The iDeal Reader Jacob Bronowski, ‘‘The Nature of Scientific.docx

The iDeal Reader Jacob Bronowski, ‘‘The
Nature of Scientific
Reasoning’’
© The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2000
Jacob Bronowski (1908–1974), a Polish-born intellectual, was
trained as a mathemati-cian but eventually studied and wrote on
the sciences, technology, poetry, the relation between
creativity in the arts and the sciences, and man’s attempts to
control nature throughout history.
A mathematician, a literary critic, a playwright, a scientist, and
an acclaimed Renaissance man,
Bronowski earned an M.A. degree at Jesus College, Cambridge,
England, in 1930, and a Ph.D. in
1933. His extremely wide-ranging career includes lecturing at
University College in England; serv-
ing as wartime researcher for the British Ministry of Home
Security during World War II, when
he studied the effects of the atomic bomb; and working at
multiple posts at the Salk Institute for
Biological Studies in San Diego and posts at Oxford University,
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, the University of Rochester, Oregon State
University, Yale University, Columbia
University, and the National Gallery of Art; and serving as head
of projects for the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Bronowski also worked as a British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC) commentator on atomic

energy and other scientific and cultural subjects.
Bronowski came to the United States in 1964. He wrote that,
after 1932, he realized it was
not enough to work at a desk, was more important and what was
defending human decency. It
was then that Bronowski turned his attention to studying
connections between art and science.
Among his writings are The Poet’s Defence (1939; retitled and
reprinted, 1966); a study of William
Blake (1943; retitled and reprinted, 1965); Science and Human
Values (1965; rev. ed., 1972), his
most acclaimed work; and The Ascent of Man (1973), essays
based on a BBC television series, his
most popular work. Bronowski believed that the progress of
science could best be understood by
recognizing the interdependence of the sciences, arts, literature,
and philosophy. He emphasized
the universality of human nature and the need to control
violence in modern society.
R
1
2
The Nature of Scientific Reasoning
Jacob Bronowski
What is the insight in which the scientist tries to see into
nature? Can it indeed be
called either imaginative or creative? To the literary man the
question may seem
merely silly. He has been taught that science is a large
collection of facts; and if

this is true, then the only seeing which scientists need to do is,
he supposes, seeing
the facts. He pictures them, the colorless professionals of
science, going off to work
in the morning into the universe in a neutral, unexposed state.
They then expose
themselves like a photographic plate. And then in the darkroom
or laboratory they
develop the image, so that suddenly and startlingly it appears,
printed in capital
letters, as a new formula for atomic energy.
Men who have read Balzac and Zola are not deceived by the
claims of these
writers that they do no more than record the facts. The readers
of Christopher
Isherwood do not take him literally when he writes “I am a
camera.” Yet the same
readers solemnly carry with them from their schooldays this
foolish picture of the
scientist fixing by some mechanical process the facts of nature.
I have had of all peo-
ple a historian tell me that science is a collection of facts, and
his voice had not even
the ironic rasp of one filing cabinet reproving another.
Copyright © 1956 by Jacob Bronowski. Copyright renewed
1984 by Rita Bronowski. Reprinted by permission of Simon &
Schuster, Inc.
Reasoning’’

Companies, 2000
It seems impossible that this historian had ever studied the
beginnings of a sci-
entific discovery. The Scientific Revolution can be held to
begin in the year 1543
when there was brought to Copernicus, perhaps on his deathbed,
the first printed
copy of the book he had finished about a dozen years earlier.
The thesis of this book
is that the earth moves around the sun. When did Copernicus go
out and record this
fact with his camera? What appearance in nature prompted his
outrageous guess?
And in what odd sense is this guess to be called a neutral record
of fact?
Less than a hundred years after Copernicus, Kepler published
(between 1609 and
1619) the three laws which describe the paths of the planets.
The work of Newton
and with it most of our mechanics spring from these laws. They
have a solid, matter-
of-fact sound. For example, Kepler says that if one squares the
year of a planet, one
gets a number which is proportional to the cube of its average
distance from the sun.
Does anyone think that such a law is found by taking enough
readings and then squaring
and cubing everything in sight? If he does, then, as a scientist,
he is doomed to a wasted
life; he has as little prospect of making a scientific discovery as
an electronic brain has.
It was not this way that Copernicus and Kepler thought, or that

scientists think
today. Copernicus found that the orbits of the planets would
look simpler if they were
looked at from the sun and not from the earth. But he did not in
the first place find
this by routine calculation. His first step was a leap of
imagination—to lift himself
from the earth, and put himself wildly, speculatively into the
sun. “The earth con-
ceives from the sun,” he wrote; and “the sun rules the family of
stars.” We catch in
his mind an image, the gesture of the virile man standing in the
sun, with arms out-
stretched, overlooking the planets. Perhaps Copernicus took the
picture from the
drawings of the youth with outstretched arms which the
Renaissance teachers put
into their books on the proportions of the body. Perhaps he had
seen Leonardo’s draw-
ings of his loved pupil Salai. I do not know. To me, the gesture
of Copernicus, the
shining youth looking outward from the sun, is still vivid in a
drawing which William
Blake in 1780 based on all these: the drawing which is usually
called Glad Day.
Kepler’s mind, we know, was filled with just such fanciful
analogies; and we know
that they were. Kepler wanted to relate the speeds of the planets
to the musical
intervals. He tried to fit the five regular solids into their orbits.
None of these like-
nesses worked, and they have been forgotten; yet they have
been and they remain
the stepping stones of every creative mind. Kepler felt for his
laws by way of metaphors,

he searched mystically for likenesses with what he knew in
every strange corner of
nature. And when among these guesses he hit upon his laws, he
did not think of their
numbers as the balancing of a cosmic bank account, but as a
revelation of the unity
in all nature. To us, the analogies by which Kepler listened for
the movement of the
planets in the music of the spheres are farfetched. Yet are they
more so than the wild
leap by which Rutherford and Bohr in our own century found a
model for the atom
in, of all places, the planetary system?
No scientific theory is a collection of facts. It will not even do
to call a theory
true or false in the simple sense in which every fact is either so
or not so. The
Epicureans held that matter is made of atoms 2000 years ago
and we are now tempted
to say that their theory was true. But if we do so we confuse
their notion of matter
with our own. John Dalton in 1808 first saw the structure of
matter as we do today,
3
4
5
6
7

Reasoning’’
Companies, 2000
and what he took from the ancients was not their theory but
something richer,
their image: the atom. Much of what was in Dalton’s mind was
as vague as the Greek
notion, and quite as mistaken. But he suddenly gave life to the
new facts of chem-
istry and the ancient theory together, by fusing them to give
what neither had: a
coherent picture of how matter is linked and built up from
different kinds of atoms.
The act of fusion is the creative act.
All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses. The
search may be on a
grand scale, as in the modern theories which try to link the
fields of gravitation and
electromagnetism. But we do not need to be browbeaten by the
scale of science. There
are discoveries to be made by snatching a small likeness from
the air too, if it is bold
enough. In 1935 the Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa wrote a
paper which can still
give heart to a young scientist. He took as his starting point the
known fact that waves
of light can sometimes behave as if they were separate pellets.
From this he reasoned
that the forces which hold the nucleus of an atom together might
sometimes also be

observed as if they were solid pellets. A schoolboy can see how
thin Yukawa’s analogy
is, and his teacher would be severe with it. Yet Yukawa without
a blush calculated the
mass of the pellet he expected to see, and waited. He was right;
his meson was found,
and a range of other mesons, neither the existence nor the
nature of which had been
suspected before. The likeness had borne fruit.
The scientist looks for order in the appearances of nature by
exploring such like-
nesses. For order does not display itself of itself; if it can be
said to be there at all, it
is not there for the mere looking. There is no way of pointing a
finger or camera at
it; order must be discovered and, in a deep sense, it must be
created. What we see,
as we see it, is mere disorder.
This point has been put trenchantly in a fable by Karl Popper.
Suppose that
someone wishes to give his whole life to science. Suppose that
he therefore sat down,
pencil in hand, and for the next twenty, thirty, forty years
recorded in notebook after
notebook everything that he could observe. He may be supposed
to leave out noth-
ing: today’s humidity, the racing results, the level of cosmic
radiation and the stock-
market prices and the look of Mars, all would be there. He
would have compiled
the most careful record of nature that has ever been made; and,
dying in the calm
certainty of a life well spent, he would of course leave his
notebooks to the Royal

Society. Would the Royal Society thank him for the treasure of
a lifetime of obser-
vation? It would not. The Royal Society would treat his
notebooks exactly as the
English bishops have treated Joanna Southcott’s box. It would
refuse to open them
at all, because it would know without looking that the
notebooks contain only a jum-
ble of disorderly and meaningless items.
Science finds order and meaning in our experience, and sets
about this in quite
a different way. It sets about it as Newton did in the story which
he himself told in
his old age, and of which the schoolbooks give only a
caricature. In the year 1665,
when Newton was 22, the plague broke out in southern England,
and the University
of Cambridge was closed. Newton therefore spent the next 18
months at home,
removed from traditional learning, at a time when he was
impatient for knowledge
and, in his own phrase, “I was in the prime of my age for
invention.” In this eager,
boyish mood, sitting one day in the garden of his widowed
mother, he saw an apple
8
9
10
11

