Q5 “Scientists have been stereotyped as either living in ivory towers of irrele-

vance, or as madmen, charlatans, and mercenaries of commerce, responsible

for all society’s ills: both stereotypes are true, if excessive.” Comment on this
depiction of scientists and scientific knowledge in society.

1 To summarise the above quotation provided in the question, scientists are

commonly perceived to be either doing things which are utterly irrelevant to the real
world or morally repugnant in various ways. [1] As with most, if not all, stereotypes,
stereotypes are largely untrue but with a grain of truth in each of them. As such, my
position is not to outrightly deny these stereotypes, but to show that the work done
by scientists is not as irrelevant as some would make it out to be, and that scientists
are not as morally repulsive as people think them to be. [2]

2 It is easy to see how irrelevance can be a stereotype foisted by people upon

the work done by scientists in general. [3] Take for instance CERN’s construction of
the Large Hadron Collider to search for the Higgs boson amongst other elementary
particles which supposedly make up the universe. [4] In this case, it is difficult to see
how discovery of physical evidence which proves the existence of the Higgs boson
can be applied to our daily lives. Before I argue that work of scientists nowadays still
remain largely relevant, let’s first examine the underlying reasons for the stereotype
of science as irrelevant. [5]

3 The first reason [6] would be a trend in recent years towards the specialization
of knowledge [7]. For example, what used to make up the natural sciences has now
been separated into the three main sciences of biology, chemistry and physics.[8]
The specialization of knowledge refers to the phenomenon whereby people tend to
devote all of their attention, time and energy towards mastering a few particular fields
of knowledge. [9] While this always been the case in the past with different individu-
als taking up different jobs due to their different expertise, specialization has only
brought about the compartmentalisation of knowledge in recent years where each
individual’s knowledge is largely restricted to the few areas of knowledge which the
individual has mastered, and the individual lacks knowledge in all other areas of
knowledge. [10] What this means is that non-scientists do not fully comprehend the
significance of the work done by scientists due to the specialisation and compart-
mentalisation of knowledge, [11] and hence there would be a tendency to label the
work of scientists as irrelevant [12].

4 The second reason [13] is the gap which exists between science and technolo-
gy [14]. Many often conflate the two, but that is an incorrect understanding of the re-
lation between science and technology. [15] More accurately, science provides the
theoretical foundation to technology. [16] Hence, science is a necessary but insuffi-
cient for technological breakthroughs to occur. [17] Non-scientists often view science
as useful only when it takes on the form of technology, and this could explain why
people would label highly theoretical scientific work as irrelevant without realising
that the next technological breakthrough often begins with such apparently “irrele-
vant” scientific work. [18] [19]

5 My position on the relevance of science in today’s world is that as long as sci-

ence fulfills its twin purposes of accurately describing the world and precisely predict-
ing how natural phenomena will occur in the future, science remains relevant [20].
And it is the case that science still remains relevant today. [21] Take for example the
Large Hadron Collider. While it may not generate any concrete benefits through
technological breakthroughs in the near future, its importance in discovering any
physical evidence in proving the existence of the Higgs boson makes it relevant be-
cause it now offers us the possibility of refining our description of the world. [22] It is
crucial to note here the dichotomy between relevance and usefulness. [23] I think
why many choose to stereotype science as irrelevant is because they perceive the
work done by scientists as useless. [24] However, just because something lacks
practical application does not mean that something is irrelevant. [25] Even today, I
believe that scientists are working towards achieving a more holistic understanding
of the external world, which could in turn enable us to better predict how natural
phenomena will occur in the future. [26]

6 Likewise, it is also easy to see why scientists can be perceived as morally re-
pugnant. To deal with the first part of the later half of the quotation which claims sci-
entists to be madmen, it would be due to the general impression that there is a grow-
ing trend for scientists to meddle with dangerous knowledge. A more recent example
would be how various religious organizations perceive stem cell research as ethically
ambiguous at best, and downright blasphemous at worst. A more applicable example
would be the Manhattan Project which created the world’s first nuclear weapon.
However, we have to ask ourselves if this is a fair representation of scientists and
their work. Perhaps we are focusing too much on the negative aspects of science,
and forgetting the multitude of benefits which science has brought us. For instance,
while the invention of nuclear weapon technology was the work of scientists, this
technology also led to the invention of nuclear power plants which can generate
electricity in a clean and safe manner.

