what is the meaning of science essay

Browse Course Material

Course info.

Karen Boiko

Departments

Comparative Media Studies/Writing

As Taught In

Academic Writing
Creative Writing
Nonfiction Prose

Learning Resource Types

The science essay, course description.

Photo of several Scottish Highland cattle.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

The Concept of Science: Definition and Components Essay

Definition of science, common misconceptions, essential components of science, science as a fundamental approach.

An exponentially increasing volume of information is one of the characteristics of the contemporary world. One of the downsides of such an influx is a growing amount of misinformation resulting from ignorance, misinterpretation of data, and deliberate manipulation. While it is possible to address the problem by applying a scientific approach, this is rarely done, mostly due to the unpopularity of the concept of science in the popular perception. The following paper argues that the concept of science is both relevant and useful in practical terms by analyzing popular misconceptions and identifying key characteristics attributable to the topic.

In order to analyze the concept of science, it is necessary to first consider its definition. While there is no single agreed-upon definition of science, several similarities can be identified. Most commonly, science is referred to as a certain body of knowledge that is organized and systematized to simplify its use whenever the necessity arises. Often (but not always) the definitions also specify the application of specific principles to the process of gaining new facts and systematizing the existing body of knowledge. Finally, some definitions clarify the nature of knowledge by suggesting that science explores the fundamental principles of existence.

These definitions also emphasize the involvement of the scientific method in the process, and this deserves a separate mention. As can be seen from the definitions, in most cases, science is treated as a database of knowledge. In some cases, it is seen as a process of expanding this database whereas only some clarify its nature and the purpose of engaging in scientific inquiry. Importantly, such an approach creates a distorted perception, leading to misconceptions about the concept of science.

One of the most widespread misconceptions is the perception of science as a rigid, immutable collection of rules and principles that inherently resists modification. The two most apparent takeaways in this instance are a reliance on historical data as the definitive authority and the alleged inability (or reluctance) of science to accept new findings and modify the worldview as a result. Both arguments are actively employed by the proponents of various scientific practices and the researchers of paranormal phenomena. The best example for this scenario can be taken from the domain of alternative medicine.

Many advocates of natural medications maintain that science does not approve the use of their remedy of choice because the healing properties involved lie beyond the scope of current scientific knowledge, and they readily point to “authority” as used to suppress any evidence in their favor. Another example is a similar argument used by believers in the paranormal who argue that “traditional science” is unable to accept fringe theories as the consequences would disrupt the established order.

While the latter assertion is certainly true, the remainder of the argument could not be further from the true concept of science. Essentially, these misconceptions treat science as a stagnating system of arbitrarily assigned authorities who are invested in the preservation of the status quo of prevailing knowledge. According to this perspective, all changes are unwelcome, and stability is the main goal of science.

This viewpoint brings up the second major misconception, which treats science as “close-minded” or unable to consider alternative explanations and hypotheses that disrupt the existing order. From this stance, science is often considered inferior to other, more “open-minded” approaches. This argument is commonly found among researchers of phenomena that allegedly cannot be explained in the light of currently available knowledge; they argue that accepting an alternative explanation would resolve the problem and provide useful data, but this outcome does not occur due to the active resistance of conservative scientists.

For instance, it is commonplace to find an online discussion of alien visitation or telepathy wherein one of the sides points to the lack of testable evidence, only to have the other side make accusations about the inability to be open-minded enough to consider something beyond the usual.

At this juncture, it is important to point out that the allegations under consideration are not entirely unsubstantiated. Science is conducted by people, and the human factor inevitably introduces an element of unreliability. It is natural for humans to lean in the direction of a preferred conclusion. To account for this flaw, people develop systems that minimize uncertainty and maximize reliability. Counterintuitively, the most perfected of those that are currently available are treated as an unfortunate barrier to ultimate knowledge.

In order to attain the core of the concept of science, it would be reasonable to identify its principal components. The first is the ability to approach the subject critically and without preconceived notions. Essentially, this is the quality of open-mindedness that science is often accused of lacking. The reason for such a discrepancy is the human factor mentioned earlier. All individuals tend to prefer answers that correlate with their existing beliefs and values, dismissing those that conflict with their already established notions.

In other words, an open-minded process requires its proponents to abandon all wrong assumptions, including those that may be less favorable, convenient, and exciting. To ensure this kind of integrity, science offers a range of strategies and tools that eliminate both conscious and subconscious misconduct. It should also be evident that such open-mindedness is expected to exclude emotion and intuition and rely only on evidence in the process of making inquiries.

The second component involves a falsifiable hypothesis. This component is best illustrated with an example known as the sharpshooter fallacy. If an individual decides to test his or her shooting skills, the most intuitive approach is to shoot at targets and observe the result. In an alternative scenario, it is also possible to hit an object and then claim that this was the intended target or, in a more glaring example, hit a wall with a projectile and paint a circle around the impact point, claiming that the bullet has hit the exact spot identified as a target by a shooter although unknown to the audience.