Reasoning’’
Companies, 2000
fall. So far the books have the story right; we think we even
know the kind of apple;
tradition has it that it was a Flower of Kent. But now they miss
the crux of the story.
For what struck the young Newton at the sight was not the
thought that the apple
must be drawn to the earth by gravity; that conception was older
than Newton. What
struck him was the conjecture that the same force of gravity,
which reaches to the
top of the tree, might go on reaching out beyond the earth and
its air, endlessly
into space. Gravity might reach the moon: this was Newton’s
new thought; and it
might be gravity which holds the moon in her orbit. There and
then he calculated
what force from the earth (falling off as the square of the
distance) would hold the
moon, and compared it with the known force of gravity at tree
height. The forces
agreed; Newton says laconically, “I found them answer pretty
nearly.” Yet they agreed
only nearly: the likeness and the approximation go together, for
no likeness is exact.
In Newton’s science modern sciences is full grown.
It grows from a comparison. It has seized a likeness between
two unlike appear-

ances; for the apple in the summer garden and the grave moon
overhead are surely
as unlike in their movements as two things can be. Newton
traced in them two expres-
sions of a single concept, gravitation: and the concept (and the
unity) are in that
sense his free creation. The progress of science is the discovery
at each step of a
new order which gives unity to what had long seemed unlike.
12
Questions for Discussion
1. What is scientific reasoning? How does it differ from other
kinds of reasoning?
2. Where does the erroneous image of scientists as merely
reporting facts come from?
3. If science is not “a collection of facts” (Paragraph 2), what is
it? Why can science
not be just a collection of facts? What is a “fact”?
4. How do new scientific theories develop? How are old ideas
transformed into new ones?
5. What is the purpose of science?
6. Why can good science never be purely objective? Why will
pure objectivity not work?
In what way should scientists be subjective?
7. Bronowski says in Paragraph 8, “All science is the search for
unity in hidden likenesses.”
What examples does he include to illustrate that statement?
What does that statement
mean?
Questions for Reflection and Writing

1. Describe the process by which scientists think. Consider
Copernicus and Kepler: What
were their processes? How does their way of thinking still
describe how scientists think
today?
2. Define a type of reasoning, besides scientific, with which you
are familiar. Examples
might include artistic reasoning, intuitive reasoning, and
historical reasoning. Describe
the thinking process, providing examples from your experience,
and explain how
this process works.
3. Look up Leonardo da Vinci’s drawing of the proportions of
the body and William Blake’s
Glad Day, mentioned in Paragraph 5. Write an essay in which
you explain how these
drawings illustrate scientific thought. Other artworks on
scientific topics could also be
used in your essay.
~
.
·
@
)
·
~
0 ~ z >-< ;:J Cj z I::Ll p..

66 MY FRESHMANYEAR .
. the descriptions ·of stUdent life. at,testF diversity is . one
part. of
·college culture that is intimately tied to community, another
part, And both part~ are ultimately conditioned by structures in
' :l:he iarger American· society-including values of indiyidual" .
ism and choice, materialism,·and the ··realities of US. demo-.
graphics-that may .seem, at ·first, to have little bearing_.pn:·.
whether college diversity increases because freshmen Joe and .
Juan truly become friends, or whether Jane strengthens com-
munity by deciding .to attend Movie Night. But they do. Not
un:derstandirig ;this ieads to a reality about diversity and-.
com-' .
. · J:rlunity in university culture that does not match its
rhetoric,
and a persistent confusion about why this is so ..
'
/'
·'
' ' ··I ',_·. 4'······ ...
CHHTEo'' . , '';
I
As Others See Us

A
s a partial outsider in college owingto my <:~.ge, I found
. · myself drawn to ~ther partial outsi~ersi and_v:ice versa; .
· . Those of us who m some way dev1ated fromthe no~m .
perceivedsomething in common and.ended up,lnoted, seek-
ing one another out. Th1,1s, the transfer student on my hall be-
came a·.friend; i·was ~lose, too, to the more withdrawn and
·rural students at Previews; theloneAfrican American student
.· in my freshman semirtar,.and the international students in my
dorms and Classes. · . . · .. .
My conversati'ons with students froril other countries Were
often illuminating. As·anthropologists have ~ometo know, cul-:-
tute can be invisible to its natives-so taken for granted that it
seems :rn:n:Vorthy of comment. Although I could view stUdent
life with anoutsider,-professor's eye1 there Was much alJOut
the
U.S, college scene that, in its familiarity, was invisible to m:e
as
.· welL The more I spoke with international stUdents, the more
I
noticed familiar refrains' that both educated me and reminded .
me about my own U.S. arid acade:rriic culture~ After having
•' ;many such info~m:al conversa,tions witfl both international
stU-
dents and teachers, I d,ecided to add forrhalinterviews of :inter~
national stude:hts to my investigation of U.S. college life. In
all,
. I conducted thirteen formal interviews, a::; well as sev:ercil
infpr:..
mal•conversations, which inchided' perspectiv~s, from

.Somalia,
'·.'n
·I
68 MY FRESHMAN YEAR
. England; Japan, Germany, China, Mexico, Spain, the United
Arab Emirates, India, Malaysia, France, arid Korea. In this
chapter I share the cqmments made and stories told by intetna-
tidria~ students as they grappled to understand and to fit in at .
·
AJ:iyU) Their struggles, surprises, and dilemmas pojnted to
both :rllundane and profound revelations. about U.S. students,
professors, and the college education system. ·
Getting to Know "American'' Students
' One of my 'earliest international contacts was with a young J
ap-
anese woman, Toshi, who lived on my floor. During Welcome
Week, after we played volleyl?all together, I introduced myself
and began .a· ci:l.sual convJrsation. When I s,aw her again at a.
workshop, we eyed .each other like long-lost friends, and she··
·introduced meto,two Japanese frjends accomp~mying her who
lived in other dorfis. The four of us talked enjoyably for a
while,and i~ was' clear that the three.exchange students were
pleased· to be engaged by an American studen:t in this first
week qf activities.2 I told them that I'd like to make dinner for
··
the:tn, <md. departed intendiri.g to stop by Toshi's room and
ask

her to invite her two friends to a Friday night dinner at bur
dorm, As I Jeft, though, one of the women (whom I'll call
Chiho}asked me a brave question in. slightly halting English:
"Excuse me but I don't understand. How can we have
together if you don't 0ave my phone number and I don't have
yours?" .. . ·
I .saw her. <;:onfusion. After exchanging telephone
with all three women· for assurance, I asked Chlho
· .. people had invited her.before without following up. "I
so/' shE; responded "b1.1t I'm not sure. l have. been here for
months and I am still very confused by the customs.
· students are so friendly and so nice: They are so open
wanting to gettogether, but they never take my
and they never conlact me ('igain, When I see 'a woman I
AS OTHERS SEE US 6g
' ' 'I
two days ago, shedoesnofseemto.kllow me or remember,my' ·
name.".
lwinced at th~-truth of.the [email protected] veneer, "Nice
to meet you,"· "Drop by;" "See you soon," all sounded like au-
thentic irlvitations forfurther contact. And yet the words were
without social substance. It was not just Japanese, or even non-
Western, students for whom deciphering friendliness was a
probletJ;l. One German stUdent commented: "There are some
sur_face things about American friendliness. Like 'How are . .
- you?' A girl asked me that one day when I was feeling sick,
and ·
I answered that I wasn't too good but she just went on like I
had never said that. Maybe it's.a sign of caring to _say .that.

But
in Germany,'How are you?' is the actual start of a conversation
rather than just a hi/ good-bye." _ .
Meeting. and befriending Amedca~s in more than a sliperfi:-
cialway prese11ted challenges to many international.students.
Even in class, students found it difficult. One Asian student
told me how, in her linguis~ics class, the teacher had told the
class. that the native speakers should. try to include interna- .
tional students in·their groups for the study project. "But wh~n
·
we formed the· groups," she recounted, .'~nobody even re-
sportded or asked us to be in their groups, so the international
studeri:ts had to ma.ke their own group."
Ih some ways, their dilemma was like my own. Where is
community in the American university,. and ?ow does one.be'-
come a part of it? :q,.ternational students learned quickly that
being a student, being a dorm mate, being a c)assmate-none
of it automatically qualifies you as a "member of the commu-
. nity," that is, someone whom others will seek out for
activities.
"In Korea/' one woman told me, "if we all take class together
and our dass ends ~t lunchtime, we would go out' together as a
group.'' No suchgroup·outing was available as a way fornew
. students to meet others in their classes. Because in Japan,
creat-
ing a network of friends and contacts is. a major puwose. of
. going to college, Midori f~und it surprising.that U.S. stUdents
"lt:~ave the classroom right after class is over. They come to
class

