made law.

: Sir. Thomas Erskine Holland has defined Jurisprudence as the “Formal Science of Positive Law”. A formal science, as distinguished from a material science, is one which deals not with concrete details but with the fundamental principles underlying them. Jurisprudence in this view should concern itself with the general portion of legal doctrine. It should deal with the general conceptions and pervading principles that constitute the basis of any mature system of law. In every system of law there are certain fundamental conceptions and broad principles which serve as the basis for the concrete details of the law. Notions of property, contract, possession, etc., are basic to any well-developed legal system. Jurisprudence separates these ideas and frames out a scheme of their purposes, methods and principles without going into the specific rules relating to them in any particular legal system. As Holland says: “Jurisprudence deals with the human relations which are governed by rules of law rather than with the material rules themselves”. Specific rules are the appropriate subject-matter of legal exposition or compilation rather than of juristic science. Since jurisprudence deals only in a “formal or abstract way with those relations of mankind which are generally recognised as having legal consequences”. Dr. Holland calls it a formal science.

: Prof. Gray in ‘The Nature and the Sources of the Law’ and Dr. Edward Jenks in ‘The New Jurisprudence’ have objected to the description of Jurisprudence as a formal scence. Prof. Gray remarks: ‘The relation of Juriisprudence to law depends not upon what law is treated, but how law is treated. A treatise on jurisprudence may go into the minutest particulars or be confined to the most general doctrines and in either case deserves its name; what is essential to it is that it should be an orderly, scientific treatise in which the subjects are duly classified and subordinated’. In this view a scientific treatise on any department of the law may be described as ‘Jurisprudence’. Such usage is by no means uncommon, but if we understand by jurisprudence ‘the science of law in general’, we must admit it to be a misapplicattion of this ponderous quadrisyllable. Prof. Gray’s criticism cannot, therefore, be accepted as sound.

Dr. Jenks has remarked: “Can jurisprudence be truly said to be a purely formal science?” Not, it is submitted, unless the word ‘formal’ be used in a strained and artificial sense. It is true that a jurist can only recognise a law by its form; for it is from which, as has been said, ’causes the manifold matter of the phenomena to be perceived’. But the jurist, having got the form as it were, on the operating table, has to dissect it and ascertain its meaning….To say that jurisprudence is concerned only with forms, is to degrade it from the rank of a science to that of a craft.

Dr. Jenks seems to confuse a formal science with a ‘formalistic’ manner of dealing with the science. If the jurist attaches undue importance to mere forms, takes positive law as the highest law and fails to penetrate to the social forces which mould the law, his treatment of his subject would be formalistic and unworthy of a great social science. Jurisprudence as a science, however, is concerned only with the form which conditions social life, with the human relations that have grown up in society attaches legal significance. In this sense Jurisprudence is necessarily a formal science.

: We can see no valid objection to Dr. Holland’s definition of jurisprudence as the formal science of Positive law. Being the systematized and properly co-ordinated knowledge of a subject of intellectual inquiry, Jurisprudence is a science. The subject of its inquiry is the mutual relations of men living together in organised society. The term ‘Positive Law’ confines the enquiry to those social relations which are regulated by the rules imposed by the State and enforced by its courts. Finally, the term ‘formal’ indicates that the science deals only with the purposes, methods and ideas at the basis of the legal system as distinct from a ‘material science’ which would deal with the concrete details of the law.

   

: Austin makes a distinction between ‘general’ and ‘particular’ Jurisprudence. According to him the former is “the science concerned with the exposition of the principles, notions and distinctions which are common to the systems of law, understanding by systems of law, the ampler and maturer systems which, by reason of their amplitude and maturity, are pre-eminently pregnant with instruction”. ‘Particular Jurisprudence’ is the science of any one of such systems of law.

: Sir John Salmond has repudiated the notion of ‘general jurisprudence’ as conceived by Austin. According to him, a principle to become a topic of jurisprudence need not be, to use Austin’s words, “common to the systems of law”. Universal reception is not the sine qua non for a principle to qualify itself for treatment by the science of law. Salmond points out that even if the doctrine of judicial precedent or case-law system prevails only in England, the rule of stare decisis would be a fit subject for jurisprudence. He concludes that “Jurisprudentia generalis” or general jurisprudence is not the study of the general or fundamental elements of a particular legal system”. Prof. Allen regards this statement as meaning that in Salmond’s opinion ‘particular’ jurisprudence is the only kind of jurisprudence properly so-called. No doubt, the sentence of Salmond above-quoted seems to warrant this view, but what Salmond really repudiates is only the notion of ‘general’ jurisprudence, such as that of Austin, which carries the misleading suggestion that principles germane to general jurisprudence are such only because they are common to the mature legal systems. That there can be a theoretical jurisprudence embodying the principles that are basic to any legal systems is plainly affirmed by Salmond.

: The fallacy underlying Austin’s distinction between ‘general’ and ‘particular’ jurisprudence is pointed out by Dr. Holland with his usual acuteness. He shows that in Austin’s ‘particular’ jurisprudence it is only the material of the science, and not the science itself, which is “particular”. It is possible to construct a science of law from the examination of one system only, e.g., English Law. A science is made up of general propositions and sound generalisations are science whether they are drawn from a few phenomena or a great many. Of course, the larger the number of phenomena that are brought under observation, the gretaer is the probability that the conclusions drawn are sound and reliable. Dr. Holland, therefore, rejects the distinction made by Austin and holds that jurisprudence should be used without any qualifying epithet and that it represents the science of the basic principles of the law. It is hardly necessary to point out that it conduces to certainty in legal nomenclature to use ‘jurisprudence’ simpliciter to signify the science of law.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

         

“To the influence of this Book we are indebted for the progress made in civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future”. – Ulysses Grant (President, 1869-77, of the U.S)

The Bible has been acknowledged over the years as covering every subject of human knowledge and need now and forever (Finis Dake, Bible scholar); as one incomparably so various and full of concentrated wisdom (Herbert Hoover, President, 1929-33, of the U.S); and as the first and almost the only book deserving of universal attention (John Quincy Adams, the second President, 1797-1801, of the U.S).

Science as the study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world and society agrees with scriptures at the end of the day if thorough observation and quality experiment is carried out. Until the findings of science confirm the truth of scriptures, science is only mid-stream, yet to find anchor. To understand nature the best recourse is the God of Nature who has spoken twice: through nature and through His Word (the Bible), and both align perfectly. Galileo (1564 – 1642) and Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), two earliest scientists knew this. For Galileo, with his groundbreaking feats in astronomy and physics, the scriptures cannot lie, only the interpreter of it may. And for Francis Bacon, author of modern scientific reasoning: induction, and hence seen as father of modern science, there are two indispensable books – the book of nature and the Bible. TRUE SCIENCE AFFIRMS BIBLE Indeed, all the conclusions of science between 600 BC and 200 AD – regarded as the first age of science – that are still relevant today agree with scriptures.

