This conversation is closed.

Who makes the change?- a scientist, a social reformer or a writer.

When disciplines of studies fight for superiority, science often gains upper hand. Are we forgetting the social reformers like Gandhi? The writers who have stored their wisdom in their immortal works are also not given their due share of recognition. Too much emphasis on science has resulted in the erosion of social, ecological and spiritual values.

  • Aug 4 2013: Well, their professions aside, it's usually the mothers responsible for the biggest changes.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: this sort of question is symptomatic of the propaganda/information/screen age: t-shirt brief.

    what kind of change are we talking about? legislative change? i would think it's the bureaucrats that make the changes. sadly
  • Aug 5 2013: I think those three disciplines, science, social reform and literature do not far away from each other. They are connected together. It seems to someone that science takes superioirity in our society in that people take advantages of digital devices. However, these are only one side of our vast lives. Social reform or literature reflect humanity's spiritual value.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: Social changes are made, in my opinion- by the spirit of improvement that everyone of us has inside. The human being has a wonderful inner landscape of possibilities for improving and going forward. What happens is, as Andrea says, that scientists, writers, writers and many others are who have the power to show us the way to go, the level of our strength, or even our positiion at a concrete map.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: Lalitha --

    Everyone makes change. Scientists and social reformers (including writers) serve only, at best, as communicators and catalysts, whose abilities to engage others to a concern or cause are their contribution to the effort. But, without many, many others, social change simply can't occur.

    Here's something I wrote that explains my point through a constructivists prism:

  • thumb
    Aug 3 2013: Why should disciplines "fight for superiority" when most important questions are recognized as interdisciplinary?
  • Aug 31 2013: Why not include the terrorist on that list?

    Remember Nelson Mandela was at one time classed a terrorist.
  • Aug 5 2013: "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    I believe that the real 'change' comes from those with a voice of reason, and those that advocate social reform. Even though it seems that social reformers at the moment are extreme ideologues, they're influencing major change. Unfortunately today, notoriety is either bought and paid for, or swept under the rug.

    As to "The writers who have stored their wisdom in their immortal works are also not given their due share of recognition."

    If religious texts count, then I do believe they get their fair share of recognition. Why it's fair is beyond me, but they make up sum 84% of the world last I saw. CIA 2010 fact-book; "... other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01%. (2010 est.)."

    I also believe that science has its own impact, being that it can humble us. Acknowledging the why's and how's of who we are, and where we are... our paradigms of what we mean to one another will ultimately change. I know that computers and the internet is sure having an impact. At what rates and the specific relationship between science and 'change', I don't know.

    In the end of the day, it's social reformers that use science and writing as their tools.
  • Aug 5 2013: I'm not sure what you expect. Even though the world is largely religious, humans instinctively know that the only way to gain progress is through scientific research. A civilization that puts emphasis on social reformers and/or writers certainly wouldn't see much advancement. The statement "too much emphasis on science has resulted in the erosion of social, ecological and spiritual values" is not inherently derogatory to science even though you seem to be using it in that manner. Your first claim that science erodes social values seems quite unsupported. Technological development has brought us closer than ever before. Social values change as a result of modifications in culture. Your second claim that science has eroded ecological values is absolutely preposterous. Science has aided us in understanding the natural world with stunning and view shifting insights. When an environmental disaster arrives we can address such issues accordingly as a result of scientific research. To conclude, I must state that science, by nature, is going to be corrosive to spirituality. Spirituality is most commonly connected to theology. The scientific method includes observation, study, and truth whereas spirituality associates with the supernatural, which is the opposite of science.
    • Aug 5 2013: I'm not against scientific progress but unfortunately no country is ready to reduce its carbon print. We have to respect the fact that this earth supports not only human beings but other small and large species. When we wipe out these beings we are tolling our own death bell. Such respect for fellow beings can only be fostered through mutual respect. Such respect can be inculcated through the study of humanities.
      • Aug 5 2013: You're right, but the study of the human experience isn't the solution to the problem. If you ask a scientist about our reliance of fossil fuels most will likely express that they believe in utilizing clean and renewable sources. Science is working to solve our greatest issues. The real problem lies within the morons that call the shots, i.e., politicians. Unless the government truly desires the solution to any given major issue, no resolutions will be had.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: I don't think change is made by a certain profession, it is made by a CERTAIN PERSON.
    Artists like Picasso changed the way we think. Thoreau, a poet changed social reform. Neil Armstrong taught us that there is no such thing as impossible. Princess Diana changed the way we think about the poor. Cornel West teaches us to not forget our history. The Wright Brothers changed transportation. Steve Jobs changed IT forever. ETC ETC

