Essay- Querry

Babakhan · #1 Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Dear Fellows,
Important for Society- Education or Technology(Essay:CCE-2009)

Please eleborate the way of attempting this essay. We should have either opted for Education and its importance for Society OR Technology and its importance for society. Majority of the candidates selected education and claimed that Technology can't be advocated ahead of education.

Majority is confused so i would like Raz and others to throw light on the way of attempting this type of essay where we choose one aspect to discuss.

Regards

Engr.Aftab · #2 Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babakhan

Dear Fellows,
Important for Society- Education or Technology(Essay:CCE-2009)

Please eleborate the way of attempting this essay. We should have either opted for Education and its importance for Society OR Technology and its importance for society. Majority of the candidates selected education and claimed that Technology can't be advocated ahead of education.

Majority is confused so i would like Raz and others to throw light on the way of attempting this type of essay where we choose one aspect to discuss.

Regards

dear education is more important, look education teaches you every thing, technology is the daughter of education , without education u cant move forward in technology..............
regards

Raz · #3 Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engr.Aftab

dear education is more important, look education teaches you every thing, technology is the daughter of education , without education u cant move forward in technology..............
regards

And what about those who were illiterate but have remained great inventors, theory makers, philosophers, and scientists in our long history???

Engr.Aftab · #4 Thursday, May 14, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raz

And what about those who were illiterate but have remained great inventors, theory makers, philosophers, and scientists in our long history???

dear dont b emotional and dont make the simple things difficult, without eduaction its impossible, if u know them than quote their name where u have seen the technology of those people, wot they have invented technically????????????

Babakhan · #5 Thursday, May 14, 2009

Engr saab don't complicate the issue. Please will somebody explain me whether we were allowed to choose any of the issues education or technonology and justify it through arguments or it was Only we meant to write in the favor of education . That is for sure we had to pick any of the issues and debate. I have placed Technology ahead of education and gave arguments and in conclusion try to balance it empahasizing on education as well. if it was there to write only on education than why examiner gave Technology in the paper. My simple query for you people is to make me understand the theme the essay. Likewise I have seen many of the essays of such kind like: Responsible for Terrorism-extreme behaviour of Talibans or American attitude. Now in this essay we are strictly asked to pick one of them.
Please Raz and others to teach us in this regard.

Thanks

Raz · #6 Thursday, May 14, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engr.Aftab

dear dont b emotional and dont make the simple things difficult, without eduaction its impossible, if u know them than quote their name where u have seen the technology of those people, wot they have invented technically????????????

Did I depict any emotional corner in my post? Ok leave it. There was nothing so emotional.

Do you know the types of essays and the rules to deal with these essays? Can you decide whether “Our Society needs-Education or Technology” was a simple topic as you have raised objection over my previous post. I have not made it complicated but that topic is inherently complicated.
It was argumentative topic. You have to side by either Education or Technology. You have options but your point should be supported by valid and strong arguments.
Don’t think that if any body has support technology will be in failed students lot. He might score more than those who have supported education but with weak arguments. All depends upon the logic, and supporting arguments.

Q: We are taking the example of Khairpur: What is needed? Either Technological investment in the shape of any industry which can employ around 2000 labour force OR one university which can produce 2000 qualified candidates?
Does our society lack employment opportunities or educational facilities? What is the number of unemployed educated people in our society and what is the number of illiterate people in our society? Compare both numbers with each other and comment do you need more educated people or you need jobs by dint of technology for already educated but unemployed people??????

If our all the educated people are employed or at least a good number of our educated lot is employed then we are not in bad need of technology. But if our educated people hardly get any job (Say for example our society has 100 people employed out of 10,000 educated people and rest 9,900 people are unemployed) then please do revise your priorities and revamp your theories.
This is the case with our society, we have huge number of educated people but having equal to nothing the employment opportunities due to which you can see your highly qualified people unemployed and in social distress, economically detracted.

Simple formula:
>Take the stock of educated people: xx
>Take the stock of employed people who are educated: xx
>Deduct Employed people from educated people figures
=Result will be the net required stock of employment opportunities (If result is positive) or required literate people (If result is zero or negative).

And if you need job opportunities, ultimately you need more sophisticated technology.

Arif Rao · #7 Thursday, May 14, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babakhan

Dear Fellows,
Important for Society- Education or Technology(Essay:CCE-2009)

Please eleborate the way of attempting this essay. We should have either opted for Education and its importance for Society OR Technology and its importance for society...