And between the early Egyptians and Babylonians the abiding feats reached in mathematics, metallurgy, anatomy and astronomy stay in tandem with the laws of creation as found in the Bible. The Babylonians may have given us the true measurements of the lunar and solar cycles, the exact tracing of the paths of the planets, the divisions of the circle into 360 degrees and the designation of constellations, e.g the Zodiac, but all confirm scriptures as given to Moses, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, John and others (except, of course, the perverted and satanic angle of astrology and horoscope).

Sir John F. Herschel (1792 – 1871), the British astronomer who mapped over 525 new nebulae and star clusters told all ages: “all human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths that come on high and are contained in the sacred writings (the Bible)”. It is worth recalling that John Herschel, who incidentally invented a method of photographing on sensitised paper, was the son of Sir William Herschel (1738 – 1822), who himself brought home the bacon when he developed a new kind of reflecting telescope, and struck a feat when he discovered the planet Uranus (1781) and mapped well over 2,500 nebulae and star clusters, aside producing a theory of binary star systems and determining the movement of the solar system through space. When men such as John Herschel with such intimidating family scientific record speak, who is one quack scientist in your clime, with their ill-equipped laboratories dotted with gimcrack instruments, to advance the contrary view, feign atheism, and question the veracity of the Bible?

All human discoveries only confirm the truth of scriptures! Science, from the Latin word scientia or its more basic root of scire, means to know. It connotes, understandably, the attempt to know or to explore the unknown; to make it known. In other words science invents nothing but tries to make known (systematic knowledge and organization of verifiable sense experience) what has been there. In this sense science cannot contradict what has been and until it confirms what is, it remains a sailing boat in deep waters. William R. McGrath in A Bible Treasury (1981) said the obvious when he said, “there is hardly a physics textbook of 50 years ago which is not now hopelessly out of date because the former theories have been proven wrong and new theories are being invented all the time to try to explain the new observations about nature. Yet the marvellous thing about the Bible is that it is always up to date and practical and appropriate while yesterday’s science textbook ends up in the trash”. And until science “touches” what is, we would agree with Martin H. Fischer (1879 – 1962), the German-born US physician, that “all the world is a laboratory to the inquiry mind”. At any point science agrees with scriptures inquiry ends.

Recorded in the Bodelian Library, Oxford and signed by 800 scientists of Great Britain is this statement: “we, the undersigned … desire to express our sincere regret that researchers into scientific truth are perverted by some in our own times into occasion of casting doubt upon the truth and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures. We conceive that it is impossible for the Word of God written in the book of nature, and God’s Word written in Holy Scriptures, to contradict one another … physical science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress”. This is the truth or fact that the mathematician David Hilbert was inadvertently alluding to when he said that the measure of success of a scientific paper is how many other papers it makes irrelevant. Lewis Wolpert, professor of biology, as Applied to medicine, University College, London, fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, recipient of the Michael Faraday Award for the Public Understanding of Science and author of the very influential The Unnatural Nature of Science agrees, in this regard, with Hilbert, when he said: “we all ultimately disappear from the literature, because our work is incorporated and it is gone and forgotten, I’m afraid. It really is a very strange process”. The German physicist, Max Planck (1858 – 1947) puts it this way: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”. At that point it has, no doubt, aligned with scriptures, for all scientific truth aligns with scriptures hence they endure.And so then, the inquiring goes ad infinitum until a proper chord is touched, and that chord is in scriptures: in “Thus saith the Lord”! Scientific exploration that takes the Bible as compass gets to safest of shores.

BIBLE AND FINDINGS OF SCIENCE

The Scripture (every jot and tittle of it) is incontrovertible just as it is infallible. Its account should be believed and taken hook, line and sinker. Just only some few years ago medical science was able to tell us life is in the blood. Moses told us that long, long ago: “… for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof …” – Leviticus 17: 14. It is only in this computer age we are being told that one day or so could not be accounted for in the life of our world, a fact (or secret) Joshua and Hezekiah were privy to many centuries ago as you can see in Joshua 10: 12 and Isaiah 38: 8. It is now that science noticed that our earth rotates, a fact Job knew thousands of years ago (see Job 38: 12-14 where verse 13 refers to the axis and 14 says: ‘it is turned as clay to the seal’ which is the figure of the potter’s wheel). It is great finding today to discover that the earth is just rotating out there in space. Job knew that long ago: “He stretched out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26: 7).

Meteorologists may have discovered the water circle today but Solomon knew that long ago: “The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again” (Ecclesiastics 1: 6, 7). What news it was to discover that the atmosphere ‘weighs about fourteen pounds per square inch at sea level’. In Job 28: 25 God showed long ago that the air could be measured: “To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure”. Who cannot see the hydrologic cycle in Job 36: 27-29 which literarily reads: “For he draweth up the drops of water, they distil as rain from the vapour (mist) thereof, which the clouds (skies) pour down and drop upon man abundantly. Yea, can any understand the spreadings of the clouds, the thunderings of His pavilion?”

Science has today agreed with Jeremiah 33: 22 that, “THE HOST OF HEAVEN CANNOT BE NUMBERED” when it told us that there are well over 100 billion stars in our own galaxy, and even just as there could probably be billions of galaxies out there in space. Today, science says that the material universe we can behold and all matter in it is made up of little, invisible things called atoms which in turn are made up of smaller particles and that these smaller particles are made up of yet smaller particles which cannot be seen even by electron microscopes but can only be guessed. Whatever difficulty they may have will disappear if they know as we know that: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”. THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN WERE NOT MADE OF THINGS WHICH DO APPEAR!

Science has agreed with what the Bible said about man being “fearfully and wonderful made” (Psalm 139.4) when it revealed for instance that the body consists of various chemicals – iron, sugar, salt, carbon, iodine, phosphorus, lime, calcium, and others – about 98 ¢ worth. The body has 263 bones; 600 muscles, 970 miles of blood vessels; 400 caps on the tongue for taste; 20,000 hairs in the ears to tune in to all sounds; 40lb. jaw pressure; 10, 000, 000 nerves and branches; 3, 500 sweat tubes to each sq. inch of skin or 40 miles long; 20, 000, 000 mouths that suck food as it goes through the intestines; 600, 000, 000 air cells to the lungs that inhale 2, 400 gallons of air daily; and a telephone system that relates to the brain instantly any known sound, taste, sight, touch, or smell. The heart beats 4, 200 times an hour and pumps 12 tons of blood daily (Finis Dake). David knew more than that thousands of years ago, and he knew too that it is only God that could have done that and, so, did not only acknowledged Him as the Maker but gave all honour and worship to Him.