    It's not the profession. It's always the person. It's that person's ability to create change because they take risks and aren't afraid of falling. (in my opinion at least!)
  • Aug 4 2013: If you are talking about who makes the change, then the scientists have a definite edge compared with writers and socialogist/politicians. For example, the scientists made improvement on building up life conditions and man's surviving necessities are always with us and actually building up from the previous findings by suceeding improvement or refinement. Men can't live without them in most circumstances.
    Now lets look at socialogist, ,say, Ghandi, regardless his saying or promoted principles were correct at that time, what part of his contribution is still relevant nowadays? Let's look at writers, say, Shakespeare, almost every readers at that time thought that he was very good in telling stories that explains human emotions well in his writing. But the bright spots, he built his drama on, are no longer relevant to our modern society. And even his writing style is used or mimicked by a few modern writers only and also very few young people are reading his writings. More philosophers or writers wrote about utopian concept, unfortunately we haven't even come close to it at the present time. Moreover, the contrarian authors, such as the "end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it" types to utopians haven't done that much better either. Karl Marx came up with the socialist theory that human labor cost constitutes the whole cost of the products they made. But scentific development in robotics has made human labor contribute less and less these days compared with the capital cost. So the latter CHANGED THE VALIDITY OF the THEORY by the former.
    In summary, the liturature or sociologic theorists produced good works, but as to the CHANGES MADE BY THE PIONEERS, there are vast practical differences between the scientific discoveries and other types of contributions. Let's also look at arts, the music and painting arts also keep on changing their styles, but I would say that we are also going along a path deviating away from the old ways instead of refining or building up from them.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: you can't generalize, sometimes science makes the change, sometimes humanities make the change, sometimes both
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: Well perceived superiority of different subject is there only on basis of employability not which one can bring change. Moreover to bring change its not possible to bring change unless it is supported by other discipline. Say until it is marketed successfully scientific discovery can't bring any change, sometimes it also need changes in legislative / regulatory framework of the country or society. Lets take the example of today's mobile phone technology , if I remember correctly this technology was discovered in 50s but it brought changes only a decade back. In some countries even just to start the marketing of mobile phone technology changes in regulation / legislative system was pivotal .
  • Aug 4 2013: I agree with Fritzie, there is no fight for superiority, only different areas of study and contributions to the development of mankind.

    No one will argue that literature, art, philosophy, and similar arts are not still highly influential in determining public opinion, social order, and communications.

    The importance of science and technology has increased in the past 100 years due to its ability to be transformed into marketable products that improve the quality of life for humans. Some examples include medicines, food production methods and equipment, transportation methods and equipment, and communication/media devices. These technologies also have the ability to produce war machines that can be used by governments to determine the dominant world powers. World domination is a powerful desire for many people. This desire is used to justify the use of public funds to do research in technological areas which may lead to a technological edge and military superiority.

    "Too much emphasis" is an opinion. Other reasons for that increased emphasis are a desire for power, greed, and at a personal level, an expectation that a stable income and consistent work might be found if one works in the areas of science and technology. Controlling the thoughts of an audience and ego satisfaction are big forces in arts. Purposeful creative expression, innovation for the benefit of all mankind, and desire to push forward a science or art are other more selfless motivational forces.

    The real power is in having a balance of both arts and sciences in your educational experience, then being smart enough to figure out a way to use your specific blend with the resources and opportunities you find in life to do something new and different. Find a way to make your contribution to arts or sciences useful to the general population, then build it/create it, and either market it to reap your rewards or somehow deliver it to the art world to increase the general knowledge of mankind.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2013: Man is pragmatic and selfish. Anything which contributes to the survival of the species is viewed favorably. Science, Art, Religion, etc. all are welcome to offer ideas. Remember though, an artist or a clergy person will need to use Science to explain and promote an idea, while a scientist will not need art or religion to explain and promote an idea. Perhaps that is the burr under your saddle?