Critical Interpretive Essay

1355 Words6 Pages
Critical Interpretive Essay What is the value of science? This question could have very many answers, which one could use a very scientific language to describe the value. Richard Feynman’s “The Value of Science” has a much different approach to answering this very complex question. Through critical interpretive analysis of Feynman’s writing, I communicate what is at stake from this writing. Richard Feynman begins his essay very unique way for being a science based essay in which he controls the purpose throughout the entire essay. “From time to time, people suggest me that scientists ought to give more consideration to social problems – especially that they should be more responsible in considering the impact of science upon society.”(63) Feynman begins his essay with this statement to build on why Scientist should not be concerned on social issues but, should be focusing on the future of science and developing through open-minded thought process. Feynman supports his statement with reasons the value of science and scientist should not focus on social issues. The first reason value of science is “scientific knowledge enable us to do all kinds of things.” (64) Scientist create through experiments and imagination, it is up to the scientist to create for good versus bad. “Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad – but it does not carry instructions on how to use it.”(64) Feynman supports This statement with a very interesting quote “To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.”(64) My interpretation of this quote and how Feynman is relating the quote to value of science, it is humans who have to decide how to get to either heaven or hell based on the instructions they create from themselves. Scientist must do the same when creating scientific knowledge, they must create instructions to
Open Document