This writer joins McGrath and others to offer scientists another clue from God’s own Word: The great heaps and piles of fossil strata could only have been laid down by the violent combination of water and whirlwind of Noah’s flood; the sea-beds found twisted and turned into mountain tops could only have happened by some vast upheaval turning the sea-beds into mountains and the mountains into sea-floor; the many remains of quick frozen ancient animals in ALASKA and SIBERIA, some dashed into pieces and others piled helter-skelter on top of each other in layers with the very TROPICAL PLANTS still in their mouths that they were chewing when tidal waves and instant ice storms overwhelmed them “can only be explained by a vast flood combined with the tilting of the earth’s axis to alter the seasons”.

Today, many see the planets representing a jig-saw puzzle that could possibly be fitted together! Right as they may be they need know that everything began in the Scriptures. What many know is that God confused the tongues of men when He scattered them after their Babel affront, but most do not know that about the same time or a little after that God also divided the united (physical) earth into continents thereby separating men from men even further. This is what I mean: “And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided…” (Genesis 10: 25). So that we don’t miss the point, many years after, 1Chronicles 1: 19 repeated that: “And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided…”

Time and space would fail us to represent the thousand and one ways science (true science) has echoed the truth and veracity of Bible; and that, of course, is the only purpose of science, true science. Indeed, enduring findings of science can only exclaim with David: “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; …” (Psalm 8:3). Yes, true science at the end of the day would readily concur, again, with David: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them has he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof” (Psalm 19: 1-6). GOD MADE IT ALL!

Only God, the “Supreme Being of unimaginable power, wisdom, and glory” (Finis Dake) can create the world, the material universes. He did create our solar system and the trillions of solar systems, our galaxy (the Milky Way) with its roughly 400 billion stars (suns) and the starry space with its estimated 100 billion galaxies with their near certain figure of 40 sextillion (40, 000 million, million, million) stars or suns out there in space. God in Genesis 1: 1 (in the dateless past) created them all. God made it all: heavens (Psalm 8: 3; 19: 1; 102: 25; Isaiah 40: 12 etc), planets (Psalm 8: 3; Isaiah 40: 26; 45: 12; 48: 13 etc) all things (Proverbs 26: 10; Colossians 1: 15–18; John 1: 3; Ephesians 3: 9, etc). God made it all, be it the North Star or polestar (the bright star in the constellation Ursa Minor), the Great Nebula (the galaxy nearest ours, the Milky Way) or the faintest and farthest galaxy as captured by our telescopes, from where light could travel to our planet in 400 light years, 700, 000 light years and 500, 000, 000 light years respectively! God created ALL THINGS. The Book of Job alone could be the foundation and guide Cosmology (9: 5-8; 26: 7; 36: 32; 37: 18; 38: 4,8-12,16,39-41; 39: 1-30; 40: 15-24), Astrology (9: 7,8; 38: 7,31-33), Geography (21: 29; 23: 8,9; 26:10) and Meteorology (1: 16-19; 9: 8; 27: 20,21; 36: 27-29,32,33; 37: 1-6,9,10; 38: 12-14,19,20,22,28,29) need to safely forge ahead.

Job tells us in Job 9: 1–12 that the mountains, earth, suns, stars, heavens and constellations are of God. In verse 9 we read: “which maketh Arcturus (a name having to do with the Great Bear – a constellation in the northern hemisphere) Orion (the constellation otherwise called the Giant, and it is said that the space in the sword of the Giant alone is about 2 trillion, 200, 000 billion or 2,200, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 times larger than the sun) and Pleiades (the name given to the 7 stars in the neck of the constellation Taurus) and the chambers of the south (suspected to be the “abode of the stars of the south or that division of the stars in the southern part of the heavens)” – Finis Dake. We must say with Amos (Amos 5: 8): “seek Him that maketh the seven stars (or Pleiades) and Orion …” God did all that in the dateless past, Genesis 1: 1: “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” – NIV, NKJV etc. It is the fact of nature represented in Genesis 1: 1 and by Job, Jeremiah and others that scientists have just found out when they tell us the earth is been here for some million (or billion) years. Yes, Adam (or modern man) has been here for only about six thousand years, but the earth certainly predates Adam. We desire that for a subject matter another day.

FALSE SCIENCE IS CONFUSION

Science without God or science that denies Him is false science. But science subject to God and The Holy Bible (His only Word to GUIDE MAN) is a servant to mankind. That is what drives humanity positively ahead and to its desired place. Science without God is tyranny and tyrannical to men because it ruins humanity at the end of the day because, in the first place, it is false. While true science dissolves doubts and necessarily affirms scriptures (The Bible), McGrath (1981) says false science ministers or raises questions which it cannot answer. Hear him: “Science without God pretends that man is his own god but only makes him act like a devil. It was German ‘science’ which invented ‘higher criticism’ of the Bible and robbed an entire nation of morality and faith. What was the result? The ‘scientific’ Germans murdered millions, lay Europe in ruins, scientifically practiced genocide, burned human beings in gas ovens and drew off their fat to make soap, used their hair to stuff army cushions, and conducted ‘scientific experiments’ with living slaves as guinea pigs”.

He reminded that ‘Scientific Marxism’ in Russia and China massacred tens of millions, enslaved other millions, tried to exterminate religion, and ended up preaching atheistic dogmas “so intricate and incredible that only a secret police inquisition and constant ‘purge’ kept the people subjugated by terror to them”. False science is atheism. So called Scientific Marxism is false science. Evolution is another typical false science. God’s Word says: “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘there is no God’… ” (Psalms 53: 1). Dake thinks atheism is proved to be absurd by: the existence of the universe; the constitution of the body, soul, and spirit of man; the innumerable living creatures in existence (each one so perfect and intricate as to make all chance of its coming into existence automatically, an impossibility); the character of God’s works; the preservation and government of all creation (to think that all things came into existence and are being governed by themselves is folly); its ungodly mockery; its powerlessness to help a man to better himself and others; its degrading and immoral influence; the vastness of its unproved claims; and the renouncing of it by its followers in times of affliction and death. He says Sir Francis Newport, Voltaire, Tom Paine, David Hume, Altamont, Ethan Allen and Thomas Hobbes were atheists who among other atheists pleaded for mercy from God and regretted their atheism in their dying hour. Actually, it can take only a seriously demonised man to be so deluded to say God is non-existence. For those so-called atheists who later changed their minds and went to God their Creator in repentance and asked for forgiveness in Christ Jesus well!

The way our own Tai Solarin died may not afford him the opportunity to renounce or recant his atheist position. When Solarin lived this writer gave him the opportunity to retract and think like one created by God when he wrote him (Solarin) to reconcile with his Creator through the only Saviour of the world: Jesus Christ. In his reply he held to his grossly and damnable skewed resolve. Today Solarin cannot even do a rejoinder to this work: and that reminds me that there is God and tells me too that Solarin has long gone to meet, give account to, and receive reward from that God who put him on this earth in the first place. The Bible has said truly, as always: “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3: 4). Too late for Solarin to make amend, but the Naiwu Osahons in our clime can embrace reason while breath they still have. Back to the foolishness that is evolution!