Certainly, in this case, there remains the possibility that this might be an accurate representation of happenings. However, the allegation cannot be proven unless the targets are set before the shooting takes place. A less apparent but far more common example would be the approach used by investigators of paranormal phenomena such as ghosts. Commonly, the researchers collect data without formulating their goals (shooting the wall) and, after selecting the findings that seem the most convincing—and discarding those that do not, announce their success (drawing a circle around the mark). Thus, their inquiry becomes unfalsifiable and cannot be disproven using the scientific method.

As can be seen from the information presented, the fundamental goal of science is to initiate and sustain the ongoing quest for knowledge. Since the process is known to be prone to errors, the scientific method acknowledges factors that compromise the relevance of any inquiry and constantly updates the instruments that allow researchers to avoid biases and arrive at valid conclusions. It is important to note that while it may seem that these instruments are only relevant in the academic arena, they can actually be applied in a variety of real-life scenarios. The easiest example of such use is the application of critical thinking skills to problems encountered on a daily basis. In addition to an apparent usefulness in a professional domain, a critical approach may be applicable in a variety of situations.

For example, maintaining a critical mindset toward news presented in the media can be helpful in avoiding misinformation and differentiating between speculation, assumptions, responsible reporting, misinterpreted information, and deliberate fraud. By the same token, individual well-being in highly developed societies depends to some extent on the ability to recognize fraudulent claims in communication. Simply put, when clearly understood and appropriately applied, the scientific approach is useful in practical terms both for the individual who uses it and society in general. In addition, contrary to popular belief, science does promote open-mindedness since it allows focusing on significant information and accounts for possible biases that may undermine the value of results.

The concept of science is grossly misinterpreted in the popular perception, possibly due to the lack of an understanding of its fundamentals. It is also apparent that despite a widespread opposite belief, the essential components of science align well with the idea of open-mindedness. Thus, once misconceptions are identified and addressed, it is possible to anticipate a rise in the credibility of the concept and its increasing adoption in a real-life setting.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, October 27). The Concept of Science: Definition and Components. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-science-definition-and-components/

"The Concept of Science: Definition and Components." IvyPanda , 27 Oct. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-science-definition-and-components/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Concept of Science: Definition and Components'. 27 October.

IvyPanda . 2020. "The Concept of Science: Definition and Components." October 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-science-definition-and-components/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Concept of Science: Definition and Components." October 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-science-definition-and-components/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Concept of Science: Definition and Components." October 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-science-definition-and-components/.

The Existence of the Paranormal
Paranormal Phenomenon: Is It Real?
Physics. Scientific Evaluation of Paranormal Effects
Objective Look at the Paranormal and Ghosts
Can you study paranormal scientifically?
Parapsychology - Science or Pseudoscience?
A deeper Look into Demons
The Fundamental Traits of a Philosopher
American and European Social Broad Mindedness
Al Habtoor Motors: Internship Experience
Research Sampling: Analysis and Design
The Aspects of Loss Realization: Theory and Evidence
The Basics and Methods of Social Research
Group Knowledge Sharing in Technology Management
“Is Scientific Progress Inevitable?” by Irvine

What is Science?

Presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City, and reprinted from The Physics Teacher Vol. 7, issue 6, 1969, pp. 313-320 by permission of the editor and the author. [Words and symbols in brackets added by Ralph Leighton.]

I thank Mr. DeRose for the opportunity to join you science teachers. I also am a science teacher. I have much experience only in teaching graduate students in physics, and as a result of the experience I know that I don’t know how to teach.

I am sure that you who are real teachers working at the bottom level of this hierarchy of teachers, instructors of teachers, experts on curricula, also are sure that you, too, don’t know how to do it; otherwise you wouldn’t bother to come to the convention.

The subject “What Is Science” is not my choice. It was Mr. DeRose’s subject. But I would like to say that I think that “what is science” is not at all equivalent to “how to teach science,” and I must call that to your attention for two reasons. In the first place, from the way that I am preparing to give this lecture, it may seem that I am trying to tell you how to teach science–I am not at all in any way, because I don’t know anything about small children. I have one, so I know that I don’t know. The other is I think that most of you (because there is so much talk and so many papers and so many experts in the field) have some kind of a feeling of lack of self-confidence. In some way you are always being lectured on how things are not going too well and how you should learn to teach better. I am not going to berate you for the bad work you are doing and indicate how it can definitely be improved; that is not my intention.

As a matter of fact, we have very good students coming into Caltech, and during the years we found them getting better and better. Now how it is done, I don’t know. I wonder if you know. I don’t want to interfere with the system; it is very good.

Only two days ago we had a conference in which we decided that we don’t have to teach a course in elementary quantum mechanics in the graduate school any more. When I was a student, they didn’t even have a course in quantum mechanics in the graduate school; it was considered too difficult a subject. When I first started to teach, we had one. Now we teach it to undergraduates. We discover now that we don’t have to have elementary quantum mechanics for graduates from other schools. Why is it getting pushed down? Because we are able to teach better in the university, and that is because the students coming up are better trained.