Majority is confused so i would like Raz and others to throw light on the way of attempting this type of essay where we choose one aspect to discuss.

Regards

First, answer to what you asked above:

Yes you are right, one has to go for one of the two, either education or technology and then give its merits and demerits in comparison to the other. Being rational and logical is must but, if, for example, one goes in favour of education over technology, he should not disregard the importance of the technology completely. Instead he must recognize it and then comparatively give his view why he/she thinks that the significance of education overpowers that of technology. Such an essay, to me, is worthy of achieving high score.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babakhan

Majority of the candidates selected education and claimed that Technology can't be advocated ahead of education.

Now my thought over the issue under question:

Though we all know the importance of education and its role in every sphere of life still we can't deny the positive role of technology for the betterment of mankind. One can quote a number of examples from history and also from recent developements of science and technology where it has contributed to save lives of millions and to ease lives of billions of people. Not only has it worked for the good of mankind but also for other creatures and for the environment as well.
But if one sees at the flip side of the whole picture, one can easliy find that many of the greatest damages to mankind were only made possible by the technology. Not only it has taken millions of lives but also caused irrecoverable harms to the environment and the planet as a whole.
Now one may argue that the culprit is not the technology itself but the people using it for their evil purpose are responsible for these huge losses. Here it comes to mind that this very problem of mankind can only be addressed through education. Education here refers not only to acquiring higher qualifications and degrees for earnings but education is meant for awakening, enlightening and maturing the thoughts of a person. To make him realize the rights and responsibilities and to enable him to agnize his obligations to the society.
This way education goes much further in its importance for the society than technology.

Raz · #8 Thursday, May 14, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engr.Aftab

dear dont b emotional and dont make the simple things difficult, without eduaction its impossible, if u know them than quote their name where u have seen the technology of those people, wot they have invented technically????????????

Go through this material. This may give you some basis of of my argues:

Quote:

Does Engineering Drive Science?
Book Review
by Dennis L. Feucht
Innovatia Laboratories[/CENTER][/B]

Occasionally, extraordinary books that relate engineering to the wider world appear and deserve some attention. This article reviews the following book:

The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, by Terence Kealey, Palgrave Macmillan; ISBN: 0312173067; (May 1997)

Government funding of scientific research is a massive waste of money. Technological progress is not attributable to science. Privately-funded and hobby scientists have been the most productive. Sound preposterous? Kealey is a Cambridge University biochemist who explodes widespread myths about the relationships of science, technology, and economics by refuting rationalistic arguments of economists and politicians with historical and economic data.

He begins with the "linear model" of Francis Bacon, that government-funded science drives technology, by showing historically that the technological advancements of skilled, uneducated workers in England (such as Newcomen, who invented the steam engine) or the western European barbarians (who invented the saddle and domesticated the horse for farm use) drove technical advancement that led to scientific investigation. Basic science today contributes about 10 % to new technology; 90 % is driven by existing technology, just as old science largely drives new science.

Woven into his account is a summary of the history and development of both science and technology. He shows that technology came first in Western development, often from uneducated inventors like Newcomen. Dennis Papin, the leading gas scientist during the Industrial Revolution, "used to explain that he was prompted into studying vacuum steam engines because of Newcomen's success." James Watt's improvements of Newcomen's engine were not inspired by Joseph Black's discovery of latent heat, as conventionally supposed even in Watt's day, but was denied by Watt himself, who attributed them to "old established fact" known among steam practitioners. Very often, engineers such as Torricelli or Joule turned scientist.

"The irrelevance of academic science to technological or economic development during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries can best be illustrated by comparing Britain and France." England only had two universities, Oxford and Cambridge, "mouldering into dust," in Oxford alumnus Edward Gibbon's (1737-94) words. In contrast, in France a generous State assured the best-equipped scientific laboratories in the world. By the early 19th century, engineering was only a skilled craft in England, but had been established as a profession, with schools and formal exams in France. And yet, Kealey concludes, "it was Britain, not France, that produced the Industrial Revolution." To understand why leads to an examination of the economics and history of science funding. The essential difference between the two countries was that the British government adopted laissez faire policies, whole classes of taxes were abolished, and government withdrew from almost any function except defense and justice. The Royal Society was left to sink or swim. In contrast, France embraced dirigisme and the State ran every aspect of French society. Yet Britain grew rich and France remained poor.