By the way, which is really easier to believe between the Bible (What God said and of which we attempt here to touch the iceberg) and evolution theories which McGrath summarises thus: supposedly the world originated by the accidental collision of two suns accidentally passing in space, and accidentally or by chance a gob of hot matter was torn off, and accidentally after a few million years cosmic rays fell on some water that had by chance formed on this new planet, and by chance the cosmic rays caused an atom of dead matter to become an atom of living matter ,and by chance this multiplied and became millions of cells and by chance these cells turned into little germs and the germs became amoebas and the amoebas became plants and the plants became animals and the animals became man, all by CHANCE or ACCIDENT! I ask: Is ‘evolution’ not the peak of fantasy and satanic confusion? I think it is.

Be it what it calls cosmic evolution or organic evolution, evolution theorists do not deny the first cause. They begin with matter or substance already in existence and believe in primitive nebulosity and powers possessed by molecules (Dake) but cannot fantasise further, that is, how does this (the matter or substance already in existence) came into existence! Do not forget, of course, the fantasy that is the so-called big-bang theory! This is why it is not difficult to agree with McGrath that, while true science brings certitude and is in harmony with the Bible, false science raises questions and multiplies doubts and exalts human reasoning and theory above God.

THE BIBLE AND CIVILISATION

We have said already that the purpose of science at the very best is to echo what is already there in THE BIBLE. Science that has the Bible as compass and anchor is the science that has served the world.At the end of the day true science would have purposefully or inadvertently fallen in line with The Book to drive society positively forward.

That is why Western civilization has owed much to Christianity. Indeed, D. James Kennedy would rightly tell you that modern science grew in only one milieu – Christianity. John Brooke, an Oxford University professor and Jerry Newcombe would even tell you that modern science is a gift from Christianity: what with Blaise Pascal (1623 – 62), Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727), Michael Faraday (1791 – 1867), Samuel Finley Breese Morse (1791 – 1872), Matthew Fotaine Maury (1806 – 1873), Louis Pasteur (1822 – 95), Joseph Lister (1827 – 1912) and innumerable others who gave us civilization! All, leading scientists of this age, they were ardent Christians with rare reverence for God and His only Word: the Bible. Indeed, while Blaise was to dedicate much of his life and writings to persuading free thinkers, so-called, of the truth of Christianity, Newton – the foremost scientific mind of all time – would say that the solar system comes from an intelligent being called God.

Mention must be made of Mark Finley’s book: Prayer Makes a Difference, where he revealed that medical research has shown a wonderful and startling positive relationship between prayers and healing of patients. God is in control, His Bible, the safeguard and compass! We cannot but agree therefore with Ulysses Grant (1822 – 1885), the 18th President of the United States (1869 – 1877) that to the Bible we are indebted for progress in science and civilization and to it we must look for our guide in the future.

That is to say, the ‘future’ dimension is critical in the whole matter. God did not only make all things, He and the heavens do rule – Daniel 4: 25, 26. And if God created and rules He sure has a purpose and direction. AND AN OMNISCIENT GOD HAS BEEN SO GOOD AND GRACIOUS TO LET US INTO HIS MIND AND WHAT LIES AHEAD. HE HAS THUS GIVEN US THE BIBLE! God rules beyond now; He rules and governs eternity; God has the world’s trend and future wrapped up in Scriptures. He that knows the end from the beginning has told us the way and course of this world. The safest thing in the entire world to do is “to search out the Scriptures”, and that is even Bible admonition. Just as evolutionists don’t know how the world began, they don’t know beyond the now! They cannot even fantasise!

AND GOD’S TWO GREAT SIGNS

Besides nature; the unquestionable truth of creation by a Divine Being called God; the submission of the findings of true science to the truth embedded in Scriptures; and the great civilised impact The Bible has on the world; there are many other proofs of the existence of God and of the Bible being His only Word to man. But we shall here visit only two: Israel and The Church. The miracle that is Israel and the sign that is ever Jewry wherever they are found and, of course, the way they have survived in a very hostile world for several thousands of years now only has divine explanation, and which explanation we see running through the pages of The Book of Life.

And then, the Church! The great wonder of the Mustard Seed – its growth, uniqueness and resilience in an antagonising world with several gates of hell, who can explain! And derived from that is the truth that degenerated men are being regenerated and made righteous or made to conform to the image of God, and that through the shed Blood of Jesus Christ (the Head of the Church) on the Cross of Calvary.

Israel and the Church are divinely planted here on earth. They point to the glorious fact that God is not only up above but rules in the affairs of men. But more than that: These two plantings of God (ISRAEL and THE CHURCH) are supposed to show the world that there is eternity, which of course, is governed by God. Israel and the Church represent, as it were, God’s preparatory stage to bring men into eternity with Him, Adam having failed. God used Adam to populate the earth that now is. The world became so corrupt that Abel, Enoch and Noah were the only highly spoken-of and, or recorded faithful between Adam and Abraham.

In Abraham God decided to make a new deal. He will use Abraham through the promised child, Isaac, and Jacob the beneficiary of that great and perpetual promise, and which promise was finally consummated in Jesus Christ, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD, to populate and govern (along side the faithful before Abraham, and the Church) the coming world that will never end, under the Headship of Jesus. A time is coming when, through Jesus Christ, all living Israelites shall be saved and that is besides all resurrected faithful Israelites.

Israel is that sand on the seashore that cannot be numbered shown and promised Abraham by God. The Church is those innumerable stars shown and promised Abraham by God. Israel and the Church are planted in time and grow into eternity. They are the plantings of God and He is watching over them. There is nothing any man; any satanic concert and confederacy can do to stop that. Men can only do well for themselves if they come to God’s Christ (Jesus, the Man of Calvary) while there is still time. That is the only guaranty now to partake in that Abraham’s perpetual promise, that we see in Israel and the Church today but sure to be ushered into eternity with God. That is the only solution, failing which is inviting eternal damnation: And the Bible is incontestable and infallible in all matters: from creation to eternity.

Of the Bible (and hence by extension, the Church) Napoleon Bonaparte is most instructive on several scores when he said: “the Bible is more than a book: it is a living being with an action; a power which invades everything that oppose its extension”. That must be food for thought for all self-proclaimed enemies of Jewry and the Church. As we approach the end of time, we just hope Jacque Chirac and those after him will allow the greatest Frenchman ever to inform and educate them about the Bible; and that is parenthetical!

The more of the Bible pages scientific minds and governors and potentates peruse the better will be the nations and the more of its truth you and I imbibe and of its author, Jesus Christ, we know and become, the better is our station beyond civilization: eternity.