7 The second part of the later half of the quotation claims scientists to be charla-
tans. This could be attributed to a lack of understanding on the part of non-scientists
due to the specialisation and compartmentalisation of knowledge as I have argued
for earlier. But perhaps a more prominent reason would be the sheer volume of con-
tradictory scientific reports we hear about nowadays. For example, there have been
reports by scientists which claim that coffee is beneficial for health, whereas other
scientists claim that coffee is detrimental to health. The layman’s response, when
faced with such a contradiction from two parties both claiming to be experts, would
be to declare one or the other as a fraudster. However, this is an unfair depiction be-
cause this is an example of how science progresses by falsification, as proposed by
Popper. It is not that one party is out to deceive us, but that both parties have pre-
sented credible theories, but eventually time and the work by other scientists will
prove one of the two theories wrong. Popper argued that due to the problem of in-
duction, experiments can never prove any theories true, but can only prove them
false. Hence, contradictory reports by scientists does not make them charlatans, but
this is a stage in science which science needs to go through in order to progress.

8 The last part of the later half of the quotation calls them mercenaries of com-
merce. While the language used is certainly a little extreme, I accept this characteri-
zation of science as a reasonable one. Gone are the days when scientists could fund
their own experiments. Experiments nowadays are sufficiently complex such that
they require large amounts of funds to finance the completion of these experiments.
Once again, to use the Large Hadron Collider as an example, the Large Hadron Col-
lider required funding by many of the European Union nations as CERN was unable
to finance it on its own. The implication of scientists requiring substantial financial
resources to carry out their experiments is that scientists are now influenced by
these entities which provide them with their research funding, such as governments,
the military and large corporations. This does not mean that these entities specifical-
ly require scientists to produce results of a certain type so as to advance the vested
interests of these entities, but that scientists could be motivated to sway their results
in a certain manner to increase the amount of funding they receive. At its minimal,
the effect on scientists could be that scientists are unconsciously affected by the na-
ture of these entities and hence employ a less-than-scientific approach towards their
work.

9 In response to the above three morally repulsive characterization of scientists,

let’s first draw the dichotomy between the scientists and his work, and how scientific
knowledge is used. This falls within Popper’s description of a proper scientific atti-
tude. Popper felt that scientists should adopt an attitude towards their work which
compels them to focus on the scientific aspect, and leave the decision of how scien-
tific knowledge should be used up to the politicians and the electorate. I believe that
this scientific attitude is still prevalent amongst scientists nowadays. While scientists
can still influence the possible areas for their work, the final decision is still made by
the politicians and the electorate as to how this scientific knowledge should be used.

10 Ultimately, scientists are neither as irrelevant nor morally repulsive as people

may make them out to be. The most crucial thing to note here would be not to con-
flate scientists and their work with how science is used. Scientists have the mission
to accurately describe the world, and to make predictions about how natural phe-
nomena will occur in the future. But they do not decide how their work and how the
knowledge they have produced are used. Hence, the above stereotypes of science
and scientists are largely misguided and unreasonable.

Chng Luey Chun

Annotations

[1] Note how the student begins by unpacking (interpreting and analysing) the key
terms in the question. The method used here is paraphrasing, but the key thing to
note is the main terms in the question are being explained, and the requirements for
answering the question are being made clear. Note also that the student has sum-
marised a complex set of terms in the question ("madmen, charlatans, and merce-
naries of commerce, responsible for all society’s ills") into a simpler and more suc-
cinct form ("morally repugnant in various ways")

[2] This is the thesis statement. Note that it is written clearly, directly, and simply, ex-
pressing the main idea of the student's argument, and the position he is taking.
While the language is simple, the position taken is not simplistic - the position is nu-
anced, acknowledging that there is a grain of truth in the stereotypes but maintaining
that they are, on the whole, inaccurate.
[3] The topic sentence for this paragraph is the first sentence, which is the most logi-
cal place to put it. It is also clearly and simply written, leaving the reader in no doubt
as to what the main claim of this paragraph is. Note also that the first "move" in this
essay is to acknowledge that the opposing view has some merits (Paras 2-4) before
offering arguments against it (Para 5 onwards).

