I chose chapter nine at first because it was talking about simplifying ideas and just putting simple words on paper. I tend to try and make my writing more complicated than it is and get caught up in what the main idea of the paper/ paragraph is. In the chapter, it states that you can use everyday speaking as a thinking and or clarifying tool. It can help clarify the writers ideas to themselves. This I believe is helpful as often times I get caught up in writing a paper and forget what I was even trying to argue.

Before: 

Sciences enduring purpose suggests altering the field is an unnecessary move. John  Lehrer and Mark B. Boslough have opposing views on the needs in the scientific field, but share the common idea that science is necessary. In Lehrer’s essay, “The Future of Science… is Art”, he is arguing for the integration of art and science, but still mentions the importance of science and its need to be recognized in our society.  Lehrer states: “First of all, the humanities must sincerely engage with the sciences. Henry James defined the writer as someone on whom nothing is lost; artists must heed his call, and not ignore science’s inspiring descriptions of reality.” While Boslough, in the essay “We must protect U.S. investment in Scientific Knowledge”, discusses the importance of the scientific method and doesn’t see the need to change it. He argues: “…that deep understanding of nature through scientific research is essential, and that our ‘material, social, and intellectual condition’ directly depends on our scientific knowledge.” Boslough states the importance of science in our overall knowledge. No matter what both authors are trying to argue, they both recognize science as an essential topic in our society. Looking at the dates of each article published and the 13 year age gap, shows how the basis of science hasn’t really changed even though it has been questioned.

After: 

Sciences enduring purpose suggests altering the field is an unnecessary move. John  Lehrer and Mark B. Boslough have opposing views on the needs in the scientific field, but share the common idea that science is necessary. In Lehrer’s essay, “The Future of Science… is Art”, he is arguing for the integration of art and science, but still mentions the importance of science and its need to be recognized in our society.  Lehrer states: “First of all, the humanities must sincerely engage with the sciences. Henry James defined the writer as someone on whom nothing is lost; artists must heed his call, and not ignore science’s inspiring descriptions of reality.” Lehrer is saying that science should be considered and recognized even in the eyes of an artist. He’s not trying to change the importance of science but more so enhance it to help others understanding. While Bgoslough is more traditional, in his essay “We must protect U.S. investment in Scientific Knowledge”. He discusses the importance of the scientific method and doesn’t see the need to change it. He argues: “…that deep understanding of nature through scientific research is essential, and that our ‘material, social, and intellectual condition’ directly depends on our scientific knowledge.” He highlights the importance of the scientific method and its usefulness. Boslough believes that nothing should be changed. No matter what both authors are arguing they both recognize science as an essential topic in our society. Lehrer’s ideas may not seem the most practical because it’s not something we are use to, but as time goes on, things begin to develop and change. Some of those changes may need to be made to how we think of science.