This essay introduces a critical analysis and thinking of the article “science versus medieval thinking” by Spears, 2013. The article explains the impact of science and medieval thinking of the society on vaccinations thereby, getting rid of the diseases. According to me, an article needs to highlight clearly the objective so that the readers are able to have an idea of the article by reading the title. The given article “science vs. medieval thinking” highlights that the article will emphasize its take on the impact of science and medieval thinking on disease and treatment. However, on the contrary, I think, the title of the article needs to be precise and concise rather than giving a highlight to the readers. This article sheds light on the persisting contradictory views of vaccines and genetically modified crops among the population.
According to me, the language of an article plays a crucial role in engaging the readers. However, on the contrary, I think the language used needs to be professional as well as simple in order to connect with the readers. In the case of the given article, the language used by the author is extremely simple that hampers the quality of the article to a certain extent. The article successfully explains the graphs and the percentage of the people in the 19th century suffering from diseases rather than explaining the thinking of the individuals behind the cause. Additionally, the report also states the view of the educated people of the 21st century but lacked to provide a detailed insight of them about vaccination and genetically modified crops.
According to me, the article title and the objectives need to support each other for helping the readers. However, the title of the article does not highlight the objective of the article. The article title says ‘science vs. medieval thinking” but fails to highlight which aspect is discussed in terms of science and medieval thinking. Therefore, the title fails to provide an overview of the topic that is explained through science and medieval thinking. However, I also think, the objectives provide a shape to the article thereby, successfully completing it. In the case of the given article by Tom Spears “Science vs. Medieval Thinking”, the article fails to develop distinct objectives through the entire article. Therefore, the article lacks proper structure thereby, making it disorganized. I think lack of appropriate structure has made the report look haphazard thereby, making it difficult for the readers to understand the chronological order.
The report highlights the medieval thinking about vaccines and genetically modified crops that resulted in outbreaks and plaque in the US. According to me, the appropriate structure of the article is required to make the article look professional. However, as I also think, the structure of the article does not always define the credibility of the work. This article does not follow a definite structure thereby, making it confusing. The first part of the article highlights the medieval thinking of vaccines and genetically modified crops whereas the second part consists of the scientific aspect of the vaccines and genetically modified crops that people developed in the 21st century due to exposure to education.
An article needs to appropriately referenced in order to determine the authenticity of the data and information used. According to me, appropriate sourcing provides credibility to the research. However, in the case of the article written by Tom Spears “Science vs. medieval thinking”, the entire writing lacks referencing of the data and information provided. However, the information used by the author is intriguing but reliability in an issue in this case. The author has majorly presented facts and information without mentioning the appropriate source of collecting the information. Therefore, the reliability of the article is questionable due to lack of references.
According to me, the explanation of the facts and science and their implications are important in order to enhance the quality of the article. However, on the contrary, I think, a large quantity of data and graphs rather than explanation enriches the quality of the article. In the case of this article, the author has presented only the facts and present and past viewpoints of the society. Therefore, though the article is able to differentiate between the impact of science and medieval thinking on the society, the article is unable to explain the reason for the difference. The article fails to show the impact of education on the mindset and opinion of the people in terms of vaccines and genetically modified crops that helped in reducing the rate of disease outbreaks and plaques.
According to me, the article successfully discusses the various outbreaks of diseases in the past and due to the medieval thinking of the society. The article states that measles was considered just as an itching disorder that would reduce with time. This medieval thinking disallowed the society to know the adverse and degenerating impact of measles on the individuals. However, the article fails to discuss the onset of science in treating the disease outbreaks. The article vaguely discusses that science helped in considering the use of vaccines and genetically modified crops. Additionally, I also think the author also fails to highlight when actually science helped in changing people viewpoint in terms of considering the use of vaccines for treating the disease.
I also think the author has explained that education has helped in changing the opinions and viewpoints of the people. The author signifies that the use of education and science has changed the perceptions of the society in terms of using vaccines and genetically modified crops. The data provided by the author also signifies that the rate of disease outbreak has also decreased after the use of vaccination has increased. However, I also think the author has failed to determine to what extent science and education have helped in forcing people to get rid of their medieval thinking in respect to disease treatment and using genetically modified crops. The article also presents the data from 11 Nobel Prize winners that states people are destroying golden rice physically that is essential for the body. However, according to me, the author fails to mention the rate of the destruction of golden rice. However, the author successfully states the benefit of using vaccines and genetically modified crops.
In this essay, it can be concluded that though Tom Spears wrote the article "Science vs. Medieval thinking" successfully discusses the benefits of using vaccines for treating business the article has various negatives. I also think the title of the article fails to highlight the issue based on which the science and medieval thinking is discussed. I also feel the article also lacks objectives and appropriate structure due to which the author fails to meet the criteria of professional write up. Additionally, the author has presented data before and after the use of science without any appropriate referencing. Therefore, there is no confirmation whether the information used for the article is recent or not. This questions the credibility and authenticity of the article thereby, criticizing the originality of the information. The information in this article lacks coordination and interconnection, as the author has presented the article in two section. The author has failed to establish a relationship between the two sections. It can also be concluded that the author has forgotten to consider the viewpoints and opinion of different individuals and explaining it supporting the data. Therefore, the credibility and authenticity of the article are questionable largely. Therefore, According to me, though the topic of the article vital but the way it is presented along with the explanation, pictures and language used needs improvement.
References
Spears, T. (2013). Science vs. Medieval thinking, Opposition to vaccines, GM foods persists. Edmonton.