Kealey gives two reasons for this. First, the academies and ecoles of France were fiendishly expensive, funded by high taxes for which the economic and social cost was horrific. Secondly, a centrally-planned economy can only work as well as the plans. The rulers of France, under Colbert in particular, subscribed to the Baconian model, with its trickle-down empowerment of technology. But "the industrial revolution was created by men looking for solutions to very particular problems - men who had the economic freedom and the economic incentive to invest their time and resources in experimentation and development." Kealey illustrates with Eli Whitney's cotton gin. Technical progress relied instead upon the inventiveness of local engineers relying upon technical know-how.

When Britain did turn to science, it was not funded by government but largely by hobbyists, industry, and private endowments of university science. Hobby scientists included Cavendish, Darwin, and William Parsons, Royal Society president from 1848-54. The increasing wealth of Britain enabled thousands who, due to low taxes and minimal government control, passionately took up science as a hobby. Thompson (Count Rumford of thermodynamics fame) "perceived that British industry needed more scientific research if it was to develop, and he had little difficulty in finding a group of industrialists who agreed with him and who provided the funding." In 1799, they created the Royal Institution. As industry grew it funded pure science because the industrialists perceived that that they were exhausting technological development.

Hobby science flourished until 1914, when laissez-faire Britain ended, and the hobby scientist is now practically extinct. One rare survivor was 1978 Nobelist Peter Mitchell. Kealey comments, "The loss of the hobby scientists has been unfortunate because the hobby scientists tended to be spectacularly good. They were good because they tended to do original science. Professional scientists tend to play it safe; they need to succeed, which tempts them into doing experiments that are certain to produce results. Similarly, grant-giving bodies which are accountable to government try only to give money for experiments that are likely to work...They represent the development of established science rather than the creation of the new. But the hobby scientist is unaccountable. He can follow the will-o'-the-wisp...Neither Cavendish nor Darwin would have survived in a modern university any better than did Mitchell, yet they were scientific giants..."

Einstein, Barbara McClintock, Wilson, Penzias, and Bednorz were a few Nobelists who were either hobby scientists or were working on technical problems.

Kealey opts for the alternative theory of Adam Smith over Bacon, that science and technology flourish in countries with free markets lacking government subsidization of either. He illustrates this thesis in some historic detail from the remarkable rise of England as a prosperous land, contrasted with countries on the continent which were dominated by government economic control.

The economic charts and tables begin to appear in Kealey's account of economic history since the 1870s. Illustrated by numerous historical examples, the trend is clear: "In the long term, there is only one factor that determines the rate of economic growth: productivity." And innovation is "a crucial contributor to improvements in productivity." Government investment in capital, education, and technology is not enough; the USSR invested in them to excess yet did not grow. Those that did (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan) also wholeheartedly embraced a free-market economy.

Countries with laissez faire economics, such as 19th-century Britain, the USA, and Japan, are markedly more productive in science than dirigiste countries, such as France, Germany, and present-day Japan. In tracing the development of US science policy, "Nineteenth-century America simply did not believe that research, or knowledge for its own sake, was a proper responsibility of the Federal Government." The two reasons Kealey gives are: The widespread belief in Adam Smith's view that all government intervention into society should be minimized; and states received greater loyalty than the central government, especially in the South. Even as late as the FDR era, "scientists resisted government funding because it led to government control and to a loss of academic freedom." Influenced by Baconian-model advocate Vannevar Bush, after 1950 the federal government discarded its laissez faire policies of nearly two centuries, and took on the responsibility for basic science. After 20 years of huge government investment in science, it was during the 1960s that Washington suddenly realized the economy had failed to take off. Officials started to doubt the Baconian model. (British Prime Minister Wilson's Baconian experiment on science funding fared no better.) The defense department commissioned a vast study, Project Hindsight, concluding that applied science built on applied science, not on pure science. "Indeed, the evidence suggested that, if anything, it was the unexpected discoveries made by technologists or engineers that boosted pure science, rather than the other way around."

Running through Kealey's book are the negative effects of war on science in that it reshapes a nation's culture. "During war, a government must intervene to regulate all aspects of a nation's life, and that experience of government control legitimizes dirigisme, central planning and dependence on the State."