Research paper on social science is one of the social science papers. It can be written in any level of education and mainly involves presenting finding of some kind of research conducted on a particular topic or issue. Other types of social science papers include social science essay, social science term paper, social science research paper, social science thesis and social science dissertation. Writing social science papers requires one to present an argument in form of a thesis statement. The thesis statement will form the center of discussion of your social science papers. The bulk social science papers should contain arguments that go into supporting the thesis statement. Thorough research should be conducted in order to gather as much evidence as possible to support the thesis of your social science papers. Make sure that the evidence you present support your thesis and not merely restating the thesis of your social science papers.

Social science is an empirical discipline therefore only empirical evidence should be used when writing social science papers. When writing the best social science papers also make sure that you make it clear how you evidence support your thesis statement. It is not enough to just state the evidence but you should also show how your evidence link to the argument advanced by your social science papers. Your social science papers should also be well organized and points well presented. The social science papers should have a clear introduction, a main body and conclusion. The correct grammar, spelling, punctuation and sentencing should be used when writing social science papers. Using the wrong spelling, punctuation or sentencing may lower the quality of your social science papers or completely alter the message that you intended to communicate.

Social science papers can not be complete without proper citation of sources and providing a list of bibliography. Failure to acknowledge sources consulted during the writing process of your social science papers amounts to plagiarism which is a serious offence in academics. There are many style of referencing sources and students should use the style recommended by their instructors or institutions when writing social science papers. If you are having difficulty writing your social science papers, you can get assistance from us. We are an online writing company that specializes in providing social science papers writing services to students. We offer all types of social science papers including social science essay papers, social science term papers, social science research papers, social science thesis papers and social science dissertation papers.

Our social science papers are written by the most qualified writers who are professionals in the field of social sciences. Our social science papers writers are very skilled and have years of experience in writing and are capable of writing social science papers for any academic level. We offer social science papers that are custom written and tailored according to the clients’ requirement. Our writers use the instruction given by the clients to come up with premium quality social science papers that exactly suit the client’s needs. We also guarantee on time delivery of social science papers to our clients. Therefore you need not to worry about deadline as our writers are committed to ensuring that your social science papers are delivered to you within the stipulated time.  Buy social science papers from us and save your time and receive better grades.

Related Science Articles

Students taking science courses face challenges when writing science papers. The  students  find  it  difficulty  to  write  their  science  papers  because  they  do not  have  enough  materials  to use  when  writing  their  science  papers. The  students   taking  science  courses  are  supposed  to  use  secondary  and  primary  sources  when  writing  the  science  papers. Most  students   don’t  know  the  different  types  of  sources  to  use  when  writing  their  science  papers. The  students  find  it  difficulty  to  identify  the  sources  to  use  when  writing  their  science  papers. This  has  affected  the  quality  of  science  papers  the  students  submit. It has also affected the student’s performance. Instructors grade   science papers according to the sources used.

Students  who  use  both  secondary  and  primary  sources   when  writing  science  papers  get  high  marks. On  the  other  hand,  students  who   do not  use  both  secondary  and  primary  sources  when  writing  their  science  papers  get  lows  marks. The  sources  used  help  make  the  content  of  the  science  papers  valid. In addition, students  find  it  difficulty  to  allocate  enough  time  to  write  science  papers. Most  students  taking  science  courses  are  either  part  time  or  regular  students. The  students  have  other  activities  to  carry  out  apart  from  reading. For  example, the  students  have  to  take  care of  their  families  and  work. This  makes  it  difficulty  for  the  students  to  prepare  their  science  papers  well.

The students find  it  difficulty  to  use  different  writing  styles  when  writing  science  papers. instructors  require  students   to  use  different  writing  styles  when  writing  their  science  papers. For  instance, the  instructors  require  students  to  use MLA, APA  and  Chicago  writing  styles  when  writing  their  science  papers. Majority  of  the  students  are  not  conversant  with  the  various  writing  styles. This  has  made  it  hard  for  the  students  to  format  their  science  papers  according  to  the  guidelines  provided  in  the  different  writing  styles. This  has  affected  students   grades  as  teachers  grade   science  papers  according  to  the  writing  styles. thus, the reason  why  students  taking  science  courses  require  science  homework  help. Most  institutions  are  not  capable  of  helping  students  complete  their  science  papers. This  has  forced  students  to  look  for  helping  in  writing  their  science  papers  from  companies  that  offer  writing  services.

A custom writing company offering science papers should have various qualities. First, the company should able to offer science papers on time. Students are supposed to submit their science papers early. For  example, the  students  can submit  their  science  papers  one  week  before  the  deadline  ort  one  day  before  the  deadline. The  custom writing  company  should  ensure  students  get  their  work  on time  so as  to  hand it in  on  time. Instructor penalize students who submit their work late. The students always get low grades. The  custom writing  company  should  guarantee  student  good  performance  by  helping  them  submit  their  work  early. The  custom writing  company  should  have  an online  support  system  so  as to  enable  the  company  to  offer  science  papers  early. The company should encourage students to order science papers early. This will  give  the  writers  enough  time  to  write  their  science  papers.

The  writers  in the  custom writing  company  should  bed able  to  offer  science  papers  using  different writing  styles. For instance, the writers should be able to write science papers using MLA, APA and Chicago. The  writers  should  ensure  the  science  papers  meet  instructors  requirement  and  students  requirement.

I am going to start, by giving you a quick historical perspective, in so far as, in our world culture and writing link has begun to unravel, we cannot stop letters to continue. But they do like a progressive displacement.

If you look French through ages, you will quick understand that that knowledge is obviously connected to the conditions that are culturally ours. Well, we should be aware that it is what we recently said: “In the Middle Ages, there were French texts which were worth. There was, for example, the Roland’s song, etc.” Medieval university has completely ignored these French texts, even those produced by Rutebeuf or Villon. And, why did the Middle Age deliberately put aside these texts? Because this was not made to know, but, as Nietzsche very nicely said: it was the “gay science,” or the anti-science, the science used to protest, not recognized by the university: the science of that time, and until the XVI century, was Latin, French and these sciences were not more than a gay science.

When was the first displacement, which led the birth of “French literature,” effectuated? In the Renaissance, when the “Modern Times” were appearing with Rabelais. If Rabelais is ludicrous, “Gallic,” a pig and everything you want, it is because he was just rehabilitating the medieval gay science, but in French. It was a very great revolution: before, French texts had any status, from now on, they have one. Of course, there were a few years that it was being prepared. There was a pre literature, a “protohistory” literature, if I can say, represented by those that has been called the major Rhetoric men, which rhyme in French and who began to try to place their productions into the refined society. But Renaissance is a breath of oxygen; it is the French all fronts, the gay science carefully promoted.