What is science? Of course you all must know, if you teach it. That’s common sense. What can I say? If you don’t know, every teacher’s edition of every textbook gives a complete discussion of the subject. There is some kind of distorted distillation and watered-down and mixed-up words of Francis Bacon from some centuries ago, words which then were supposed to be the deep philosophy of science. But one of the greatest experimental scientists of the time who was really doing something, William Harvey, said that what Bacon said science was, was the science that a lord-chancellor would do. He [Bacon] spoke of making observations, but omitted the vital factor of judgment about what to observe and what to pay attention to.

And so what science is, is not what the philosophers have said it is, and certainly not what the teacher editions say it is. What it is, is a problem which I set for myself after I said I would give this talk.

After some time, I was reminded of a little poem:

A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun Said, “Pray, which leg comes after which?” This raised his doubts to such a pitch He fell distracted in the ditch Not knowing how to run.

All my life, I have been doing science and known what it was, but what I have come to tell you–which foot comes after which–I am unable to do, and furthermore, I am worried by the analogy in the poem that when I go home I will no longer be able to do any research.

There have been a lot of attempts by the various press reporters to get some kind of a capsule of this talk; I prepared it only a little time ago, so it was impossible; but I can see them all rushing out now to write some sort of headline which says: “The Professor called the President of NSTA a toad.”

Under these circumstances of the difficulty of the subject, and my dislike of philosophical exposition, I will present it in a very unusual way. I am just going to tell you how I learned what science is.

That’s a little bit childish. I learned it as a child. I have had it in my blood from the beginning. And I would like to tell you how it got in. This sounds as though I am trying to tell you how to teach, but that is not my intention. I’m going to tell you what science is like by how I learned what science is like.

My father did it to me. When my mother was carrying me, it is reported–I am not directly aware of the conversation–my father said that “if it’s a boy, he’ll be a scientist.” How did he do it? He never told me I should be a scientist. He was not a scientist; he was a businessman, a sales manager of a uniform company, but he read about science and loved it.

When I was very young–the earliest story I know–when I still ate in a high chair, my father would play a game with me after dinner.

He had brought a whole lot of old rectangular bathroom floor tiles from some place in Long Island City. We sat them up on end, one next to the other, and I was allowed to push the end one and watch the whole thing go down. So far, so good.

Next, the game improved. The tiles were different colors. I must put one white, two blues, one white, two blues, and another white and then two blues–I may want to put another blue, but it must be a white. You recognize already the usual insidious cleverness; first delight him in play, and then slowly inject material of educational value.

Well, my mother, who is a much more feeling woman, began to realize the insidiousness of his efforts and said, “Mel, please let the poor child put a blue tile if he wants to.” My father said, “No, I want him to pay attention to patterns. It is the only thing I can do that is mathematics at this earliest level.” If I were giving a talk on “what is mathematics,” I would already have answered you. Mathematics is looking for patterns. (The fact is that this education had some effect. We had a direct experimental test, at the time I got to kindergarten. We had weaving in those days. They’ve taken it out; it’s too difficult for children. We used to weave colored paper through vertical strips and make patterns. The kindergarten teacher was so amazed that she sent a special letter home to report that this child was very unusual, because he seemed to be able to figure out ahead of time what pattern he was going to get, and made amazingly intricate patterns. So the tile game did do something to me.)

I would like to report other evidence that mathematics is only patterns. When I was at Cornell, I was rather fascinated by the student body, which seems to me was a dilute mixture of some sensible people in a big mass of dumb people studying home economics, etc. including lots of girls. I used to sit in the cafeteria with the students and eat and try to overhear their conversations and see if there was one intelligent word coming out. You can imagine my surprise when I discovered a tremendous thing, it seemed to me.

I listened to a conversation between two girls, and one was explaining that if you want to make a straight line, you see, you go over a certain number to the right for each row you go up–that is, if you go over each time the same amount when you go up a row, you make a straight line–a deep principle of analytic geometry! It went on. I was rather amazed. I didn’t realize the female mind was capable of understanding analytic geometry.

She went on and said, “Suppose you have another line coming in from the other side, and you want to figure out where they are going to intersect. Suppose on one line you go over two to the right for every one you go up, and the other line goes over three to the right for every one that it goes up, and they start twenty steps apart,” etc.–I was flabbergasted. She figured out where the intersection was. It turned out that one girl was explaining to the other how to knit argyle socks. I, therefore, did learn a lesson: The female mind is capable of understanding analytic geometry. Those people who have for years been insisting (in the face of all obvious evidence to the contrary) that the male and female are equally capable of rational thought may have something. The difficulty may just be that we have never yet discovered a way to communicate with the female mind. If it is done in the right way, you may be able to get something out of it.