Kealey then turns from the history to the logic of why the Baconian model fails. "Governments are dreadful judges of commercial opportunities," such as the British funding of Babbage, Japan's MITI-driven fifth-generation computer project, analog HDTV, and the US Sematech semiconductor consortium. Wealth is created by industry, and "to tax industry, therefore, to enable governments to subsidize it must, in general terms, be absurd."

Kealey posits another myth of science: "... published science is freely available. It is not." To research and understand the science literature is a significant task in itself, one which must be done in competitive industry which must employ scientists for this purpose.

In the chapter, "The Real Economics of Research," Kealey delivers on the book title, and gives the three laws of funding for civil R&D, along with copious data in support:

"The percentage of national GDP spent [on R&D] increases with national GPD per capita." The more prosperous the country, the more is spent within it on R&D.
"Public [government] and private funding displace each other." If government spends more on R&D, industry spends less, and if government decreases spending, industry increases
"Public [government] funds displace more than they provide." In other words, government funding is always less efficient than private funding of R&D.
Kealey argues these assertions rather thoroughly, including the debunking of counter-arguments. In the last chapters of this rather content-intensive book, Kealey argues that both British and US R&D are not in decline, and that one must be careful not to confuse rates with absolute amounts for developed countries.

Finally, he widens the scope to philosophy of science, where he denounces the influence of Rousseau and his disciples, the Nazis and Communists. "Rousseau's distrust of science inspired such proto-fascist tracts as Spengler's Decline of the West, published in 1918 and 1922, which glorified a German romantic nationalism that inspired Hitler. Rousseau's worship of the State fed the philosophies of a stream of influential thinkers including Hegel ('The state walks with God') and Marx, it fed the philosophies of tyrants like Robespierre, Hitler of course ('The Age of Reason is dead'), Lenin, Mao, and Mussolini and [Matthew] Arnold."

This book is highly recommended reading or as a reference for anyone in science or technology who thinks about how these enterprises relate to the larger world of economics, politics, and philosophical concerns.

Contact the author

Dennis Feucht

[B][CENTER]

There are various other examples also through which we can prove our point but this is sufficient to answer your objection.

Regards

Engr.Aftab · #9 Thursday, May 14, 2009

@raz
dear look at my first reply to babakahan in which i supported education only because he asked that which one is more important,
secondly i know rules of essay , i appeared in 2009 css and i was fully prepared, if u support a wrong thing with logical ideas u will pass the essay no doubt, u and babakhan supported tech, well.........but i am in favour of education.........these are only suporting ideas by which u can pass essay...............i didnt say that candidates who support tech will fail, so i just supported education but u sent me reply that wot abt illitrated people......................dear illitrated people cant do well in any technical feild as compared to educated one. its common sense .............well if u are of that mind than nopes....continue
regards

************************************************** ********

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arif Rao

First, answer to what you asked above:

Education here refers not only to acquiring higher qualifications and degrees for earnings but education is meant for awakening, enlightening and maturing the thoughts of a person. To make him realize the rights and responsibilities and to enable him to agnize his obligations to the society.
This way education goes much further in its importance for the society than technology.

u are right brother, i am also of ur opinion, but here in css forum few people delibrately make the things difficult, i dont knw why!
Regards

salman sial · #10 Thursday, May 14, 2009

AOA,dear fellows we must take it as simple as it is.we have to just choose one option and defend it.simply the one who would defend his choice with spell-bounding,mesimerising and strong arguments will get success hence the job is done.ok tc

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Essay Writing	saharsyed	Essay	16	Saturday, May 09, 2020 01:08 PM
essay --- not a big deal!!!!!	Saira	Essay	27	Saturday, February 11, 2017 11:26 AM
Essay Writing	mnadeem	Essay	2	Wednesday, May 25, 2016 02:21 PM
Brief Overview of the 10 Essay Writing Steps	dr.atifrana	Essay	4	Friday, January 09, 2015 07:24 PM

The Following User Says Thank You to Babakhan For This Useful Post:
Raz (Thursday, May 14, 2009)

The Following User Says Thank You to Raz For This Useful Post:
Babakhan (Thursday, May 14, 2009)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Arif Rao For This Useful Post:
Babakhan (Thursday, May 14, 2009), Engr.Aftab (Thursday, May 14, 2009), Raz (Thursday, May 14, 2009)

The Following User Says Thank You to Raz For This Useful Post:
Engr.Aftab (Thursday, May 14, 2009)