70 MY FRESHMAN YEAR
to get a grade, not to meet people or talk to people. They leave .
right away and don't talk to other,people. I don't get why stu-
dents run out of class, packing up and running out immedi-
ately."
Many student$ expressed surprise at the dull reception they
received and the lack of interest they perceived from American
student,s about their experiences and backgrounds. "Students
don't ask me anything about my life," a Somali student
lamented. "Even my friends ... they don't ask me questions
about how I got here, or my life in other places." A student
from
the United Arab Emirates observed: "Here everyone minds
their own business. They're not that hospitable. Like if some-
one from the U.S. came to the UAE, people would take them
out to eat and ask questions. It would be a long time before they
paid for their own meal." A Mexican student concurred: "I'm
lonely here. I don't think an American coming to Mexico would
have the same experience as I've had here. We're more social,
more curious. We'd be talking to him and asking questions."
"When I talk to them," one Japanese woman noted with dis-
may about her American classmates, "they don't try to under-·
stand what I say or keep up the conversation. They don't keep
-talking, and I realize that they don't want to take the trouble to
talk with me." She thought that maybe the problem had to do
with her thick accent. When I asked another Japanese student
what questions students had asked him about his country, he .
answered: "Well, mostly nobody asks me anything about
Japan. Some Americans don't care about other worlds. They;
, don't ask questions, but those that do sometimes know more

about Japan than I do." ... ·
Almost all international students discovered some individu-' '
als who were interested in their lives, but it was much more the
exception than the rule, and these tended to-be U.S.
who were well traveled or who had been exchange students -
themselves. "What I miss most," admitted one student, "is
have someone to talk to, to feel that someone else is
in you." A Mexican student agreed: "I've met people who
AS OTHERS SEE US 71
interested in me, but for a lot of other people it's ... 'whatever'!
My [car] mechanic is more interested in my life and my back-
ground than other students."
It was difficult, even for someone born in the United States,
to see that the outward openness of both college and Americq.n
life was often coupled with a closed attachment to a small set of
relationships, many of them (as we saw in chapter 2) developed
·
early in college and focused on people of very similar back-
ground. International students were often forced into the same
structure, finding that despite their interest in forming friend- ·
ships with Americans, they seemed to end up in relationships
with other "foreigners." In many ways the active international
programs, which ran socials and trips for its students, rein-
forced a pattern in which international students came in con-
tact mostly with other non-U.S.-born students.
It was interesting to me that, echoing the camaraderie I felt
with "others," a number of international students indicated
that they found it easier to get to know U.S. minority students
than white students. One student told me, "They [minorities]
seem to be less gregarious than other Americans, in the sense
that they seem not to have as many friends and they are look-

ing [shyly] for people themselves." In practice, despite the fact
that many students had come to the United States expressly for
the "international experience," the majority fraternized with
other foreign students.
"I think I know how to meet Americans," Beniko, a Japanese
student, told me, "because my boyfriend meets people and has
some American friends. It's his interests." Beniko explained to
me that Americans find relationships when they identify hob-
bies or elective interests in common. She went on: "My
boyfriend likes playing the drums, and he plays them in the
dorms and people come into his room. They're like a friend
magnet. It's the same with martial arts. He likes that, and other
boys do too, and they watch videos together, like Jackie Chan.
If you don't have a hobby in this country, it's harder to meet
people. I need to develop a hobby."
7'2 MY FRESHMAN YEAR
Relationships and Friendships
. . Both Midor1·and Reiko had been excited, if. a little nervous,
to.
beassigned an American roomtnate. It was surprising tb Reiko
that there was no formal introduction; rodmmates met, instead,
when they both happened to be ih the room at the same time.
Midori had heard that many Americans were messy ·and loud,
but she knew that wasn't true across the board and hoped her.
roo:mn:.ate would not fit the stereotype. · · ..
As l.t turned out,Midori's roommate-'-neat and f~irly quiet-·
was different from her expectations, but . she presented . chal-
lenges on another level. She spent most days and nights at her
boyfriend's apartment, returning only one or two days a week

to their room. And when she did, as Midori explained, her per-
sonal and spatial boundaries were sharp:
· It bothers her· if I change anything in the room, 'even
though -she only came to the room one or. two times a
week. She would say, "This is rri.y windo:w:-don't open
it"-even if sheis not there and I am very hot! "Don't
change the heater setting." I ask her, "Can I turn on the
· light now?" "Can I put' some food in your refrigerator?" It
had almost nothing in it. After a while, she just comes back
to the room and ignores me. She let ~e know that I am her
roommate and nothing more.
The separateness and individualism of the roommate
tionship was something that Reiko encountered as well,
without the hostility. Her roommate had also commumuueu
that they would be "roomril.ates and nothing more," but Reiko
came to appreciate the advantages of this arrangement:
I like the American system. My roo~ate is just my room-
mate. In {my country] I would be worrying and thinking·
all the time about my roommate. If 1 wantto go to dinner, I
f~ell have to ask my roommate, "Have you eaten yet?
AS OTHERS SEE us ·.· 73
Would you like to go to dinner'?" 1 must ask her about her
classes and help her if she.has a problem. Herelhave.a
roommate and I work separately. I don't have to care abo~t ·
her. It's easier .
International students saw "individualism" and "indepen-
dence" as characteristic not only of roommate interactions but
of relations with family and friends as well. When Arturo was
asked about how AnyU.students differed from those in his own .

. . / . .
country, . he respond~d: ."There'$ much more independence
here. At home, students live with their parents. Here families
aren't that tied together. My roommates call their dads and
moms maybe once a we~k, and that's it. It would be different if
they were Mexican." Alicia, another Mexican student, thought
similarly that "America~s have a iot of independence. At eigh~
teeh ip Mexico, I can't think of living by myself. Maype ies.the
money, but ':Ve think united is better, for both family ties and
for expenses."
For Peter from Germany, Nadif from Somalia, and Nigel
from England, the disconnection from family had repercus-
sions for social life ·with friends. Americans, they felt, sharply
distinguished their family from their friends and schoolmates;
more than on~ internationalstudentremarked about the dearth
of family photos on ·student d()ors, as if family dicfu.'t exist at
school. Intermitional 'students generally saw· family as more
naturallrintegrated into their social lives. "When you're not
near your family," Peter told rp.e, "it's hard to know where do I
invite people. NcLone here says, 'C~me on and meet my
.family.'
Here I have to invite· people to, come to a home with two' other
people I don't know. It's strange."
Nadif continued in a similar vein:
Ihave Americanfrienqs, but I haven't been to their houses.
I don't knqw their parents or their brothers and sisters or
families: Back home, if I have a'friend, everyone in their
·family knows ,me and I know them. If I go over to visit
[friends] and they're not there, I still stay and talk with

·. . '
. 74 MY FRESHM~N YEAR
their family. Here fri~ndship doesn't. involve families. I
. .
.don't know where my friends live and who their families
are.
Nigel found the American system peculiar, much less similar
to his own culture than he .had expected. "My friends come to
my house, and they just walk in. It's like they're friends not just
with me but with my fan:rily. You know, a lot of my friends'
par-
ents.buy me Christmas presents." He went oh:
·if I have a party_:_ like at Christmas I had a big party-my
· mum and dad, they'd just join in and .drink with everyone
else and have a good time; My American friends would
think that's daft. I have friends [at AnyU]who have all
gr:own up in the same city near · one a~other. They
wouldn't know how to have a conversation with anyone
else's parents. They get their friends to co:rn,e over when
their parents· are out, like, "Hey, my parents are away,
comeon over." At home, it doesn;t make a difference
whether your parents are there or not.
For Alicia from Mexico, this was all evidence of American· "in-
dependence." But "independence," she argued, was one side of
. a coin. ,The oth~r side "is that I'm not sure that they have real
friend~hips."
The issue of real friendship was often more problematic in
inte~views than I had anijcipated.r I typiCally asked what l con-

sidered .to be a straightforward question: "Do you have friends
who are American?"
"I'm not sure," answered one Japanese girl. "My American
roommate might be a friend."
"What makes you unsure?" I queried further.
"Well, I like my-roommate," sheexplained, "and sometimes
even h:ook and we eat together at home, but since August [six '
months earlier] we have gone out together three tir,nes. That's
really not much~ not whatfriends would do in my country; so I
don't know."
AS OTHERS SEE.US
Another student responded to my question aboif friend~
with one of his own.l/What do you mean by 'friend/{he·:,.
asked,"my version or the American version?"AFrenchstudent . ·
responded quickly to my query about friends: "Sure I have ·
friends. It's so easy to :rneetpeople here, to ma~e friends." Then
she· added: "Well; not really fri~nds. That's the thing. Friend'-
'
ship is very surface-defined here. It is easy to get to know
people, but the friendship is superficial. We wouldn't even call
it a friel)dship. In France, when you're someone's friend, you're
·:
their friend for life." Their,.tiouble answering my question.
taught me something: There . were recurring questions about ·
what cortstitutes friendship for Americans.
A prime difficulty in sorting out the concept centered on
judgments surroU.nding what one did for a friend. When Maria .
made her first American, "friends," she expected that they
would be more active in helping her settle in her new home.

I was living ih a new country and I needed help. Like with
setting up a bank account and doing the lease. It was new
.for, me. Amd looking for a mechanic to fix my car.· dr going
shopping-I didn't know what to buy [for my room]. And
when I tell my friends that I had a hard day trying to figure
outall the things they say, "Oh1 I'm so sorry for you:~' .
Mar~a. found it Unfathomable. "In Mexico, when someone.is a
friend, then regardless of the situation, even if I W<?uld get in
trouble, I would help them. American people are always busy. ,
'Oh, I like you so much,' they say. But then if I'~ in trouble, it's,
'Oh, I'm. so sorry foi you.' 'So sorry for you' doesn't help!" ...
Geeta'~ roommates seemed just th~ opposite. When she told
them that she was planning on buying a used 'car, they told her,.
·· "Oh,'you don't need .a car; We have two cars and one of us
will
take you where you want to go." Butth~n after a while, she ex-
plained,
I see how life is here. It's like I'm a little eight-year-old girl,
and I have to ~ay. "Could someone please t.ake me.herer'
76 MY FRESHMAN YEAR
"Could someone take me there?" So I don't ask much. One
day I said that I need a ride to school, and my roommate
says, "Fine, but you have to leave right now," and now
isn't when I want to go. After a while, I saw that I needed
my own car.