But what has done this gay science promotion? At the beginning, it was liberation, with all the excesses that all liberation has: a real passion! However, little by little, the passion had decreased, and this was the birth of what we have called “literature,” which consisted to express even the most serious things in French, things of that time, the science of that time. But this was not the science of the university, which continued to be expressed in Latin, but, in some way, a science for university, which was passed in French. In these circumstances, you understand that texts such as those of Madam de La Fayette, the tragedies of Racine, or the comedies of Moliere were literature, as well as the speech of the Descartes’ method, the thoughts of Pascal or the spirit of the laws of Montesquieu. When we see Descartes’ writings included in the XVII° manuals of literature, we can see this: “What can the speech of the method do for literature?” Well, the answer is that because Descartes expressed his method in French. It was the same, with Pascal. There are certainly many illegible things on his writings, but it was the theology in French. Do you understand now that what makes good a tragedy of Racine, Descartes, Pascal or Montesquieu, was that these authors expressed in French a science that, since the middle age to the XVIII° siècle, would not interest anybody, because the science was written in Latin. We must see the “French literature,” as a phenomenon in the margin of university, and almost in conflict with it. If you want to see like this, university was the science of the “right,” and literature, the science of the “left””: this literature consisted to speak like a “decent man,” and not like an old grimoire reader, and this was not a science the same as the one of the university. You understand, in these circumstances, why the ancestors of our current “human sciences” are the psychological novelists, the classical theater, the moralists’ writers, etc. We see these texts as works of art. They had certainly this character-here too, but they had mainly this particular nature of represent a science in separation with the University of that time, and not only one that was worth as a university science but one that had hoped too well exceeds it.

When was the second displacement, which superintended the birth of our “human sciences,” effectuated? In the XIX°, that was the époque of Balzac and the realism. From the realistic movement, things are starting to evolve. Literature becomes a “literature of message.” From that time, who has worked with sociology for example? Zola. It is the thesis message, if I dare to say: novel to thesis, theater to thesis, written by philosophers (at university, at this time there was a long time that we haven’t think!)

And we are in the third displacement, this means: the culmination of thoughts (this means the end of literature), like Sartre: read what he tells in Situations of the “committed literature.” From the moment where literature has been committed, this is no more than a war weapon, this is no more than a gay science (it is even terribly sadder!) and this is no more literature, it became another thing (it belongs to you to name this as you want). “And after Sartre, you will ask me, what remains of the French literature?” The answer is: nothing. It is Byzantine; I mean the “new novel”, the “absurd theater,” the “new criticism.” Nothing! One day, someone asked me what is left of the French literature since the end of the second war (1945) to now. My first reaction was, precisely, to answer “nothing!” And then, after a carefully thought, I replied: “perhaps the words of Sartre, and the memories of Hadrian of Marguerite Yourcenar.” You must admit that this is not very much! You must conceive that French literature is dead, when the Science of men born.

This does not mean that it does not present any interest. Because, who spoke of the man, until the middle of the last century? Well, literature did. For the reason that since Bacon, it was born what he called the naturalist philosophy by the time of the Renaissance, and from this philosophy it comes the issues of our “nature sciences.” And to make a science of Man (with a capital letter!) this creature quasi divine, was excluded. Consequently, literature (history and philosophy included), has filled the historic role of conservatory of the man (“pre human sciences,” or, the gay science of Modern Times). People sometimes ask me this question: “How is it that, after having done your humanities studies, then you devoted to linguistics, and then to anthropology?” You understand that the only thing that I was interested in life was the answer to this question: What is a man (with a tiny letter)? Literature gave me the first answers, then I started to be engaged to what are the highest antiquities and the first real science of Man (thinking that language was natural in men), to be exact it is grammar, called “linguistic” when I was teaching, linguistics took me, logically, to anthropology. You see that there is, in my route, an intellectual and a perfect consistency. I close parenthesis here and I return to my business.

You understand that when somebody says to you, “I teach French literature” (from Rabelais to Sartre!) It became completely clichéd (it is good to be on museum) and, above all, how would you like to put all of these works in the same cart? This is ridiculous!

In the other hand, we must see that the texts we continue to call “literary” are a mass of determinisms. That is what I blame to my childhood teachers because instead of deconstruct the text, they took it globally (it was the famous “text explanation”), but it should have different specialists who would have treated those texts with different methods: there is, indeed, in the literary text the sociologist works, the psychoanalyst, the historian, the psychologist, the linguist, etc. In a single literary text there is a lot for what to devote a full year, the year which would be more informative as the exam, more or less intuitive of a series of “chosen pieces.” But it is true that such as education would require, of the professor in French Literature, a series of knowledge and a synthesis gift which is quite unusual! You can believe me, this is what I have tried to practice while I was a student (a superior student, it is true). But, believe me, I do not regret this: I am proud to believe, I am proud of passionate my students of License while explaining them… “The rabbit and the turtle”! I have never stopped to teach them to read, but wearing another glasses (already!) This is why I have always thought, and continue to believe that the question of programs and schedules have no interest (this is the kitchen ones.) The content, in a general way, have too little to do with the spirit formation. What really counts are the glasses, this means what some people call the method. That is why I think that literary texts cannot be successfully used in higher education.

Is it necessarily to remove the teaching of French Literature in our secondary education like some people, not without reason, want? I will answer: “no”, for the simple reason that, nobody (only a barbarian) is going to burn files. But if we do, we should also burn all our museums! But a museum, we can range that, we can range a few stops before to select certain oeuvres. I could take another example: the metropolitan. You go in the train and you browse the line, with the intention to stop in a few stations. Take again, these small tourist trains you make the “historic” tour of a city marking the time of stops before that or that monument. You all are going to laugh, but when I arrive in a city that I do not know; I borrow these small tourist trains and then I return to visit that or that monument which interested me the most. In other words, what French Literature teachers should propose in the end of secondary school, it is a perspective tour. But this perspective tour could be proposed by both the gym coach, why not, if he has good taste and if he knows how to read the Michelin Guide of literature and can catch the interest of his students!

That says, I have quite quickly understood, that at the same time that “human sciences” were taught in our “Faculties of Letters and human sciences” (it is the “and”, here, that is significant here), were always and only just literature, although they were parts, shortly after my studies of Philosophy License. It seems that these “human sciences,” taught in our Faculties of letters have an objective: the man with a small first letter, and no longer a capital letter, as it was the case in humanism which never ends to die. Then, some of these literary specialists of “human sciences” derive in decorating a man to try to make an object that looks scientific. They have taken from science, not its formalization requirement, but its language and its appearance, no more or less. Thus, some psychologists, baptized “Neuropsychologists,” put up with white blouses, have their laboratories, measure, online, etc. However, in those “labs,” it is certain that they are attempting to check “data”, but of the data which is never defined! Sociologists they make statistics! And they do not have a model underlying the phenomena that they describe, they cannot do anything but describe them (and not to explain). But how can they describe them? With numbers (all the same it makes them more intelligent). But statistics are like computers. If the data that we trust to computers is silly, it is certain that the computer will deal with this silliness (computers are ready to work with anything). It is the same in statistics: you will have silly answer in respond of a silly question.

