1. The document discusses the extent to which imagination is more important than knowledge in fields and professions. It agrees with Einstein that imagination embraces possibilities beyond current knowledge and understanding, while knowledge is limited to what is already known. 2. Creativity and dissenting viewpoints are important for progress, as seen in scientific revolutions that overturned existing paradigms, like Einstein's theory of relativity. However, knowledge and experience are also needed, as unfounded ideas without empirical evidence amount to ignorance. 3. Both imagination and knowledge play important roles. Imagination is needed to envision new possibilities and theories, while knowledge, including data from experimentation, is necessary to test ideas and advance understanding of nature.

1. 1
Alex Moyer
12/31/2016
Analytical writing sample #2
Prompt: “In most professions and academic fields, imagination is more important than
knowledge.” Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In
developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement
might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Albert Einstein eloquently declared:
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now
know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever
will be to know and understand.
As a perpetual reservoir of new ideas, imagination does indeed break through rigid
thought constraints—narrow confines that limit possibilities. Here "imagination"
connotes creative problem-solving. Conversely, "knowledge" suggests a body of
supposed facts acquired through schooling, socialization, or simply through osmosis.
The point is that we become less receptive to new information when we treat accepted
opinion as absolute Truth. Left unchecked, institutional thought would ironically stifle
the creative genius that Einstein has come to symbolize. Ingenuity thus serves as a
critically-needed change agent, enabling transformation and progress instead of
growing mired in tradition and stagnation. Yet this does not imply that creativity
always trumps practicality or that the two are mutually exclusive. The history of science
paradoxically serves both to support and qualify Einstein’s central claim.
It helps to consider the overall thrust of Einstein’s argument before examining it from a
scientific angle. This allows analysis to proceed naturally and deductively from the
global to the specific. Generally, the advancement of human knowledge requires
openness to novelty. This drive to explore is paramount before the mind receives the
impressions gained from experience. Thus, children usually behold life’s mysteries with
awe and wonder. Yet society inevitably shapes individual perceptions; it inculcates
reverence for established doctrines. The danger is that blind devotion to convention is
the very basis for insularity and dogma. Put bluntly, orthodoxy limits independent
thought when it becomes the filter through which we sieve all reality. To guard against
indoctrination, we must therefore acknowledge other viewpoints instead of slavishly

2. 2
adhering to the dominant ideology.
So far, we have considered the relative value of unorthodox thought at the broadest
level. Yet this issue does not exist in a vacuum. It becomes more concrete and easier to
understand when embedded within a specific context. In the sciences, Einstein's cry for
creativity resonates deeply. Dissenters have advocated alternative conceptions of
natural law. Apropos is Kuhn’s thesis in The Structure of Scientific Revolution. He
contends that science develops through consecutive revolutions rather than through
incremental changes. That is, the greatest scientific advances have marked sharp
discontinuities from the stockpile of previous knowledge and technique. In Kuhn’s
analysis, science proceeds as usual when new findings fit neatly into conceptual boxes.
Yet certain anomolies defy expectation, creating a discipline-wide crisis.Some
researchers defend traditional theory, while others advocate a new rival. If innovation
triumphs, it heralds a "paradigm shift:” a fundamental change in approach or
underlying assumptions.
Historically, science has witnessed many such breakthroughs: think of the Copernican
Revolution or the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, to name but a
few. Of all these landmark advances, however, Einstein’s own General and Special
Theories of Relativity stand out as prototypical. As a renegade of science, Einstein
displayed a cheeky contempt for authority, an idiosyncratic orientation toward the
world, and a brash defiance of societal mores. By virtue of his dissident tendencies, he
carried his discipline in an unprecedented direction. More specifically, he found an
exception to Newton’s inveterate laws of motion: when a moving body travels at an
extremely high velocity in comparison to the speed of light, Newton’s formulas no
longer hold. Importantly, Einstein did not merely extend his predecessor's ideas. He
radically altered our conceptual universe. The Newtonian and the Einsteinian
worldviews are incompatible, as concepts in one theory are not directly translatable to
those in the other. Particularly, time and space take on fundamentally new meanings in
a relativistic universe. Newton had regarded the latter as flat, whereas Einstein realized
that it is curved. Einstein also postulated, and it has since been experimentally verified,
that time is not standard throughout the universe; rather, it accelerates and decelerates
depending on the observer’s reference frame.
Einstein's pioneering work had profound consequences. For instance, it stimulated
discoveries in astronomy that neither Copernicus nor Galileo could ever have foreseen.
Moreover, physicists now think of our world as five-dimensional; and they describe the
fifth dimension mathematically in terms of “imaginary” numbers, which allow for the
square root of a negative number. No wonder that as a cultural icon-- with his

3. 3
disheveled look and uncombed hair--Einstein epitomizes those great thinkers who
refuse to be bound by accepted practices and beliefs. The take-home message comes
through clearly: thinking outside normal parameters liberates the mind to envision new
possibilities, unencumbered by preconceptions.
Despite this general truth, though, several caveats apply.One disclaimer involves the
two major branches of physics. Theoretical physics aims to predict the physical
behavior of nature at a broad, conceptual level; by contrast, experimental physics is
concerned with quantitative data. If the experimenter controls for extraneous factors, it
becomes difficult to refute the outcome based solely on political ideology, religious
dogma, or other doctrinal grounds. Rejecting empirical findings on that basis could lead
to absurd conclusions: Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but the
proposition that apples might suspend themselves in mid-air someday does not merit
equal time in physics courses. Therefore, some argue that imagination without
knowledge or experience is ignorance waiting to happen. This rebuttal contains some
truth, since theories rarely materialize out of thin air. Indeed, a concept or idea conjured
up without the benefit of any data amounts to little more than the conjurer’s hopes and
dreams. Alternatively, some might claim that while theoretical physics and
experimental physics probe different aspects of nature, they nevertheless complement
each other in real-life settings. The former focuses on the collection of raw data, while
the latter explains and interprets the results. By the same token, theoretical research
identifies gaps in the available data and may point towards new methods for future
data-acquisition. From this standpoint, imagination and knowledge are not
dichotomous but symbiotic. Regardless, the crux of the matter remains: when the
prevailing paradigm collapses, it takes bold and daring vision to create another
conceptual framework. Under precisely this condition, researchers must “think
different” to reconcile theory with facts.
On balance, seminal ideas originate as striking deviations from-- if not violent assaults
on—intellectual orthodoxy. Furthermore, the benefits of heterodoxy extend well
beyond science. Across time, space, and domains, iconoclasts have advanced human
understanding by challenging our most sacrosanct assumptions. A cynic might dismiss
these idealists as eccentric cranks or rogue elements. Yet they play an indispensable role
in jolting and loosening society’s firmly-held convictions. The world should therefore
welcome wide-eyed stargazers who might hasten progress through sudden epiphanies.
Let us encourage tomorrow’s Martin Luther Kings and John F. Kennedies; future Steve
Jobses and Albert Einsteins; potential William Blakes and Mary Wollstonecrafts; and all
others who might generate wholly original knowledge. But until the next Promethean
prodigy arises, we can rest assured: other thinkers will work within social strictures and
personal limits to supplement prior knowledge, observations, and experiences.