Now I will go on with my own experience as a youngster in mathematics. Another thing that my father told me–and I can’t quite explain it, because it “was more an emotion than a telling–was that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of all circles was always the same, no matter what the size. That didn’t seem to me too unobvious, but the ratio had some marvelous property. That was a wonderful number, a deep number, pi. There was a mystery about this number that I didn’t quite understand as a youth, but this was a great thing, and the result was that I looked for pi everywhere.

When I was learning later in school how to make the decimals for fractions, and how to make 3 1/8, 1 wrote 3.125 and, thinking I recognized a friend, wrote that it equals pi, the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle. The teacher corrected it to 3.1416.

I illustrate these things to show an influence. The idea that there is a mystery, that there is a wonder about the number was important to me–not what the number was. Very much later, when I was doing experiments in the laboratory–I mean my own home laboratory, fiddling around–no, excuse me, I didn’t do experiments, I never did; I just fiddled around. Gradually, through books and manuals, I began to discover there were formulas applicable to electricity in relating the current and resistance, and so on. One day, looking at the formulas in some book or other, I discovered a formula for the frequency of a resonant circuit. There was a mystery about this number that I didn’t understand as a youth, but this was a great thing, and the result as that I looked for pi everywhere.

[?Something missing here] which was f = 1/2 pi LC, where L is the inductance and C the capacitance of the circle? You laugh, but I was very serious then. Pi was a thing with circles, and here is pi coming out of an electric circuit. Where was the circle? Do those of you who laughed know how that comes about?

I have to love the thing. I have to look for it. I have to think about it. And then I realized, of course, that the coils are made in circles. About a half year later, I found another book which gave the inductance of round coils and square coils, and there were other pi’s in those formulas. I began to think about it again, and I realized that the pi did not come from the circular coils. I understand it better now; but in my heart I still don’t know where that circle is, where that pi comes from.

When I was still pretty young–I don’t know how old exactly–I had a ball in a wagon I was pulling, and I noticed something, so I ran up to my father to say that “When I pull the wagon, the ball runs to the back, and when I am running with the wagon and stop, the ball runs to the front. Why?”

How would you answer?

He said, “That, nobody knows.” He said, “It’s very general, though, it happens all the time to anything; anything that is moving tends to keep moving; anything standing still tries to maintain that condition. If you look close you will see the ball does not run to the back of the wagon where you start from standing still. It moves forward a bit too, but not as fast as the wagon. The back of the wagon catches up with the ball, which has trouble getting started moving. It’s called inertia, that principle.” I did run back to check, and sure enough, the ball didn’t go backwards. He put the difference between what we know and what we call it very distinctly.

Regarding this business about names and words, I would tell you another story. ‘We used to go up to the Catskill Mountains for vacations. In New York, you go the Catskill Mountains for vacations. The poor husbands had to go to work during the week, but they would come rushing out for weekends and stay with their families. On the weekends, my father would take me for walks in the woods. He often took me for walks, and we learned all about nature, and so an, in the process. But the other children, friends of mine also wanted to go, and tried to get my father to take them. He didn’t want to, because he said I was more advanced. I’m not trying to tell you how to teach, because what my father was doing was with a class of just one student; if he had a class of more than one, he was incapable of doing it.

So we went alone for our walk in the woods. But mothers were very powerful in those day’s as they are now, and they convinced the other fathers that they had to take their own sons out for walks in the woods. So all fathers took all sons out for walks in the woods one Sunday afternoon. The next day, Monday, we were playing in the fields and this boy said to me, “See that bird standing on the stump there? What’s the name of it?”

I said, “I haven’t got the slightest idea.”

He said, ‘It’s a brown-throated thrush. Your father doesn’t teach you much about science.”

I smiled to myself, because my father had already taught me that [the name] doesn’t tell me anything about the bird. He taught me “See that bird? It’s a brown-throated thrush, but in Germany it’s called a halsenflugel, and in Chinese they call it a chung ling and even if you know all those names for it, you still know nothing about the bird–you only know something about people; what they call that bird. Now that thrush sings, and teaches its young to fly, and flies so many miles away during the summer across the country, and nobody knows how it finds its way,” and so forth. There is a difference between the name of the thing and what goes on.

The result of this is that I cannot remember anybody’s name, and when people discuss physics with me they often are exasperated when they say “the Fitz-Cronin effect,” and I ask “What is the effect?” and I can’t remember the name.

I would like to say a word or two–may I interrupt my little tale–about words and definitions, because it is necessary to learn the words.

It is not science. That doesn’t mean, just because it is not science, that we don’t have to teach the words. We are not talking about what to teach; we are talking about what science is. It is not science to know how to change Centigrade to Fahrenheit. It’s necessary, but it is not exactly science. In the same sense, if you were discussing what art is, you wouldn’t say art is the knowledge of the fact that a 3-B pencil is softer than a 2-H pencil. It’s a distinct difference. That doesn’t mean an art teacher shouldn’t teach that, or that an artist gets along very well if he doesn’t know that. (Actually, you can find out in a minute by trying it; but that’s a scientific way that art teachers may not think of explaining.)