Finally, haven’t taken anything from science but the appearance, I mean computing, statistics or laboratory, the object “man” (with a small m) is there and it is as virgin as it entered. It is true that these “human sciences” have nothing to do with science but outside the flattering of a simply testify to the claim of literary that have not been able to build scientifically their object.

It remained the sniper, Edgar Morin, who made good used of his concept of complexity. I do not say that he is silly, far from that, but I say that he thinks that we must forget everything from the past and start all over again: “The lost paradigm is definitively lost, but I will invent it all!” The result: it says nothing! For that reason, he refuges, like all the literary men, behind the complexity of men. “Study the phosphorus, ok! Analyze calves, it is already easier, but, compared to a man, a calf is all the same simple. A man, he is much more complicated, subtler, he has more ends!”

I was there, on my career when I had, like twenty years ago, the chance to meet Jean Gagnepain, and to be part of his disciples. When I met him I have quickly understood, that to preach a truly scientific knowledge of the man, meant that we have to shoot down the main obstacles to the advent of this new knowledge, beginning with these famous “Faculties of Letters and human sciences.” Indeed, if, for example, you refer to the Renaissance, you can see that humanism has not been able to prevail only when, under the blows of Rabelais and company, Sorbonne’s lock has jumped. But at the time, the old “Sorbonicoles”, exactly as those of today, wanted to reform themselves to adapt. But there were others, more realistic who understood that any reform was already condemned: there had to do something else. That is exactly what Jean Gagnepain understood.

In the age, which is no more the age of humanism, but the age of  the anti-humanism, I mean, the treatment of the man by man who presides over the emergence of a true man’ Science, it is time to become to be aware of what is the main obstacle to the beginning of this new era. The problem of training, not only for tomorrow, but also for today, was through the kill of literature. Certainly, if the current literature had become the enemies, it is after having been the most beautiful fleuron of the humanism of the university. But, as Marx said while speaking of bourgeois, they have been a necessary evil; they have played their historic role, the one of being the pre human sciences. From this point of view, the sciences called “soft” (psychology, sociology, political science) extend the historic role of literature (philosophy, beautiful letters, and history included). This historic role has consisted to put men inside the fridge for better study them, while waiting for science called “nature.”

I want to say that these “soft” sciences are being yield before the “hard” Sciences of the man, since the work of this genius still too poorly known, Jean Gagnepain, which is the real founder of the experimental Science of the man. Let me explain that.

It is Freud which gave to Jean Gagnepain the idea of an explanatory clinic, in other words, a type of clinic that allowed him to perpetually submit in question the theoretical model of the man that he has developed during almost half century. That is absolutely fundamental. The one, who really won, in the psychoanalytic treatment, was Freud, which recognized that he had never healed anyone! Freud, basically, became more and more intelligent and, in theory, more and more evil as he submitted his patients to his cure. That is what has given to Jean Gagnepain the idea of a clinic that he wanted to be squarely experimental. He said that it was not because we change of “object,” I mean, to “pass” from nature to man (constructing this “object” man, it is obvious) that we change scientifically: science must have, first of all a coherent model, and also, a place of verification. It must be experimented somewhere, where the idea that the clinic had, in the man, was the only place of verification. To talk about this clinic, Jean Gagnepain referred often the work of a mechanic. In a car, it is rare that everything is wrong at the same time: once, it is the ignition, then the carburetion, etc. It is why he always compared himself to a mechanic who had learned the mechanical in repairing the failure of a car. Because, as in a car, it is rare among the man that everything is wrong at the same time. Nothing breaks down at one stroke: we never lose lucidity, but the reason could become an object of experimental science.

Talking about that, the theory of mediation is what we can indeed call a clinical anthropology. And the mediators (grouped together under the name of School of Rennes), of the same time, are the first in the world to bet in the need to establish a scientific approach to the man who gives himself, of course, a theoretical model, and, at the same time, a place of experimentation. In other words, the link between theory and clinic is so fundamental, that cannot be separated one from the other…except, as I will do, most often, by convenience of exposure (and then we cannot do everything!)

I have spoken about Freud, but this does not mean that Jean Gagnepain unconditionally adheres himself to the psychoanalysis. It corrects the excesses. Excesses of verbosity, firstly because Freud had discovered the unconscious of the conscience representative, while there is also a technical “unconscious,” a social “unconscious” and a ethic “unconscious,” and this is why Jean Gagnepain replaces the concept of unconscious that is implied.

The second corrective is the service that he brings to the historicism in which Freud locked himself, the “stages,” the “regression”, historicism, etc. If you want to know, Jean Gagnepain is not for the Urszene (“primitive scene”,) but for the Grundszene (“fundamental scene”.)

The second precursor that Jean Gagnepain recognizes is Ferdinand de Saussure and his structural design of the verbal sign (in fact it is an anachronism: Ferdinand de Saussure has never used the word “structure,” he speaks of “system”.) The discovery of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) has been for Jean Gagnepain as for a lot of French intellectuals, a real revelation, and a revelation that came late (toward the end of the 40s), while the famous general linguistics course date…from 1916! (It is to tell you how it works in French University!) Well, the famous linguist Genovese is the first to have shown that, in the language anything was obvious, but that, under the phenomenon, there was another thing, that Jean Gagnepain baptized as “grammar,” for the object to the “rhetoric” which only, as we will see, is manifested in the phrase.

But it must be clear that the idea of “system” implementation of Saussure, and which was then called “structure” has been completely perverted by the successors of Saussure, those that are called “structuralists,” then “semiologists” and others “semiotics.” All of these people have given to sign an abusive importance: for them everything is a sign! This is the full recovery! Jean Gagnepain gives to the sign a considerable importance too, but not at all in the same way that the structuralists do. He uses it as analogue, this means that the principle of explanatory sign, is worth, analogue, for the tool, the person and the standard. That is, very quickly what Jean Gagnepain owe to Saussure.

Finally, it is the Marxist praxis which led Jean Gagnepain to the theory of an incorporated rationality. In other words, this idea of praxis, borrowed from Marx, has led him to ask the reality of the explanatory principle that is the reason, not from outside of the man, but in the man. And it is even the difference between the sciences called “of man” and the sciences called “of nature.” All of two belong to the same rationality, but it is found that, in nature, there is no reason anywhere: it is the man who explains it; in the other hand, the man has reason, it is even one of the characteristics of the “object” (the man) to be study scientifically. So if the sciences called “the man” cannot be that science in double (talking about mathematics), since the rationality is, at once, at the thinker and in the object that he studied. At the same time, it is important to make this incorporation of the rationality in the object even (the man) if that is the one who we want to study scientifically.