[4] The next sentence immediately supports the claim made in the first sentence, in
this case by providing an example. Each paragraph should make one claim, ex-
pressed in the topic sentence: every other sentence in the paragraph should be sup-
porting the main claim, either by explaining it, elaborating upon it, exemplifying it, or
illustrating it.

[5] Note the use of signposting language to indicate to the reader the direction of the
argument. While readers can often infer the direction of an argument, it is always
clearer to indicate it explicitly to them. Here, the phrases "Before I argue that ... let’s
first examine the ..." function as indicators to the reader that the next section of the
essay is going to examine the reasons why people hold stereotypes of scientists.
This helps the reader keep the argument clear in their heads - we understand that
the next few paragraphs are not making claims that the student is supporting, but
merely explaining or reporting claims that he will eventually refute.

[6] Never underestimate the importance of even simple signposting like indicating
sequence. They increase the clarity of the essay, and help the reader keep track of
their progress in the argument.

[7] Once again, note the clear topic sentence.

[8] Once again, note the immediate support of the main claim made in the topic sen-
tence, again with an example.

[9] Explanation ...

[10] ... Elaboration ...

[11] ... Implications ...

[12] ... and finally a link back to the main claim (showing how all these reasons lead
to the perception of irrelevance of scientific research).

[13] In this paragraph, we once again see signposting ...

[14] ... a clear topic sentence, which is supported by ...

[15] ... explanation ...

[16] ... explanation/elaboration ...

[17] ... logical deduction ...

[18] ... and a link back to the main claims (showing how these reasons lead to the
perception of irrelevance of scientific research)

[19] Note the density of information in this essay. Every sentence so far has been
doing something to advance the argument, either making a claim, supporting a
claim, or structuring the chain of thought. No sentence has been unnecessary. This
is the hallmark of good writing: this is what examiners mean by "concise" writing.

[20] The student, after having explained the opposing view, now states his view. Note
how it is clearly and simply expressed, but is not simplistic.

[21] The student makes a claim ...

[22] ... which is supported by reference to an example (in this case, the same exam-
ple as in Para 2)

[23] An important idea (or at least an idea the student considers important to their
argument) is explained ...

[24] ... leading to a second claim ...

[25] ... which is elaborated upon ...

[26] ... leading to a final sentence which hearkens back to the topic sentence. The
topic sentence claims that science is not irrelevant "as long as science fulfills its twin
purposes of accurately describing the world and precisely predicting how natural
phenomena will occur in the future", and the final sentence states reiterates that the
examples stated so far show how science could "better predict how natural phenom-
ena will occur in the future ...". This link could be improved by making the connection
more explicit - the student could have written "Thus I have shown how Scientists are
indeed trying to fulfill the aim of trying to predict natural phenomena better" - but on
the whole, it is reasonably clear to the reader how the final sentence coheres with
the topic sentence.

In general, this essay displays the following positive qualities:

•Clarity of ideas, and clarity of expression. Ideas are expressed in simple lan-
guage (but are not simplistic), claims are clearly expressed and placed at the
front of the paragraph so it is unambiguous to the reader what the main idea
of the paragraph is).
•Conciseness: nothing in this essay is unnecessary, every sentence is pulling
its weight).
•A systematic approach: note how he deals with the ideas raised in the ques-
tion in sequence.
•A structured approach: signposting and logical connectors are used to indi-
cate to the reader where they are in the argument, and where they are going.
•Consistent support for claims made: while there are a few gaps, on the
whole, most claims are supported with reference to an example, are explained
 and elaborated upon, and are reasoned through, with implications and con-
clusions.