In order to talk to each other, we have to have words, and that’s all right. It’s a good idea to try to see the difference, and it’s a good idea to know when we are teaching the tools of science, such as words, and when we are teaching science itself.

To make my point still clearer, I shall pick out a certain science book to criticize unfavorably, which is unfair, because I am sure that with little ingenuity, I can find equally unfavorable things to say about others. There is a first grade science book which, in the first lesson of the first grade, begins in an unfortunate manner to teach science, because it starts off an the wrong idea of what science is. There is a picture of a dog–a windable toy dog–and a hand comes to the winder, and then the dog is able to move. Under the last picture, it says “What makes it move?” Later on, there is a picture of a real dog and the question, “What makes it move?” Then there is a picture of a motorbike and the question, “What makes it move?” and so on.

I thought at first they were getting ready to tell what science was going to be about–physics, biology, chemistry–but that wasn’t it. The answer was in the teacher’s edition of the book: the answer I was trying to learn is that “energy makes it move.”

Now, energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get right. What I meant is that it is not easy to understand energy well enough to use it right, so that you can deduce something correctly using the energy idea–it is beyond the first grade. It would be equally well to say that “God makes it move,” or “spirit makes it move,” or “movability makes it move.” (In fact, one could equally well say “energy makes it stop.”)

Look at it this way: that’s only the definition of energy; it should be reversed. We might say when something can move that it has energy in it, but not what makes it move is energy. This is a very subtle difference. It’s the same with this inertia proposition.

Perhaps I can make the difference a little clearer this way: If you ask a child what makes the toy dog move, you should think about what an ordinary human being would answer. The answer is that you wound up the spring; it tries to unwind and pushes the gear around.

What a good way to begin a science course! Take apart the toy; see how it works. See the cleverness of the gears; see the ratchets. Learn something about the toy, the way the toy is put together, the ingenuity of people devising the ratchets and other things. That’s good. The question is fine. The answer is a little unfortunate, because what they were trying to do is teach a definition of what is energy. But nothing whatever is learned.

Suppose a student would say, “I don’t think energy makes it move.” Where does the discussion go from there?

I finally figured out a way to test whether you have taught an idea or you have only taught a definition.

Test it this way: you say, “Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language.” Without using the word “energy,” tell me what you know now about the dog’s motion.” You cannot. So you learned nothing about science. That may be all right. You may not want to learn something about science right away. You have to learn definitions. But for the very first lesson, is that not possibly destructive?

I think for lesson number one, to learn a mystic formula for answering questions is very bad. The book has some others: “gravity makes it fall;” “the soles of your shoes wear out because of friction.” Shoe leather wears out because it rubs against the sidewalk and the little notches and bumps on the sidewalk grab pieces and pull them off. To simply say it is because of friction, is sad, because it’s not science.

My father dealt a little bit with energy and used the term after I got a little bit of the idea about it. What he would have done I know, because he did in fact essentially the same thing–though not the same example of the toy dog. He would say, “It moves because the sun is shining,” if he wanted to give the same lesson.

I would say, “No. What has that to do with the sun shining? It moved because I wound up the springs.”

“And why, my friend, are you able to move to wind up the spring?”

“I eat.”

“What, my friend, do you eat?”

“I eat plants.”

“And how do they grow?”

“They grow because the sun is shining.”

And it is the same with the [real] dog.

What about gasoline? Accumulated energy of the sun, which is captured by plants and preserved in the ground. Other examples all end with the sun. And so the same idea about the world that our textbook is driving at is phrased in a very exciting way.

All the things that we see that are moving, are moving because the sun is shining. It does explain the relationship of one source of energy to another, and it can be denied by the child. He could say, “I don’t think it is on account of the sun shining,” and you can start a discussion. So there is a difference. (Later I could challenge him with the tides, and what makes the earth turn, and have my hand on mystery again.)

That is just an example of the difference between definitions (which are necessary) and science. The only objection in this particular case was that it was the first lesson. It must certainly come in later, telling you what energy is, but not to such a simple question as “What makes a [toy] dog move?” A child should be given a child’s answer. “Open it up; let’s look at it.”

During those walks in the woods, I learned a great deal. In the case of birds, for example, I already mentioned migration, but I will give you another example of birds in the woods. Instead of naming them, my father would say, “Look, notice that the bird is always pecking in its feathers. It pecks a lot in its feathers. Why do you think it pecks the feathers?”

I guessed it’s because the feathers are ruffled, and he’s trying to straighten them out. He said, “Okay, when would the feathers get ruffled, or how would they get ruffled?”

“When he flies. When he walks around, it’s okay; but when he flies it ruffles the feathers.”

Then he would say, “You would guess then when the bird just landed he would have to peck more at his feathers than after he has straightened them out and has just been walking around the ground for a while. Okay, let’s look.”