Nigel told me: "I don't understand the superficiality in
friendships here. Americans are much friendlier than the En-
glish, but then it doesn't really go anywhere. As far as deep
friendships are concerned-! know there are people who have
deep friendships, but it's a lot harder to figure out who those
people will be." I asked him, "What's so different about friend-
ship at home?"
I think friends at home are closer. We're in touch every day,
for one thing. For another, when one person is doing some-
thing, the others are supporting them. Here one of my
American friends graduated, and I went to the graduation
to support him. A lot of our other friends were here for
graduation, but they didn't even go to watch him gradu-
ate, and they weren't even doing anything. That upset me.
There's a lot of incidents like that. It's confusing.
"Confusing," "funny," "peculiar" were all words used to de-
scribe American social behavior. "Why do so many students eat
alone in their rooms rather than go out or cook together?"
"Why don't any of the guys on my hall know how to cook any-
thing?" "Why does everyone here use computers [Instant Mes-
saging] to communicate with people who are down the hall or
in the same dorm?" "Why do young Americans talk so much
about relationships?"
The way that Americans socialized was also a prime subject
of comment. Two points stood out. First, Americans don't so-
cialize as much, tending to spend more time alone, as this
British student explained:
People back home of my age socialize a lot more. On a free
night, you'd go out and meet friends and be doing some-
AS OTHERS SEE US

thing together. You'd probably go out as a big group. In a
week of seven days, I'd probably go out two or three
nights. It's all student-based and promoted. Here, in the
evenings, you walk down the hall and people are sitting in
their rooms playing video games and watching television.
77
The second thing consistently noticed by international stu-
dents is how Americans seem to separate socializing and party-
ing from the rest of their lives. "Social life in Japan," explained
one student, "is different. It's not like, 'This is party time.' It's
more integrated with the rest of your day and your life." A
French student noted this same pattern, but with regard to
clothing. "We'll be hanging out, and then we decide to go out.
The American girl in the group says, 'I need to go home and
change.' I think, why? It's the same people. We're just going to
a different place now. We're not going to anyplace fancy. What
is so different now that you have to go change your clothes?"
For one British student as well, the American "party time"
mentality was perplexing:
I don't understand this party thing in the U.S. When you
go out here, it's get drunk or nothing. If people go out with
people and drink, they have to get drunk. If they don't get
falling-down drunk, they think, "What's the point of
doing it?" I find it difficult to understand. It's really a Eu-
ropean thing. You socialize, have a few drinks together,
and go home.
For many international students, then, there was more flow
between family and friends, school and home, and between ac-
ademics and social life.
Classroom Life

In the classroom, most foreign students notice what U.S. adults,
if they have been away long from academia, would probably
notice too: there is an informality to the U.S. college classroom
'·'
76. MY FR!;SHMANY,EA:R
"Could someone take me there?'" So I don't ask much. One
day 1 said that I need a ride to school, and my roo:rrimate
says, "Fine, but you have to leave right :f10W," .and now
isn't when I want to go. After a while, I saw that I needed
iny 0':Vll car;
·Nigel told me: "I don't understand the superficiality in
.· friendships here, Americans are much friendlier than the En~
glish, but then it doesn't really go ·anywhere. As far as deep
. friendships are concerned,-I know there are people who have
deep friendships, but it's a lot harder to figure out who those
• people will be."Tasked him,"Whaesso different about friend-
·. ship at home?" ·
I think friends a~ home are clbser. We're in touch every day,·
for one .thing. For another, when one person is doing some-
thing, the others are supporting them. Here one of my
American friends graduated,. and I went to the graduation .
to support him. A lot of our other friends were here for
gradu;:ttion, but they didn't even go to watch him gradu'-
ate, and they weren't even doing anything~ That upset me.
There's a ,lot of ip.cidents like that. It's confusing.
"Confusing," "funny," "peculiar" were all words used to de-

scribe.American social behavior. "Why do so many students eat
·
aloh~ in their rooms rather than go 'out or cook together?"
"Why don't any of the guys on my hall know how to cook any- .
thing?" "Why does everyone h~re use computers· [Instant Mes-
saging] to coinmunicate with people who are down the hall or.
in the same dorm?" "Why do young Americans talk so much
about relationships?" .
The way that .Affiericans socialized was also apriine subject
of comment. Two points stood out. First, Americans don't so-
dalize as much; tending to spend more time alone, as this . • ·
British student explained: . .
People back home of rny age sociqlize a lot more. On a free
night, you'd go out and. meet friends and b~ doing some- .
/ . '
. AS OTHERS SEE US n·
thing together. You'd probably go oui: as a big group.Jna
week .of sev~n dayst· I'd prpbably go out tWo or th.ree
nights. It's all student.,based ~d promoted. Here, in the
evenings~you walk down the hall and people are si~ting ifi .··
their rooms playing video games and watching television.
The second thing consistently noticed by international stu-
deritsis how Americans seem to separate socializing and party-
ing :{rom the rest of their lives. "Social life
inJapan,".·explained
one student, "is different. It's not like; 'this is p<,l.rty time.' It's
;mote integrated with the rest of your day and your life." A
French student noted this same pattern, but with regard to
cJothing. ~'We'll be hanging dut, and then we decide to go out.
The American· girl in the group says, 'I need to go home and.
change.' I think, why? It's the same people. We're just going to

a different place now. We're not going to anyplace fancy; What.
is so different now that you have to go change your clothes?"
Fqr one British student as well, the Ame:dcan "party time''
. mentality was perplexing:
I don't understand this party thing in the U.S. When you
go out here, it's get drunk ornothing. If people go out with
people and drink, they have to get drunk. If they don't get
falling-down drunk,. they think, "What's the point of
.doing it?" Ifindjt difficult to understand. It's really a Eu-
r<Jpean thing. You socialize, have ·a few drinks together,
and go home.
For many internatim1.al students, then, there was more flow
. between fainily and friends, school and home, and between ac-
ademics and social life.
Classroo¢ Life
In the classroom, most foreign students notice whatU.S. adults,
if they haye been away long· from academia, .would probably
no*e too: there is an informality to the US. college classroom
L
78 . MY F.RESHMAN YEAR
that SOIIl~, inCluding professors; would interpret as bordering.
op disrespect: ~Japanese student giggled as she.told me:"It
makes me}augh when I see how students come to class:. shorts,
flip-flops ... tom T~shirts; Somestudents come to dass in paja-' ·
mas!" AMiddle Eastern student exclaimed: "You have so ;much'

freed~m here. You can step out of classin·the i:niddle of the
chiss! We could neyer do that/' For one Asian student, one of
. th~ surprises was how often students interrupt the professor in
the middle of a lecture to ask their own. questions. This would·
riot be tolerated in his country: An African student shared his
thoughh;;: "There are certain. things that surprise me
American students .. I look at howthey dr.ink and eat during
class. They.put their feet up on-the chairs. They pack up their.
books at the end ofelass before the teacher has finished talk'"
ing." ohe European student noted, ,;We used to ~at and
in class sometimes, but at least we hid it!"
.mdeed, as, ahy American college student knows, stepnin
out • .of class' or interrupting a lecture with questions is
' quite ~cceptable. Eating and drinking during cla,ss, slee1-
14L~
openly, packing up books before the teacher has finished,
. ing have come to be standard behavior that most professor~
will ignore.
For the most p~rt, intemation~l students liked the
classroom and American profespors, U.S. protessors were
scribed by differ~nt :int~mational · students as "lhld
:'helpful/' "open," "tolerant" (of scant clothing and sleeping
class)/'casual," and "friendly." .Some, like the UAEand
students, appreciated that "teachers are not as involved in
lives-they don~t see where . you live or try to force you
study.". For others, including the Japanese and Korean
·dents, it .was the interest in. listening to students' probiems
opinions and in helping students that was refreshing:

. i
· Teachers thinkhelping students is ;theiijo}J. In.Jap<l!l
don't thinkthatway. I.e:.,mailed :my prof iri Japan because
am doing an independent study and I asked her to
me ar:t atticle,Shegot mad at me and tlwughtthis was
;rude for rn.~ 'to askher to dofhis, . '
_·'. ·... :·:.:.···'.._
M: bTHERS SEE LIS .
' ·' .' . .. ·- ' ; . '. :··
· Americqn profesE;ors ani more open; they give you thdr .
phone numbers and some let you C<;illthem at home. You .
can really talk to them outside of class and they are willihg
to give you extra help. ·
Although Americ'!ll pro~essors and. the· American cla,.ssroom
·
received highm(lrks for opehri.ess and helpfulness, they 're-
c~ived mixed reviews on colirse content, including its. rigor,
or-·.
ganization, and modes ofeva~uation. Although one' Indian stu-
dent appreciated .that "profs ten me which points to
.concentrate ori when I read; they' sometimes give chaptersuni-
maries so I.know what to focus my attention on/ more than.·
o;ne other m~ntioned the controlled way in whi<;h the
American
college classroom is run. The student is given a small chunk of ·
reading and lecture to absorb, and, then thereis a test, usually
short-answer format. Then there is another chunk of reading
anci;a test. It is a system.that one $tudent described as "forceci
study/' but one iri which it's generally fairly easy to master the
material and do well.. . . . .