There is another way we can appreciate how clear this essay is: if we extract all the
topic sentences (i.e. the main claims) we can still get a largely coherent summary of
the essay:

•my position is not to outrightly deny these stereotypes, but to show that the
work done by scientists is not as irrelevant as some would make it out to be,
and that scientists are not as morally repulsive as people think them to be
•It is easy to see how irrelevance can be a stereotype foisted by people upon
the work done by scientists in general.
•The first reason would be a trend in recent years towards the specialization
of knowledge.
•The second reason is the gap which exists between science and technology.
•My position on the relevance of science in today’s world is that as long as
science fulfills its twin purposes of accurately describing the world and pre-
cisely predicting how natural phenomena will occur in the future, science re-
mains relevant. And it is the case that science still remains relevant today.
•Likewise, it is also easy to see why scientists can be perceived as morally
repugnant.
•The second part of the later half of the quotation claims scientists to be char-
latans. This could be attributed to a lack of understanding on the part of non-
scientists due to the specialisation and compartmentalisation of knowledge as
I have argued for earlier. But perhaps a more prominent reason would be the
sheer volume of contradictory scientific reports we hear about nowadays.
•The last part of the later half of the quotation calls them mercenaries of
commerce. While the language used is certainly a little extreme, I accept this
characterization of science as a reasonable one.
•In response to the above three morally repulsive characterization of scien-
tists, let’s first draw the dichotomy between the scientists and his work, and
how scientific knowledge is used.
•Ultimately, scientists are neither as irrelevant nor morally repulsive as people
may make them out to be.

This shows how clear the writing is, and how each paragraph contains a claim that
advances the essay.
QN4: "How important is language in the construction of our knowledge?"

1 The role that language plays in knowledge construction has been viewed vastly
differently, from serving as an “underlabourer” of sorts to facilitate the construction of
knowledge to the role of the master, directing and shaping what knowledge we can
even obtain, with the view towards “the limits of my language are the limits of my
mind”. These theories all have an impact on nearly all areas of knowledge construc-
tion, given that we depend on language to communicate and contain what we know,
and the relative impact will be examined in turn.

2 Language has been seen as a means through which to ensure that knowledge
is constructed soundly. Plato for example was concerned with the correctness of
names and ensuring language was not misused to counter the Sophists. The latter
had argued that logic was a failure as we could not posit the existence of something
that is “not” without having something that is. Plato pointed out that this was purely
an error of syntax, and thus attacks on logic could not stand.

3 This use of language to examine philosophical problems was continued

throughout the ages, from the medieval question of universals versus nominalism to
the 20th century logical positivists. Hamann said that the true question should not be
“what is reason?” but instead “what is language?” as he felt that ultimately all philo-
sophical problems could be solved via an examination of language. Similarly, Ryles’
“ghost in the machine” argument showed that the mind-body dualism of Descartes
was purely due to language; typical of the ordinary language philosophers who ex-
amined philosophically-debated words such as “good” in their ordinary context to
shed light on possible answers.

4 This leads on to language determining what we can know. Wittgenstein said

that “whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must pass over in silence,” which encap-
sulated precisely that. His picture language theory stated that language could only
have meaning in reference to things in the real world for which there was a direct
correspondence, thus abstract concepts of ethics or aesthetics would be meaning-
less. The logical positivists too had declared all analytic statements to be tautologies,
and thus knowledge, based on the syntax of such statements and similar lack of
meaning in abstract concepts, of such fields ultimately meaningless.

5 Beyond the possibility of knowledge in specific areas, language has in fact

been seen to limit the manner of knowledge construction as a whole. Firstly, the bar-
rier that language presents in terms of communication has raised issues of whether
or not knowledge can be obtained through external sources or transferred once
found. The difficulty in translation, first brought up by Herder and later developed by
Schleiermacher, brought about the conclusion that one will never be able to access
another’s thoughts or writings because of the radical differences between the two
cultures that we cannot overcome in language, and as Quine once again brought up
in his theory of the indeterminacy of language. This had especial implications on the
fields of translation, in attempting to translate knowledge from one system to another,
and in the field of history, where this barrier means that sources, texts, of the past,
are impossible to access. The failure of langue, when we cannot even accurately
translate a single word from another concept, makes the foundations for knowledge
construction shaky.