So we would look, and we would watch, and it turned out, as far as I could make out, that the bird pecked about as much and as often no matter how long he was walking an the ground and not just directly after flight.

So my guess was wrong, and I couldn’t guess the right reason. My father revealed the reason.

It is that the birds have lice. There is a little flake that comes off the feather, my father taught me, stuff that can be eaten, and the louse eats it. And then an the loose, there is a little bit of wax in the joints between the sections of the leg that oases out, and there is a mite that lives in there that can eat that wax. Now the mite has such a good source of food that it doesn’t digest it too well, so from the rear end there comes a liquid that has too much sugar, and in that sugar lives a tiny creature, etc.

The facts are not correct; the spirit is correct. First, I learned about parasitism, one on the other, on the other, on the other. Second, he went on to say that in the world whenever there is any source of something that could be eaten to make life go, some form of life finds a way to make use of that source; and that each little bit of left over stuff is eaten by something.

Now the point of this is that the result of observation, even if I were unable to come to the ultimate conclusion, was a wonderful piece of gold, with marvelous results. It was something marvelous.

Suppose I were told to observe, to make a list, to write down, to do this, to look, and when I wrote my list down, it was filed with 130 other lists in the back of a notebook. I would learn that the result of observation is relatively dull, that nothing much comes of it.

I think it is very important–at least it was to me–that if you are going to teach people to make observations, you should show that something wonderful can come from them. I learned then what science was about: it was patience. If you looked, and you watched, and you paid attention, you got a great reward from it–although possibly not every time. As a result, when I became a more mature man, I would painstakingly, hour after hour, for years, work on problems–sometimes many years, sometimes shorter times; many of them failing, lots of stuff going into the wastebasket–but every once in a while there was the gold of a new understanding that I had learned to expect when I was a kid, the result of observation. For I did not learn that observation was not worthwhile.

Incidentally, in the forest we learned other things. We would go for walks and see all the regular things, and talk about many things: about the growing plants, the struggle of the trees for light, how they try to get as high as they can, and to solve the problem of getting water higher than 35 or 40 feet, the little plants on the ground that look for the little bits of light that come through all that growth, and so forth.

One day, after we had seen all this, my father took me to the forest again and said, “In all this time we have been looking at the forest we have only seen half of what is going on, exactly half.”

I said, “What do you mean?”

He said, “We have been looking at how all these things grow; but for each bit of growth, there must be the same amount of decay–otherwise, the materials would be consumed forever: dead trees would lie there, having used up all the stuff from the air and the ground, and it wouldn’t get back into the ground or the air, so nothing else could grow because there is no material available. There must be for each bit of growth exactly the same amount of decay.”

There then followed many walks in the woods during which we broke up old stumps, saw frizzy bags and funguses growing; he couldn’t show me bacteria, but we saw the softening effects, and so on. [Thus] I saw the forest as a process of the constant turning of materials.

There were many such things, descriptions of things, in odd ways. He often started to talk about things like this: “Suppose a man from Mars were to come down and look at the world.” For example, when I was playing with my electric trains, he told me that there is a great wheel being turned by water which is connected by filaments of copper, which spread out and spread out and spread out in all directions; and then there are little wheels, and all those little wheels turn when the big wheel turns. The relation between them is only that there is copper and iron, nothing else–no moving parts. You turn one wheel here, and all the little wheels all over the place turn, and your train is one of them. It was a wonderful world my father told me about.

You might wonder what he got out of it all. I went to MIT. I went to Princeton. I came home, and he said, “Now you’ve got a science education. I have always wanted to know something that I have never understood, and so, my son, I want you to explain it to me.”

I said yes.

He said, “I understand that they say that light is emitted from an atom when it goes from one state to another, from an excited state to a state of lower energy.

I said, “That’s right.”

“And light is a kind of particle, a photon, I think they call it.”

“Yes.”

“So if the photon comes out of the atom when it goes from the excited to the lower state, the photon must have been in the atom in the excited state.”

I said, “Well, no.”

He said, “Well, how do you look at it so you can think of a particle photon coming out without it having been in there in the excited state?”

I thought a few minutes, and I said, “I’m sorry; I don’t know. I can’t explain it to you.”

He was very disappointed after all these years and years of trying to teach me something, that it came out with such poor results.

What science is, I think, may be something like this: There was on this planet an evolution of life to a stage that there were evolved animals, which are intelligent. I don’t mean just human beings, but animals which play and which can learn something from experience–like cats. But at this stage each animal would have to learn from its own experience. They gradually develop, until some animal [primates?] could learn from experience more rapidly and could even learn from another’s experience by watching, or one could show the other, or he saw what the other one did. So there came a possibility that all might learn it, but the transmission was inefficient and they would die, and maybe the one who learned it died, too, before he could pass it on to others.

The question is: is it possible to learn more rapidly what somebody learned from some accident than the rate at which the thing is being forgotten, either because of bad memory or because of the death of the learner or inventors?

