_i have got a lot of interesting scientific knowledge from the books of national geographic reading expeditions, some of which are about life, physics. i really can’t * losing myself in the colorful pictures and clear words in the books. after reading the books, i have been considering a question: what if we lived without science? great changes have taken place in the world with the * of science. in the past, life was nasty, brutish and short. it is hard to imagine how our forefathers could do without so many conveniences that modern science brings about. back then, only a small group of people enjoyed the very few comforts. but the majority of people didn’t *n have sufficient food, let along their privilege to be educated. anyway, it is science that changes the world and makes people’s life better and better, although it also leads to some bad aspects at the same time.
_from the discovery of the gravity to the first step on the moon, we human beings have experienced a long process of d*loping science. and now, this process is still continuing much faster. new organisms are already being engineered, and new genetically modified crops promise benefits from higher yields and less use of harmful chemicals and so on. a lot of examples are showing this point. in the future, changes are likely to be *n much greater as science reaches out to shape life itself. maybe one day, the possi*lity that life existed on mars *llions of years ago will be potentially one of the greatest discoveries of our time. it is the force of the competition, we human beings’ inquiring mind and initiative that bring about the non-stopped d*lopment of science. therefore, it is difficult and impossible to pr*nt science from changing the world and our life as well.
_at present, we are in two minds about science. on the one hand, we are enjoying the sweet life as a result of the *lopment of science, and expect it to continue. and we are showing our interests into some scientific expeditions, such as the astronomy, the alien civilization, etc. on the other hand, we are distrustful of it, due to the lack of understanding of science. some people thus far are still very superstitious, and they would *n beli* in superstitions rather than beli* in science.
_stephen hawking, one of the most remarkable scientists in the world, once said, “in a democratic society, the public needs to have a basic understanding of the science, so that it can make *rmed decisions and not leave them in the hands of experts.” this has reminded me of professor alan g. macdiarmid from america, the person who got the nobel prize for chemistry in the year of xx. in his lecture at peking university this year, he put forward that science is people. he also expounded the importance of the basic science for the public. evidently, *ry one of us does need science, or we can’t live without it.
_now that *ryone needs science, why not take advantage of some means to give the public the right basic scientific knowledge? so when they face the problems such as acid rain, the greenhouse effect, nuclear weapons, environment destruction and some other problems, they can also make *rmed decisions on these subjects, just as what hawking said. one aspect relies on what is taught in schools. but science is often taught in an uninteresting way and most students just learn it by rote to pass examinations. how*r, the final goal of learning science is not to pass examinations or to get a higher score; instead, we should try to make full use of it to change our world and life. while learning, we should try to ask * questions and we should have the courage of suspecting the knowledge in the books, as some of the scientific conclusions are likely to be corrected in the future. who knows. so not only must we change our attitude towards science, but also the way of teaching and learning science.
___