Most international students w~re used to.a.less pre-digested
academic diet. Their course, /:on tent was delivered by lecture,
and it was students' responsibility to' fully understand the con-
tent without the benefit of outlines, projected overhead notes,
and other aids, as in the American classroom .. Their. gradES
for
the semester would be based only on tWo long comprehensiye
essay exams and sometimes a lengthy theme paper. The Amer-
ican approach:,_ftequent small short-answer tests .smnetimes
coupled with study guides and lechl.re outlines-was criticiz~d ·
by different international students:'
., . . i
[It w9rks but] in some w(iys ... , it's like elementary school ·
or.grade school. The teacher tells you exactly-which chaP:-
ters to study; and thenyoureview jusUhose chilpte~s. The
advisers tell you the courses to. take 'and approve your .
schedule. S9metimes it's ani;10ying;
. ' . .
Students here have lots of exain$, really small quizzes. The
quizze~ make you study You learn a lit~le bit forthe quiz,
j•,
So MY FRESHMAN YEAR
I
. then you learn a little bit differerttfor the next quiz. But
. p'eople forget.frmrtweek to week Once the quizis·over,
they forget. .... Really, I wonder at the end of the semester

what people .remember when they Ieiwe.
I find it difficult to t<ike the e(<ams' hen~ s~riou~ly. You can
··go in,to a multiple-choke exam without studying really
a!ld st~ come out all right from things you remem1Jer from
das.s, and a process of elimination. You could never go into.
an exam back home knowing nothing. TheY:re essay, and
you start from a blank page; you wouldn't. know what to
write. I<nowillg almost nothing there,. you'd get a 20 per-
cent. Bere yo~ coUld pass the test! . .
Still ·some students appreciated the. American graqing. sys~
. tern,. with smaller, non.,-comprehensive exams and a syllabus,
serving almost as a contract that_laid out exaCtly how tests, pa-
pers, and presentations would bear. on the final grade. As
·Asian student'explained:
We don't know what we're getting for· a grade in {:my
country]. We don't have small quizzes, just one final exam
or sometimes two, and there's no class pa~ticipation. I had
a class that Ithoughfi was doing well in butT got a C. Ex-
pectations are much clearer in the U.S. They are much
deafer about grading. It's easier to s.ee results of a test or
paper and how it related to a grade in a course.
"Teaching in America·is like a <me-man show," argued
. . .
a French student, in the middle of our interview. "Teachers
jokes; they do PowerPoint,There is audience pa~:ticipation."
"I thought you just said that in .Prance it was fl. one-m"'n
show," I followed up, "because the teacher basically just
up with a microphone and lec:tured."

"Yeah, that's true" Elene went on, "but it's not
It's a lecture. they're n.ot trying to illterest·and entertain
~tudents,andwhere I went tos.choolwe never rated the
sors, like entertain~rs, with evaluations at the end of.
course:"
;AS OTHERS SEEUS 81
Opinions of the U.S. system.vari~d somewP,at with a stu- •
dent's cou:tltry of origin. While Mexican students fotm:&u.s, ·
professors and advisers· a little formal, most international stU:
dents noted their easy informality. A Chinese student was alone
in mentioning that "the profs don't seem to prepare as much.
There is little in the way of dass notes or handouts for the stu-.
dents." And while the UAE and Som:ali students believed that
"lJS. students are tnore serious about school because it makes
I . , .
more ofa difference to your future," for most iriternational stu-
dents, either the lack of rigor. of American classes or the work
. attitudes of American students presented a different sort of
sur-
prise.
''When I was in Japan, I heard how hard it was to go to uni'-
versity in the U.S.," said .one student, "but now I'm here and I
see that many students don't do the work."
"How do you know that?" I asked. .
She responded, "When I talk ~bout an assignment, they say
the)" didn't do it!" It's confusing, though, she admitted: "Stu-
dents ill my class complam a lot about the time commitment .

while, at the same time, they talk about the parties they go to
and the drinking. Some students make the effort, but I see.that
many others don't do the work."
Most European students agreed that U.S. classes were less
demanding; "My first two years of classes in this COuntry,"
said .
Elene,~'were at the high school level. What a joke! Only at the ,
300 and 400 level atn I seeing much better-and harder
material.,;
A Britishstudent commented: "My involvement withinmy ac-
tual classes is a lot higher here, but. as far as the content of
work, it's actually a lcit easier. I didn't work nearly as hard as I
..
could,.and I .got Bs and better in all of my classes." According
to·.
Li~ Chillese stUdents work harder and do more homework: "I
don't thirik .the Ameri~an students work that ha~d. L did a
group,project with an American student and I see he follows. I
organize.! suggest the books we should read'be.cause I want a. /
good grade, He just comes to m:eetll;tgs but doesn't really pre~
pare. J:f the end; he thanks me for carrying the project" . · , ,
"Group work'r was one of three points that w,ere often re:-
peated when I asked what if anything is different about the
82 MY FRESHMAN YEAR
. . . ' ', ' ,.
"academic approat:h" · in the· American dassra,om .. I had
never .
really thought about it until I saw how many,intemational stu.:.
dents noted the. frequency -of group projects and presentations
in their classes .. One. European recounted: "Here they keep.

telling you toget into groups; do a· presentation: I've done so
many presentationS while I've been here I can't believe it. ....
Man yo£ them aren't even ruarked::_we justdo them as an exer-
cise .. Ithii:tkit's a good tlring, because people here get a lot
more
. corifident about tal.l<iTig ill: front of others.'' .
'ilt's funny," I mused with Beniko, a Japanese. student, "that
in .such an individual culture students do so much work in ·
groups." ,
. "I think I tinderstand why you can," she answered. "It is be-
cause ofyour individualism. lrt Japan, we don't and couldn't
do much groupwork because we would.consider each other
TOO MUCH,:and the project would getVery complicated
because
of that." ·Only_ American students, she, suggested, would have
, thenecessary.boundaries and sense ofthei;r own preferences to
be able to negotiate the demands of a group project. · ,
Irldividualism and indivj9-u:al choice also figlired into both of
·
the other mentioned themes. For Asian students in particular,.
one formidable challenge of the American classroom was in the
number: of tim~s people were asked to ''say what they think.
fiProfessors are always asking what you think ofthis and think
of that/' maintained one Japanese studenL "It's great, but it's
scary when you're not used to thls. I don't always know what 1
think."· . . .
One Korean woman remar-ked to me:
Everything here is: '~What do you want?" "What do you
thinkr "What do you like?" Even little childrenhave pre£- .

erences. and interests in this country. 1 heat parents in
restaurants. They ask a three-year-old child, "Do you want
· Ftench fries or potato chips?" Every little kid in this coun-
try can tell you, "I like green beans-but not spinach, I like·''·
.vanilla but not chocolate, and my favorite color is blue."
They're used to thinkingthatway. . '
AS OTHERS SEE US
''Choice" abounds in the U.S. educational system in wily,s.
that :most American~born students are unaware of. "You
[email protected]' '·
take[coursesJ that interest you here," affirmed one student. ."If
I like archaeology_:__good, I take it. But then I also like
astrori-,
omy; so I take that." AJapanese student explained that at home
she "can't take a ceramics course just because I like it." The
courses she takes are determined by her major and not subject
to choice. In Europe, another student told me, "when we get
electives, we are able to choose from a •very short list which
colirse from the list you will take~ You get very few 'open cred-
its' -what you ca~l electives-whe~e you can actually pick the
course, and it is usual for someone to take a cpurse that is re-
lated to ~heir major so it helps them with other co~ses." ·
In their home countries, most international students could
nofchange their major, nor could they liberally choose classes
outside their major, nor could they double-major or double-
minor. Most ·could n~t ·drop courses after they were_ enrplled.
Fon some international students, even being able to pick one's
major was a luxury. In countries that rely heavily on test scores
for entry into specific fields, one's major often depends on ·
. rarikings on exams. A Japanese student reported: "Many
· people in Japan pick majors they don't want. My friend is

study1ng to be an English teacher; but .she wants to be a dog
groomer. She picked her major based on heri test r:esults ·and
what she did well in." ·
"There's a lot of choice in your curriculum," ~ne Spanish stu-
9-enJ maintained, ·"and . even in the time you take classes. ·In
Spain, certairi courses· Must be taken, and a class is given at
one
. time and that's it:"
The same choice inherent in the curriculum was seen in the
·extra-curriculum. "There are so many dubs to choose from
. here-yG>u can pick 'any interest and there will be a club for
it!"
re:rnark(3d ·<ll"l African student. "If you want to join a sport
in my. ·
country," said another, "we have one or two sports you can join
(soccer andcricket), but here you can choose fromso niany
-~ different ones like climbing, snowboardillg, basketball,
soccer,
ti'f,.,,.J-i.~n ~--l so many more," .
84 MY FRESHMAN YEAR
There were few detractors from the benefits of choice in the
American system, but a couple of students pointed out the
downside of having so much choice. One suggested: "Your sys-
tem is much more complicated, and it's much less specialized.
Because you take so many different kinds of courses, you are
spread thinner and have less focused knowledge in particular
areas." Another looked at the implications of students' freedom
to drop a course at will: "People here can drop a class whenever

they want. If I don't like it, I drop it. If I don't like the teacher,
I
drop it. If I'm not doing well, I drop it. In Spain, once you sign,
you pay, and you can't drop. I think it affects attitude."
Indeed, as one foreign-born teacher confided, "I take time to
talk to my students who didn't do well on an exam or who are
having trouble. I suggest that they set up an appointment with
me, and I tell them what skills they need to work on extra. The
minute I do that, it has the opposite effect in your system. In-
stead of coming to my office, they drop the class. It's really
quite surprising!"
Worldliness and Worldview
The single biggest complaint international students lodged
about U.S. students was, to put it bluntly, our ignorance. As in-
formants described it, by "ignorance" they meant the misinfor- ·
..
mation and lack of information that Americans have both about
other countries and about themselves. Although most interna-
tional students noted how little other students asked them
about their countries, almost all students had received ques-
tions that they found startling: "Is Japan in China?" "Do
have a hole for a bathroom?" "Is it North Korea or South
that has a dictator?" "Where exactly is India?" "Do you
ride elephants?" "Do they dub American TV programs
British?"
These are just a few of the questions American students
ally asked of international students. While they no doubt
from the less sophisticated among their classmates, it was
AS OTHERS SEE US IJ