So there came a time, perhaps, when for some species [humans?] the rate at which learning was increased, reached such a pitch that suddenly a completely new thing happened: things could be learned by one individual animal, passed on to another, and another fast enough that it was not lost to the race. Thus became possible an accumulation of knowledge of the race.

This has been called time-binding. I don’t know who first called it this. At any rate, we have here [in this hall] some samples of those animals, sitting here trying to bind one experience to another, each one trying to learn from the other.

This phenomenon of having a memory for the race, of having an accumulated knowledge passable from one generation to another, was new in the world–but it had a disease in it: it was possible to pass on ideas which were not profitable for the race. The race has ideas, but they are not necessarily profitable.

So there came a time in which the ideas, although accumulated very slowly, were all accumulations not only of practical and useful things, but great accumulations of all types of prejudices, and strange and odd beliefs.

Then a way of avoiding the disease was discovered. This is to doubt that what is being passed from the past is in fact true, and to try to find out ab initio again from experience what the situation is, rather than trusting the experience of the past in the form in which it is passed down. And that is what science is: the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race[‘s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best definition.

I would like to remind you all of things that you know very well in order to give you a little enthusiasm. In religion, the moral lessons are taught, but they are not just taught once, you are inspired again and again, and I think it is necessary to inspire again and again, and to remember the value of science for children, for grown-ups, and everybody else, in several ways; not only [so] that we will become better citizens, more able to control nature and so on.

There are other things.

There is the value of the worldview created by science. There is the beauty and the wonder of the world that is discovered through the results of these new experiences. That is to say, the wonders of the content which I just reminded you of; that things move because the sun is shining. (Yet, not everything moves because the sun is shining. The earth rotates independent of the sun shining, and the nuclear reaction recently produced energy on the earth, a new source. Probably volcanoes are generally moved from a source different from the shining sun.)

The world looks so different after learning science. For example, trees are made of air, primarily. When they are burned, they go back to air, and in the flaming heat is released the flaming heat of the sun which was bound in to convert the air into tree, and in the ash is the small remnant of the part which did not come from air that came from the solid earth, instead. These are beautiful things, and the content of science is wonderfully full of them. They are very inspiring, and they can be used to inspire others.

Another of the qualities of science is that it teaches the value of rational thought as well as the importance of freedom of thought; the positive results that come from doubting that the lessons are all true. You must here distinguish–especially in teaching–the science from the forms or procedures that are sometimes used in developing science. It is easy to say, “We write, experiment, and observe, and do this or that.” You can copy that form exactly. But great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science. In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers.

We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on, but these do not thereby become established science, established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science analogous to the South Sea Islanders’ airfields–radio towers, etc., made out of wood. The islanders expect a great airplane to arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as they see in the foreigners’ airfields around them, but strangely enough, their wood planes do not fly. The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. [But] you teachers, who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, can maybe doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

When someone says, “Science teaches such and such,” he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such,” you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?”

It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown.” And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

In a field which is so complicated [as education] that true science is not yet able to get anywhere, we have to rely on a kind of old-fashioned wisdom, a kind of definite straightforwardness. I am trying to inspire the teacher at the bottom to have some hope and some self-confidence in common sense and natural intelligence. The experts who are leading you may be wrong.

I have probably ruined the system, and the students that are coming into Caltech no longer will be any good. I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television–words, books, and so on–are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.

Finally, with regard to this time-binding, a man cannot live beyond the grave. Each generation that discovers something from its experience must pass that on, but it must pass that on with a delicate balance of respect and disrespect, so that the [human] race–now that it is aware of the disease to which it is liable–does not inflict its errors too rigidly on its youth, but it does pass on the accumulated wisdom, plus the wisdom that it may not be wisdom.

It is necessary to teach both to accept and to reject the past with a kind of balance that takes considerable skill. Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.

So carry on. Thank you.

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

School Education /

Essay on Science: Sample for Students in 100,200 Words

Updated on
Oct 28, 2023

Science, the relentless pursuit of knowledge and understanding, has ignited the flames of human progress for centuries. It’s a beacon guiding us through the uncharted realms of the universe, unlocking secrets that shape our world. In this blog, we embark on an exhilarating journey through the wonders of science. We’ll explore the essence of science and its profound impact on our lives. With this we will also provide you with sample essay on science in 100 and 200 words.

Must Read: Essay On Internet

What Is Science?

Science is a systematic pursuit of knowledge about the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It aims to understand the underlying principles governing the universe, from the smallest particles to the vast cosmos. Science plays a crucial role in advancing technology, improving our understanding of life and the environment, and driving innovation for a better future.