6 Secondly, what we can conceive of within knowledge construction has been

posited to be also limited by language. The possibility of language shaping our
thoughts was brought up first by Herder and again raised by Humboldt, who argued
that we need new language to think of new possibilities. This was again brought up
in the Saphir-Whorf hypothesis, which was an experiment on Japanese-American
women, that showed that people viewed the world differently through different lan-
guages.

7 Yet as much as language has been seen as a limitation to knowledge, it can in

fact be far more of an enabler to further the possibility of knowledge. The Saphir-
Whorf hypothesis for example was only backed up on the basis of what the women
said; there was no way of determining whether their thoughts were indeed different.
Language has been more than a barrier; despite such differences in translation and
between cultures, Habermas used the communicative value of language in order to
show that we could still judge between time periods and cultures. The act of commu-
nication and argument implied consensus, and adopting a pragmatic stance that
whatever could be conceived of in a consensus was right, he thus proposed an ideal
speech theory to support critical rationality, which would opened an ideal speech
theory to support critical rationality, which would open new pathways for social sci-
ences.

8 The logical positivists’ claim too has been seen again as a misuse of language.
Wittgenstein returned to denounce his picture-language theory to stress instead the
social context of language, with his theory of language “games”, while Quine would
go on to show that even analytical statements make references to the real world.
Other philosophers have argued that the logical positivists are misusing language,
and imbuing it with a significance it does not have. When one talks of “good” for ex-
ample, one does not refer to the word but the concept.

9 Language has been used to defend other tools of knowledge construction as

well. The paradoxes that confront mathematics, such as Russell’s paradox, which
can also be put as “A barber only shaves those who do not shave themselves. Does
he shave?” or Cantor’s paradox, through arguing that once again this a misuse of
language and in fact this is the very definition of a paradox, cannot be used to un-
dermine logic, a fundamental tool for the construction of knowledge.

10 Thus far, we have seen language as both being used as a limiting factor and an
enabler, but conceded that perhaps it does not place that large a barrier on the road
to knowledge construction as thought. The use of language as an enabler in a very
pragmatic sense has been also seen in the East, which we now turn to. Confucius
and Han Feizi’s concern with the “correctness of names” was because language was
seen as aiding ethical knowledge to aid a society; a prince must be a prince and a
father a father and so on, playing their roles as per their names. To Mozi however
utility as paramount, and the role that language played was hence that of use as per
utility. Language here is thus for use, and for the construction of knowledge of an
ideal society, more specific and pragmatic in nature, but equally important in en-
abling it.

11 Perhaps language can best be seen as an organisational category in the man-

ner of Kant’s categories. We need language to help us frame our world. Without it we
are unable to comprehend the deluge of information that comes at us every moment,
and thus construct knowledge at this basic level, as well as at other levels of knowl-
edge construction. Whether in defending philosophy, logic or the possibility of ab-
stract knowledge, language can be seen as a neutral tool, used or misused in turn,
but at all times framing the explorations , as a reminder of how closely knit it is to our
approach to knowledge. La Rouchefould once said that very few people would fall in
love if they had not heard of it, suggesting again how we depend on language to
help us organise our experience of life, while Searle concurred with this and saw
language as an organisational category.

12 The nuances of language and its multiple perceived roles cause the benefits
and detriments to the advancement of knowledge to be varied, but the importance of
language remains a constant, where not as a limit in terms of what is possible in
conceiving for example “beauty”, then decidedly and importantly as a frame for us to
decipher this “beauty” within. Chomsky’s experiments demonstrated that we are per-
haps born with an innate linguistic faculty; a theory that underscores how central
language is to our understanding, despite the seeming checks it may place on our
construction of knowledge. Language cannot be seen as fully determining what we
can conceive of but it can be this neutral framework that we work within.

Claire Soon