that international students across the board felt that most
Americans-even their own friends-are woefully ignorant of
the world scene. It is instructive to hear how students from di-
verse countries discuss their perceptions of American students'
views of themselves and the world.
JAPAN: Really, they don't know very much about other
countries, but maybe it's just because a country like Japan
is so far away. Japanese probably don't know about the
Middle East. Sometimes, students keep asking about nin-
jas.
UAE: American students are nice, but they need to stop
being so ignorant about other countries and other cultures.
Americans need to look at the world around them, and
even the cultures around them in their own country.
MEXIco: The U.S. is not the center of the world. [Ameri-
cans] don't know anything about other countries. Many of
them don't have an interest in learning about other cul-
tures. The only things students ever ask me about in my
culture is food.
CHINA: Americans know very little about China or its cui-.
ture. Most people think China is still very poor and very
communist-controlled, with no freedom. There is a very
anticommunist feeling, and people know little about
today's China, which is quite changing and different. New
Zealanders know much more about China-perhaps it's
their proximity. I think that older people here have more of
a sense of history, and that history, about the wars, about
the cold war, makes them understand more about the
world. Younger people seem to have no sense of history.
ENGLAND: People here know surprisingly little about En-

gland, and they assume a lot of things, some true, some
not. People's impressions of me when I say I'm from En-
gland is that I might drink tea off a silver tray, and maybe
live in a castle, and use a red telephone box. That's the
86 , .MY FRESHMAN YEAR
honesttruth, The questions that I've been asked are unbe-
. · ' lievable. " ·· . . ·- ·
MAL..;siA: I tell people that I am Muslim, and they take for
granted thatl'm an Arab. How can they not realize that n,ot
. . . . ' '
all Mu.slims q.re Arabs whef1 they have many Muslims here
who are American?
GERMANY: American students are much more ignorant of
other countries and cultures. I suppose it's because it's so
big; and knowing about California for you is like us know-
ing about France. It's a neighbor. The U.S. is less depen-
dent on oth~r cultures, and maybe that's why they.~eed to
know less. Still, Americans come across as not interest~d in
other cultures, like they don't really care about other coun- ·
tries~ . So they think things like Swedish people are orily
blonds.
·INDIA:, Somebody asked me if we still ride on elephants.
That really bothered me. If I say I' in Indian, they askwhich
reservation? I say I'm from Bombay. ''Where is Bombay?"
Some people don't.even know where India is. A friend of
mine arid I tried to make these Americans see what it was .. ····
like and we asked them where they're from. They said Cal:·
ifornia. Andwe said, Where was that? ·

FRANCE: People here don't know where anything is. For
Worlci War II, the teacher had, to bring in a map to show
where GermanY and England Ci!e-it was incredible! I read
somewhere a little research. that sc:iid only 15 to 20 percent
. · of Americans between the ages eighh~en to
could point ·out Iraq on a. map. The country will go to war, ·
but it doesn't know where tp'e country is! · ·
· ·Despite the critiCal consensus in these comments; it
. unfair. of me to represent international student perspectivi:>!':
roundly negative. • In general; students from outside the
States warlnly appreciated the American educational c.:rct.>m:
AS OTHERS SEE U:S ·
well as the spirit of the American college student. T,he cdti:· .
' cisms' that they did~ have, though, were pointed and. focused.
'
Taken together, theyamounted.to nothing lt~ss than a theory~£.
the relationship among ignorance, intolerance, and ethnod~n-:
. trism in, this country, one that international eyes saw
bordering'
on profo'und self-delusion: When I asked the linked questions>
"What would you want American students to see about tl)em-
selves?" and "What advice would you give them?" one Ger-
man stUdent stated' succinctly what many students communi-
cated to me at greater length: "Americans seemto think:·.they .
have the perfect place to live: the best country, the best city. I
. he~r that all the time. I used to think you just. got· that from ,
.
politicians, but nbw l see it's from regular people too. The pa- ..
trioti_sm thing here really bothers me."

It is sobering to hear these words from a German student,
whose country's historical experience in the 1930s and 1940s
taught him the dangers of hypernationalism. To 'his fellow U.S,
students he offered thi~ recommendation: "I'd give them ad-
vice to .live elsewhere. They should recognize. that the way of
living in the U.S. isfine, but it isn'tnecessarily the best'way·for
everyone: I don't like to evaluate, and I'd like that·applied to
me. Be more informed. Iriformation leads to tolerance."
It. bothered a Chinese student who read in an article that . ! . . '
American students don't want to study a foreign language be-
cause they believe that the world language will be Eng~sh. "I
think they need to learn about the world, to learn a foreign lan-
.guage;'' he urged. It bothered a British student, who lamented
how much of world music American students ~eem to miss ..
· "Everything here [on his· corridor l is either black· gangster
rap
or punkrock, and that's basically it. They. don't want to hear
9ther m11sic~ontemporary tnusicfrom around the world."
The connection between lack of information and intolerance
'translated occasionally into personal stories of frustration, hit-
ting home in the lives of some students. 'Twishthey [his hall
.. mates] were accepting of more different music;" said an
Indian
"I play my own music. I playitloud just like they do...___,
88_ MY FRESHMAN YEAR
Arabic and Punjabi and other stuff-~and they complain to the

- - RAs. But it's my right to play that too. Why don't they
under-
stand that?" - ·
"They don't accept o~her cultures/' speculated one Japanese
student.
Once I was eating the food I had made-Japanese noo-
dles-and we Japanese eat noodles with a noise. Some~_
body else in the kitchen area -looked at. me funny. She
asked, "Why are you making so much noise?" I told her
that's the way Japanese eat their noodles, and I can see by
her face that she is- disapproving. It hurt me to see that.
Some Americans don't care about other worlds.
One key toward creating a more positive cycle of informa-
tion, self-awareness, and tolerance was for many the university
and university education itself. Learn a foreign 1anguage and
study overseas, many- recommended for individual students.
Use your education to expand your purview beyond your own
country. For the University, other -.students recommended a
greater emphasis on self-awareness, including a more critical
eye directed to our own institutions and history.
For one Chinese ?tudent, the~need to be more reflective about
the media representation of news and issues was critical:
"Media coverage has a very great influence here. In China, it
has less influence because everyone knows it's propaganda.
Here it is not seen that way because there is a free press. But
it's
curious." In American newspaper articles and TV news, "the
individual facts are true often, butthe whole is not sometirr
I can see how Americans need to questio!l the way_stories
being represented to them."

A French student beseeched us to examine our own educa-
- - -
tional system:
Americans-teach like· the only inlportant_thing is America:
Ther-e-is no required history course in college. The history
·course I took on Western civ. at AnyU was middle-school
AS OTf:!ERS SEE us. 8g
levet and it was very biased. I mean they taught how, in
World War II, America saved France and saved the world, -_
how they were so great. The courses don't consider what
Americgns have done wrong. All the current events here is
news about America andwhat America is doing: If it's
a.bout another- coun'try, it's about what America is doing
there. There's nothing about other countries and th~ir his-
tories and problems. [In France] we had lots ofhistory and
geography courses, starting very young. I lea~!led about
France, but then we had to take a course in U:S. industrial-
ization, in China, Russia, Japan, too._ We got the history
and geography of the world, so we could see how France
now fits into the bigger picture.
For the international students I interviewed, American col-
lege culture·-is a world of engagement, choice, 'individualism,-
and independence, but it is also one of cross-cultural ignorance
and self-delusion that cries out for remediation. It was a Somali
student who summed up all of their hopes for." America": "You
-have so ID)-lch here, and so many opportunities.' I wish
America
would ask more what this country can do to make the world a
betterplace."
Nathan As Others See Us Part 1Nathan As Others See Us Part 2

2
Write a paper in which you analyze and evaluate Nathan’s “As
Others See Us”—Getting to Know American Students” (67-71),
“Relationships and Friendships” (72-77) and “Worldliness and
Worldview” (84-89). Assume that your audience is unfamiliar
with the course text you are writing about; therefore, you will
need to provide a good amount of summary in order to explain
your analysis and position. For instance, you should explain
who the author is and why he or she is considered an expert on
their chosen topic. You may also need to talk about the author’s
sub-arguments, use of evidence, and conclusions.
To identify an argument of your own in relation to the course
text, you will need to analyze the article for its strengths, its
weaknesses, and the value of the author’s implications or
conclusions. The following are templates for your evaluation in
relation to the course text:
· Nathan makes a strong argument that _____________, but the
argument would have been more ____________ if she had also
considered _________________________________.
· I agree with Nathan up to a point, but I cannot agree with her
conclusion that
_____________________________________________________
__________________.
· Nathan’s argument is strong because
________________________________________.
· Nathan’s argument focuses on an important topic, especially
for __________(group of people/field of study)__________
because ____________________________________.
· I find Nathan’s argument of limited value because she did not
consider ______________, which would have made his

argument more complex and _________________________.
These suggestions are only a few of many possible arguments
you could construct; please do not limit yourself only to these
suggestions. That said, I would generally suggest that you avoid
an argument that positions you as simply agreeing or
disagreeing with the argument of your chosen text. First,
agree/disagree arguments are generally uninteresting to read,
and they will not adequately demonstrate your analytical skills.
Second, disagreement is particularly challenging in this case
because the article has gone through a scholarly peer review
process, which means that the author’s academic peers have
found their arguments credible and scholarly in nature. As you
are not an expert in the field, it is unwise to disagree in full
with peer-reviewed scholarship for this assignment. You may,
however, agree or disagree with one part of the author’s
argument, you may choose to debate the author’s conclusions,
and you may be able to identify important issues that the author
left out or disregarded.
Below are some guidelines to help you write a critical review.
Introduction
· Begin the introduction identifying the author, the title, the
main topic or issues, and the
purpose of the essay you have read in class.
· In the introduction, you may want to provide an overview. An
overview may include
background information about the topic, evidence used, or the
target audience.
· In relation to the author’s argument and support, establish
your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s
thesis)
Body
Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan.
Here are two options.

