Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

BELMONTE, Bianca Lou F.

GED104 / A22 MRR 5

An argumentative essay about the video entitled “The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the
Case against Scientism”

From the whole video, I can see why C.S. Lewis fears scientism and its unguided
tendencies. And with the video’s context, I agree on almost everything it points out. I agree that
science is like magic because it is believed in and used as a guiding principle or faith for others
to a point that they blindly follow what is said if it’s in the name of science. It’s is also true that
science becomes a power because having knowledge regarding how the world works is an
advantage. I realized that science, the factual discovery of phenomena, is limitless and powerful
and that the applications of it is also both limitless and powerful and can either be helpful or
dangerous to humanity if it is abused and corrupted that’s why we must know the line that we
shouldn’t cross. In short, I agree to all the ways he explained how science is like magic.

What caught my attention was when they said that nothing is sacred in modern science.
I realized it is true because even man is subject to the applications of science. A prominent
example is eugenics. Technology tried to improve mankind to make it more supreme. The
eugenics movement is the prime example of what C.S. Lewis feared because it fell under the 3
ways, he described science was. At some point people believed in eugenics because scientism
implied that it would lessen weaker genes. But in reality, people wanted to control the natural
order of living and modify humanity so they blindly accepted what scientism implied because
they believed it was true for it was said in the name of science. This led to sterilization of weaker
men and isolation of people with unwanted characteristics just to achieve the supreme race.
And as from observation of how they acted, it is obvious that science was abused and the
application disregarded multiple ethical values. Modern science aims to develop everything to
make life easier and it counted humanity along with it which makes us no different from the
materials we develop. That’s why I found myself also agreeing to Lewis’ point that there should
be a limit for the application of science. There should a limit that science can’t touch but must
follow because if there isn’t, what could control the application of the limitless power of scientific
knowledge? The application of science should be inspected and can be critique by a non-

But science is just fact finding and reporting. At the end of the day the discoveries
science can find are limitless and value-less and are all dependent to how it is applied. Lewis
doesn’t oppose science because there really is nothing to oppose something not incorrect. He
merely wanted to strike a chord inside all our heads to remind us that as we think of what a
scientific discovery can be, we must also think of what it would cost. And I agree with that
BELMONTE, Bianca Lou F. 6/29/19
GED104 / A22 MRR 5

because science alone is not sufficient for living. Humans don’t operate with just scientific facts.
We also operate with our humanity, our ethics. Science alone is value-free but technology
shouldn’t dictate our values. Technology is dangerous without limits.

What I disagree in from his perspective was how he fully rejected Darwin and Freud’s
theory as if those were fruitless. Though he explained the irony and incoherence of their
theories, he seemed to just disregard the results and effects of the whole theory and continued
on seeing those as wrong. Both theories started scientific revolutions that added more to our
understanding with how the world works. Though they are seen incoherent, they opened doors
for other sciences to flourish. Freud’s theory opened doors for deeper studies in psychology that
helps people today just like therapy. I just find it disagreeable that as he rejects those theories,
he disregards the idea that incoherence like that can be a stepping stone towards better

In a different note, I observed that Lewis was adamant about setting a boundary but he
didn’t give his own general limit. Various types of ethical values have their own rights and
wrong. So, when is it right or wrong? How could one see the correct decision? It is not that I
disagree with Lewis since he did not say anything about it, I just thought it was needed to
discuss what is right and wrong.