Among those who have preceded Jean Gagnepain, which has pushed this reality all alone, it is Marx which, as you know, history was not the fact of the “professional” historian (if he is historian of France, art, literature, etc. ) but of the historian that we all are. What had Marx envisaged, consciously? A theory of a man and as the man was defined by history, it was necessary to deal as scientifically as possible, by developing a historical materialism. Only again, as well as the semiology and the semiotics have played a tour to enjoy Saussure and have made ridicules the structuralism (including the one of Levi-Strauss) which became a new idealism, of the same Engels and Feuerbach have played the same turn to enjoy the historical materialism of Marx by pulling, as long as they were able, to what has been called. Then materialism generalized, this means that the “materialism dialectic” (which Marx, aged and tired, has finished by subscribing), and which was for the whole evolution of the cosmos! In other words, the “materialism dialectic,” in making dialectic a process for culture (this means for the man), and for the nature, it comes to a full materialism. In short words, “materialism dialectic” drowned Marx, exactly as structuralism drowned Saussure.

That said, and to conclude, I would like you to say a word to describe my relationship with Jean Gagnepain. In a general way, I would say that the Master is neither one we respect, nor the one with which we break: we live from him. In other words, the Master, we do respect ever, because the respect is a sign of death. When I speak to you about Jean Gagnepain, I do exist. But where am I myself? But, it is not important. This does not say that the memory of Jean Gagnepain is not, in itself, worthy of respect that we owe to human genius, but it cannot serve us, to me personally, and to you, through an intermediary, in the extent that we digested, where we are doing our case. Not a question we cannot stop a Master in history: this would be, beautiful and well the “destroy” to go after Sartre.

I would like to add that the Master, if he is a Master in thinking (which no longer exists in France for a long time) is not a teacher, on the contrary! Take Maître Albert, in the Middle Age: when Master Albert was confusing with the Sorbonne, he took his cliques and his claques and he did secession, I mean, that he took his neighborhoods on the place to which, in Paris, he gave his name: the Maubert plaza. He was installed there and he gave his cathedra outside, and everyone followed him. He had the charisma, he drew crowds, he thought, and he was free.

Well, Jean Gagnepain, if you want, is the Master Albert of the man’ Science. You understand, in these conditions, that his thoughts can disturb, or even indignant, especially for the academia.

So much better, if this thinking, that I will try to transmit to you (if you “us” made the honor to “us” follow) I invite you to reflection.

www.theory-mediation.com

More Science Articles

Since we are living in a science and technology world, many students have opted to take courses related to science and technology. They are thereby required to write science papers during their course of study. Writing science papers can be burdening since the students are required to write following the technological changes in the world. Usually, these students are given a limited period of time to complete their science papers and owing to the fact that they have other things to do and are not as well professional writers, they end up writing poor quality papers. Therefore students need help in writing their science papers. Among the different types of science papers that students write are science term paper, science thesis, science research paper, science dissertation, and science essay.

A good and quality science paper includes an introduction, the body of the paper in which the ideas should be well organized and presented in a systematic manner and a conclusive conclusion. A student should also cite and give references according to the writing style that they are required to use when writing science paper. It should also be free of plagiarism and spelling mistakes and in the correct grammatical sense. Students often ask themselves: Who will write my science paper? How do I write a quality science paper? To avoid such, buy custom science paper from us. We have professional writers who will write you non-plagiarized quality custom written paper on science.

Our writers present all the ideas and arguments concisely. We write science paper for any level of study. You can buy high school science papers, buy college science papers, buy graduate science papers, buy masters science papers and buy PhD science papers. Before writing your science term paper, our writers draw a rough draft of ideas to ensure relevance according to the science term paper topic. We write you science term papers and other science papers that are well argumentative and that one can commend on. Whether you need a qualitative or quantitative science research paper, we will write it for you. Once you order to buy a science research paper from us, we provide you will a unique and well structured custom research paper on science. We offer online custom writing services and will provide you with science paper writing help at any time. Contact us if you find problems in writing science research paper, science dissertation, science essay and any other science paper.

We will write your custom science paper in any writing style. Whether you need a custom paper in APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Chicago style and any other writing style, do not hesitate, order now and have your custom paper on science written to perfection. Moreover, our writers are flexible enough to accommodate any changes in the writing styles. We write all papers according to the specifications and requirements given by your supervisor. Our services are of high quality and the custom science papers that you buy are award winning. In addition to being of high quality, our custom papers are highly affordable.

Our aim is to give you professional assistance in your academics and ensure that you become successful. All our custom written papers on science are delivered timely. Buy science paper from us and see the big improvement that you make in your academic life.

Social science is also called behavior science; it refers to any discipline that dwells on the study of mankind relations, and networks of relationship within the social order. Most of disciplines that deal with abstract theories unlike the natural sciences fall under this category.  The social science papers titles include:  anthropology papers, sociology papers, business administration papers, development studies papers, political science papers, international relation papers, law papers, media, and communication and entertainment papers. Note that in some colleges, and university social science is a synonym for Society studies.  Social science papers usually stick to a particular format for the essays, research papers, term papers, theses, project proposals, and literature dissertations/ reviews.  Social science topics are many; you should always choose a topic that you not only understand well, but that has captured your attention, awareness, and curiosity.

Social science papers always demand a lot of reading, and researching for information. Your institution of learning avails all the books that you need for the research in the library. Reading bulky books is not just a hard task, but you will not be able to gather all the required information from all the books and complete your social science papers on time always. We have modern equipment, online access to many libraries, fast and efficient search engines, and search tools, access to million e-books, plus a staff committed to the customers.

Our team of graduate professional and certified writers will help you have your social papers done in the least time possible. You are wondering what we have. You can view free outlines of different social science papers, buy social science papers, buy custom social science papers, research papers on social science , learn how to write social science papers, and check topics for social science papers.  Your will get all the services you need to make the best grades in your social science papers always. Your custom social science papers will be assigned to a writer in your area of specialization. You will be able to keep a track of the writer and be updated on the progress of your work. Each writer has an e-mail address where you can reach them.  We have a Confidential Policy, so be assured that any information about you will not be availed to anyone whatsoever.

Our services are affordable to suit your needs and financial capability. We provide free delivery via e-mail, and strictly adhere to your timeline. You have a premium of non-plagiarized work.  When you order for a custom paper, you will select the writing style, and the language style that your instructor recommends, the number of pages, or words, and any other specifications you need on your paper.  You can buy: social science essays, social science paper, social science term paper, social science research paper, social science thesis, and social science dissertation, if you have a social paper to do and you are a blank slate on it, as these will not only get you good grades, but you will use them later as guides and assist you in writing future social science papers. Get other students envy your success; work with professionals only at www.meldaresearch.com. Never have that adrenaline rise, for fear of poor results. We are here because of you. Don’t wait. Order now