· First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points
from the reading that you plan
to discuss. Second, discuss and evaluate theses points in a
following group of paragraphs.
· Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major
points of the reading in a point-by-point schema. That means
you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same
paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants
extended discussion) before you
summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc, moving in a
logical sequence from point
to point to point.
Below are a couple of things you keep in mind as you write.
· What are the author’s most important points? How do these
relate to one another?
· What types of evidence or information does the author present
to support his or her points?
· Where does the author do a good job of carrying the evidence?
· Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions,
etc.) are most effective and
which parts are least effective? Why?
Conclusion
Use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation by
determining such things as whether or not the author achieves
the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a
significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.
Consider following questions.
· How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus?
· Does the author include/exclude relevant information?
· How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the
article? What contribution does
the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific
group of readers?
· What is the most important final comment you wish to make
about the essay? Do you have
any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area?

What has reading this work
done for you or demonstrated to you?
Intelligent Evolution
Edward O. Wilson
We must acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all
his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most
debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other
men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like
intellect which has penetrated into the movements and
constitution of the solar system — with all these exalted
powers — Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible
stamp of his lowly origin.
~Charles Darwin
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871)
Great scientific discoveries are like sunrises. They illuminate
first the steeples of the
unknown, then its dark hollows. Such expansive influence has
been enjoyed by the
scientific writings of Charles Darwin. For over 150 years his
books, the four most
influential of which are reprinted here for the first time as a
bound set, have spread light
on the living world and the human condition. They have not lost
their freshness: more
than any other work in history’s scientific canon, they are both
timeless and persistently
inspirational.

The four classics, flowing along one to the next like a well-
wrought narrative, trace the
development of Darwin’s thought across almost all of his adult
life. The first, Voyage of
the Beagle [7] (1845), one of literature’s great travel books, is
richly stocked with
observations in natural history of the kind that were to guide the
young Darwin toward
his evolutionary worldview. Next comes the “one long
argument,” as he later put it, of
On the Origin of Species [8] (1859), arguably history’s most
influential book. In it the now
middle-aged Darwin massively documents the evidences of
organic evolution and
introduces the theory of natural selection. The Descent of Man
[9] (1871) then addresses
the burning topic foretold in On the Origin of Species: “Light
will be thrown on the origin
of man and his history.” Finally, The Expression of the
Emotions in Man and Animals [10]
(1872) draws close to the heart of the matter that concerns us
all: the origin and nature
of mind, the “citadel” that Darwin could see but knew that
science at the time could not
conquer.
The adventure that Darwin launched on all our behalf, and
which continues into the
twenty-first century, is driven by a deceptively simple idea, of
which Darwin’s friend and
staunch supporter Thomas Henry Huxley said, and spoke for
many to follow, “How
extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that!” Evolution
by natural selection is
perhaps the only one true law unique to biological systems, as
opposed to nonliving

physical systems, and in recent decades it has taken on the
solidity of a mathematical
theorem. It states simply that if a population of organisms
contains multiple hereditary
http://www.powells.com/partner/30264/s?kw=Voyage%20of%20
the%20Beagle
http://www.powells.com/partner/30264/s?kw=Voyage%20of%20
the%20Beagle
http://www.powells.com/partner/30264/s?kw=On%20the%20Ori
gin%20of%20Species
http://www.powells.com/partner/30264/s?kw=The%20Descent%
20of%20Man%2C%20and%20Selection%20in%20Relation%20t
o%20Sex
http://www.powells.com/partner/30264/s?kw=The%20Expressio
n%20of%20the%20Emotions%20in%20Man%20and%20Animals
variants in some trait (say, red versus blue eyes in a bird
population), and if one of
these variants succeeds in contributing more offspring to the
next generation than the
other variants, the overall composition of the population
changes, and evolution has
occurred. Further, if new genetic variants appear regularly in
the population (by
mutation or immigration), evolution never ends. Think of red-
eyed and blue-eyed birds
in a breeding population, and let the red-eyed birds be better
adapted to the
environment. The population will in time come to consist
mostly or entirely of red-eyed
birds. Now let green-eyed mutants appear that are even better
adapted to the
environment than the red-eyed form. As a consequence the
species eventually

becomes green-eyed. Evolution has thus taken two more small
steps.
Crabo cribrarius
All drawings from The Descent of Man, and Selection in
Relation to
Sex, by Charles Darwin, in two volumes (New York: D.
Appleton and
Company, 1871) unless otherwise noted. Scans of drawings
courtesy of
Kathleen Horton
The full importance of Darwin’s theory can be better understood
by realizing that
modern biology is guided by two overwhelmingly powerful and
creative ideas. The first
is that all biological processes are ultimately obedient to, even
though far from fully
explained by, the laws of physics and chemistry. The second is
that all biological
processes arose through evolution of these physicochemical
systems through natural
selection. The first principle is concerned with the how of
biology. The second is
concerned with the ways the systems adapted to the
environment over periods of time
long enough for evolution to occur — in other words the why of
biology.
Knowledge addressing the first principle is called functional
biology; that addressing the

second is called evolutionary biology. If a moving automobile
were an organism,
functional biology would explain how it is constructed and
operates, while evolutionary
biology would reconstruct its origin and history — how it came
to be made and its
journey thus far.
The impact of the theory of evolution by natural selection,
nowadays grown very
sophisticated (and often referred to as the Modern Synthesis),
has been profound. To
the extent it can be upheld, and the evidence to date has done so
compellingly, we
must conclude that life has diversified on Earth autonomously
without any kind of
external guidance. Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no
goal or purpose: the
exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by
natural selection from one
generation to the next.
Tragelaphus strepsiceros
All biological processes are ultimately
obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry,
and arose through evolution of these

physicochemical systems through natural selection.
Sitana minor (male with the gular pouch expanded)
What then are we to make of the purposes and goals obviously
chosen by human
beings? They are, in Darwinian interpretation, processes
evolved as adaptive devices
by an otherwise purposeless natural selection. Evolution by
natural selection means,
finally, that the essential qualities of the human mind also
evolved autonomously.
Humanity was thus born of Earth. However elevated in power
over the rest of life,
however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals
by the same blind
force that created those animals, and we remain a member
species of this planet’s
biosphere.
The revolution in astronomy begun by Nicolaus Copernicus in
1543 proved that Earth is
not the center of the universe, nor even the center of the solar
system. The revolution
begun by Darwin was even more humbling: it showed that
humanity is not the center of
creation, and not its purpose either. But in freeing our minds
from our imagined demigod
bondage, even at the price of humility, Darwin turned our
attention to the astounding
power of the natural creative process and the magnificence of

its products:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally
breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this
planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
gravity, from so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been, and are being,
evolved.
Darwin, On the Origin of Species
(first edition, 1859)
~ • • • ~
If I lived twenty more years and was able to work, how I should
have to modify the
Origin, and how much the views on all points will have to be
modified! Well, it is a
beginning, and that is something.
~Charles Darwin
Letter to J.D. Hooker, 1869
Darwin lived thirteen more years after writing this letter to
Joseph Hooker, and he did
manage to modify the theory of evolution by natural selection,
expanding it in The
Descent of Man (1871) to include human origins and in The
Expression of the Emotions
in Man and Animals (1872) to address the evolution of instinct.
The ensuing 130 years
have seen an enormous growth of the Darwinian heritage.
Joined with molecular and

cellular biology, that accumulated knowledge is today a large
part of modern biology. Its
centrality justifies the famous remark made by the evolutionary
geneticist Theodosius
Dobzhansky in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of
evolution.” In fact, nothing in science as a whole has been more
firmly established by
interwoven factual documentation, or more illuminating, than
the universal occurrence of
biological evolution. Further, few natural processes have been
more convincingly
explained than evolution by the theory of natural selection or,
as it is popularly called,
Darwinism.
Thus it is surpassingly strange that half of Americans recently
polled (2004) not only do
not believe in evolution by natural selection but do not believe
in evolution at all.
Americans are certainly capable of belief, and with rocklike
conviction if it originates in
religious dogma. In evidence is the 60 percent that accept the
prophecies of the Book of
Revelation as truth, and yet in more evidence is the weight that
faith-based positions
hold in political life. Most of the religious Right opposes the
teaching of evolution in
public schools, either by an outright ban on the subject or, at
the least, by insisting that it
be treated as “only a theory” rather than a “fact.”
Yet biologists, particularly those statured by the peer review
and publication of

substantial personal research on the subject in leading journals
of science, are
unanimous in concluding that evolution is a fact. The evidence
they and thousands of
others have adduced over 150 years falls together in intricate
and interlocking detail.
The multitudinous examples range from the small changes in
DNA sequences observed
as they occur in real time to finely graded sequences within
larger evolutionary changes
in the fossil record. Further, on the basis of comparably firm
evidence, natural selection
grows ever stronger as the prevailing explanation of evolution.
Cercopithecus petaurista
From left to right: Semnopithecus comatus, Cebus capucinus,
Ateles
marginatus, and Cebus vellerosus.
Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on
religious grounds, accept
the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose
implicit in natural
selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent
design. The reasoning
they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The
formulation of intelligent
design is a default argument advanced in support of a non
sequitur. It is in essence the
following: There are some phenomena that have not yet been

explained and that (and
most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being
explained; therefore there
must be a supernatural designer at work. The designer is seldom
specified, but in the
canon of intelligent design it is most certainly not Satan and his
angels, nor any god or
gods conspicuously different from those accepted in the
believer’s faith.
Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the intelligent
designers join the strict
creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred in the
first place) by arguing that
scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to
their own personal
secular beliefs. This may have a kernel of truth; everybody
suffers from some amount of
bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. The critics forget
how the reward system
in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence
of intelligent design
within the accepted framework of science will make history and
achieve eternal fame.
He will prove at last that science and religious dogma are
compatible! Even a combined
Nobel Prize and Templeton Prize (the latter designed to
encourage search for just such
harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist
would like to accomplish
such an epoch-making advance. But no one has even come
close, because
unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory, and no criteria for
proof that even
marginally might pass for science. There is only the residue of
hoped-for default, which

steadily shrinks as the science of biology expands.
In all of the history of science only one other disparity of
comparable magnitude to
evolution has occurred between a scientific event and the
impact it has had on the
public mind. This was the discovery by Copernicus that Earth
and therefore humanity
are not the center of the universe, and the universe is not a
closed spherical bubble.
Copernicus delayed publication of his masterwork On the
Revolutions of the Heavenly
Spheres until the year of his death (1543). For his extension of
the idea subsequently,
Bruno was burned at the stake, and for its documentation
Galileo was shown the
instruments of torture at Rome and remained under house arrest
for the remainder of
his life.
Today we live in a less barbaric age, but an otherwise
comparable disjunction between
science and religion, the one born of Darwinism, still roils the
public mind. Why does
such intense and pervasive resistance to evolution continue 150
years after the
publication of The Origin of Species, and in the teeth of the
overwhelming accumulated
evidence favoring it? The answer is simply that the Darwinian
revolution, even more
than the Copernican revolution, challenges the prehistoric and
still-regnant self-image of
humanity. Evolution by natur-al selection, to be as concise as

possible, has changed
everything.
In the more than slightly schizophrenic circumstances of the
present era, global culture
is divided into three opposing images of the human condition,
each logically consistent
within its own, independent premises. The dominant of these
hypotheses, exemplified
by the creation myths of the Abrahamic monotheistic religions
(Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam), sees humanity as a creation of God. He brought us
into being and He
guides us still as father, judge, and friend. We interpret his will
from sacred scriptures
and the wisdom of ecclesiastical authorities.
The second worldview is that of political behaviorism. Still
beloved by the now rapidly
fading Marxist-Leninist states, it says that the brain is largely a
blank state devoid of any
inborn inscription beyond reflexes and primitive bodily urges.
As a consequence the
mind originates almost wholly as a result of learning, and it is
the product of a culture
that itself evolves by historical contingency. Because there is no
biologically based
“human nature,” people can be molded to the best possible
political and economic
system, namely, as urged upon the world through most of the
twentieth century,
communism. In practical politics, this belief has been
repeatedly tested and, after
economic collapses and tens of millions of deaths in a dozen
dysfunctional states, is
generally deemed a failure.

Callionymus lyra (upper figure, male; lower figure, female).
The hereditary responses and
propensities that de ne our species arose by
evolution, forming the behavioral part of
what Darwin called the indelible stamp
of our lowly origin.
Dog "in a humble and affectionate frame of mind."
Drawing of dog from The Expression of the Emotions in Man
and
Animals, by Charles Darwin (London: John Murray, 1872)
Both of these worldviews, God-centered religion and atheistic
communism, are opposed
by a third and in some ways more radical worldview, scientific
humanism. Still held by
only a tiny minority of the world’s population, it considers
humanity to be a biological
species that evolved over millions of years in a biological
world, acquiring

unprecedented intelligence yet still guided by complex inherited
emotions and biased
channels of learning. Human nature exists, and it was self-
assembled. It is the
commonality of the hereditary responses and propensities that
define our species.
Having arisen by evolution during the far simpler conditions in
which humanity lived
during more than 99 percent of its existence, it forms the
behavioral part of what, in The
Descent of Man, Darwin called the indelible stamp of our lowly
origin.
To understand biological human nature in depth is to drain the
fever swamps of
religious and blank-slate dogma. But it also imposes the heavy
burden of individual
choice that goes with intellectual freedom.
Such was the long journey for Darwin, the architect of the
naturalistic worldview. He
began his voyage on the Beagle as a devout Christian who
trained for the ministry.
“Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox,” he wrote
much later in his
autobiography, “and I remember being heartily laughed at by
several of the officers
(though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an
unanswerable authority on
some point of morality.” His later drift from the religion of his
birth was stepwise and
slow. Still on H.M.S. Beagle during its circumnavigation of the
globe (1831– 1836) he
came to believe that the “false history” and reports of God’s
vengeful feelings made the
Old Testament “no more to be trusted than the sacred books of

the Hindoos, or the
beliefs of any barbarian.” The miracles of Jesus seemed to him
to suggest that people
living at the time of the Gospels were “ignorant and credulous
to a degree almost
incomprehensible by us.” The growth of disbelief was so slow
that Darwin felt no
distress. In a striking passage of his autobiography he expressed
his final and complete
rejection of Christian dogma based solely on blind faith:
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity
to be true; for if so the
plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do
not believe, and this
would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best
friends, will be everlastingly
punished.
And that is a damnable doctrine.
Did Charles Darwin recant in his last days, as some religious
critics have hopefully
suggested? There is not a shred of evidence that he did or that
he was presented with
any reason to do so. Further, it would have been wholly
contrary to the deliberate,
careful manner with which he approached every subject.
Pneumora
Rhynchaea capensis

The great naturalist did not abandon Abrahamic and other
religious dogmas because of
his discovery of evolution by natural selection, as one might
reasonably suppose. The
reverse occurred. The shedding of blind faith gave him the
intellectual fearlessness to
explore human evolution wherever logic and evidence took him.
And so he set forth
boldly, in The Descent of Man to track the origin of humanity,
and in The Expression of
the Emotions in Man and Animals to address the evolution of
instinct. Thus was born
scientific humanism, the only worldview compatible with
science’s growing knowledge of
the real world and the laws of nature.
So, will science and religion find common ground, or at least
agree to divide the
fundamentals into mutually exclusive domains? A great many
well-meaning scholars
believe that such rapprochement is both possible and desirable.
A few disagree, and I
am one of them. I think Darwin would have held to the same
position. The battle line is,
as it has ever been, in biology. The inexorable growth of this
science continues to
widen, not to close, the tectonic gap between science and faith-
based religion.
Rapprochement may be neither possible nor desirable. There is
something deep in
religious belief that divides people and amplifies societal
conflict. In the early part of this

century, the toxic mix of religion and tribalism has become so
dangerous as to justify
taking seriously the alternative view, that humanism based on
science is the effective
antidote, the light and the way at last placed before us.
In any case, the dilemma to be solved is truly profound. On the
one side the input of
religion on human history has been beneficent in many ways. It
has generated much of
which is best in culture, including the ideals of altruism and
public service. From the
beginning of history it has inspired the arts. Creation myths
were in a sense the
beginning of science itself. Fabricating them was the best the
early scribes could do to
explain the universe and human existence.
Yet the high risk is the ease with which alliances between
religions and tribalism are
made. Then comes bigotry and the dehumanization of infidels.
Our gods, the true
believer asserts, stand against your false idols, our spiritual
purity against your
corruption, our divinely sanctioned knowledge against your
errancy. In past ages the
posture provided an advantage. It united each tribe during life-
and-death struggles with
other tribes. It buoyed the devotees with a sense of superiority.
It sacralized tribal laws
and mores, and encouraged altruistic behaviors. Through sacred
rites it lent solemnity
to the passages of life. And it comforted the anxious and
afflicted. For all this and more
it gave people an identity and purpose, and vouchsafed tribal
fitness — yet,

unfortunately, at the expense of less united or otherwise less
fortunate tribes.
Religions continue both to render their special services and to
exact their heavy costs.
Can scientific humanism do as well or better, at a lower cost?
Surely that ranks as one
of the great unanswered questions of philosophy. It is the noble
yet troubling legacy that
Charles Darwin left us.
This article appears in the Norton Reader (13th ed., W. W.
Norton, 1996 – 2002)
Questions:
1. As the contextual note explains, Edward Wilson wrote this
essay to introduce a new
edition of the scientific works of Charles Darwin. What parts of
the essay provide
information about Darwin and his work? What parts extend
Darwin’s theories to present-
day debates about evolution and intelligent design? Why does
Wilson arrange these
parts in the order they appear?
2. Wilson uses similes (comparisons with like or as) and
metaphors (comparisons
without connectives) to explain key concepts. Analyze the
similes in paragraphs 1
(sunrises), 5 automobile, and 13 (designers), and explain their
function in the argument.
3. In the last section of the essay, Wilson defines three

worldviews: religious, Marxist-
Leninist, and scientific. How does he define each? How do his
classifications and
definitions help advance his argument in this essay?
4. Chose one of Darwin’s four books or one of the scientists
Wilson mentions. Do
research about your choice, and write a brief account of its
importance in the history of
science.

The iDeal Reader Jacob Bronowski, ‘‘The Nature of Scientific.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from rtodd33

More from rtodd33 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The iDeal Reader Jacob Bronowski, ‘‘The Nature of Scientific.docx