Branches Of Science

The major branches of science can be categorized into the following:

Physical Science: This includes physics and chemistry, which study the fundamental properties of matter and energy.
Biological Science : Also known as life sciences, it encompasses biology, genetics, and ecology, focusing on living organisms and their interactions.
Earth Science: Geology, meteorology, and oceanography fall under this category, investigating the Earth’s processes, climate, and natural resources.
Astronomy : The study of celestial objects, space, and the universe, including astrophysics and cosmology.
Environmental Science : Concentrating on environmental issues, it combines aspects of biology, chemistry, and Earth science to address concerns like climate change and conservation.
Social Sciences : This diverse field covers anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics, examining human behavior, society, and culture.
Computer Science : Focused on algorithms, data structures, and computing technology, it drives advancements in information technology.
Mathematics : A foundational discipline, it underpins all sciences, providing the language and tools for scientific analysis and modeling.

Wonders Of Science

Science has numerous applications that profoundly impact our lives and society: Major applications of science are stated below:

Medicine: Scientific research leads to the development of vaccines, medicines, and medical technologies, improving healthcare and saving lives.
Technology: Science drives technological innovations, from smartphones to space exploration.
Energy: Advances in physics and chemistry enable the development of renewable energy sources, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
Agriculture: Biology and genetics improve crop yields, while chemistry produces fertilizers and pesticides.
Environmental Conservation : Scientific understanding informs efforts to protect ecosystems and combat climate change.
Transportation : Physics and engineering create efficient and sustainable transportation systems.
Communication : Physics and computer science underpin global communication networks.
Space Exploration : Astronomy and physics facilitate space missions, expanding our understanding of the cosmos.

Must Read: Essay On Scientific Discoveries

Sample Essay On Science in 100 words

Science, the bedrock of human progress, unveils the mysteries of our universe through empirical investigation and reason. Its profound impact permeates every facet of modern life. In medicine, it saves countless lives with breakthroughs in treatments and vaccines. Technology, a child of science, empowers communication and innovation. Agriculture evolves with scientific methods, ensuring food security. Environmental science guides conservation efforts, preserving our planet. Space exploration fuels dreams of interstellar travel.

Yet, science requires responsibility, as unchecked advancement can harm nature and society. Ethical dilemmas arise, necessitating careful consideration. Science, a double-edged sword, holds the potential for both salvation and destruction, making it imperative to harness its power wisely for the betterment of humanity.

Sample Essay On Science in 250 words

Science, often regarded as humanity’s greatest intellectual endeavor, plays an indispensable role in shaping our world and advancing our civilization.

At its core, science is a methodical pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. Through systematic observation, experimentation, and analysis, it seeks to uncover the underlying principles that govern our universe. This process has yielded profound insights into the workings of the cosmos, from the subatomic realm to the vastness of space.

One of the most remarkable contributions of science is to the field of medicine. Through relentless research and experimentation, scientists have discovered vaccines, antibiotics, and groundbreaking treatments for diseases that once claimed countless lives.

Furthermore, science has driven technological advancements that have reshaped society. The rapid progress in computing, for instance, has revolutionized communication, industry, and research. From the ubiquitous smartphones in our pockets to the complex algorithms that power our digital lives, science, and technology are inseparable partners in progress.

Environmental conservation is another critical arena where science is a guiding light. Climate change, a global challenge, is addressed through rigorous scientific study and the development of sustainable practices. Science empowers us to understand the impact of human activities on our planet and to make informed decisions to protect it.

In conclusion, science is not just a field of study; it is a driving force behind human progress. As we continue to explore the frontiers of knowledge, science will remain the beacon guiding us toward a brighter future.

Science is a boon due to innovations, medical advancements, and a deeper understanding of nature, improving human lives exponentially.

Galileo Galilei is known as the Father of Science.

Science can’t address questions about personal beliefs, emotions, ethics, or matters of subjective experience beyond empirical observation and measurement.

We hope this blog gave you an idea about how to write and present an essay on science that puts forth your opinions. The skill of writing an essay comes in handy when appearing for standardized language tests. Thinking of taking one soon? Leverage Edu provides the best online test prep for the same via Leverage Live . Register today to know more!

Amisha Khushara

With a heart full of passion for writing, I pour my emotions into every piece I create. I strive to connect with readers on a personal level, infusing my work with authenticity and relatability. Writing isn't just a skill; it's my heartfelt expression to touch hearts and minds.

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Science Essay

Essay About Science And Technology

Essay About Science and Technology| Tips & Examples

What is a Science and Technology Essay?

Before you learn about writing an essay about science and technology, you should understand what these terms mean.

Here are simple definitions of science and technology:

Science is a systematic study that helps us understand the natural world. Meanwhile, technology is the practical application of science that helps make our life easy.

Moreover, science and technology play an important role in people’s lives and human development. That is why you have to write an essay about it.

So, what is a science and technology essay?

It is a science essay that explores scientific and technological advancements and their effects on various aspects of life.

It can cover topics such as advancements in medicine, communication, IT, transportation, and more.

A science and technology essay aims to inform readers about the developments in technology and to discuss its implications.

Read on to learn how to produce a great science and technology essay step-by-step.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's Our Job

Science and Technology Essay Examples

Reading sample essays is a good way to get ideas and improve your writing skills.

Here are a few science and technology essay examples that you can use for inspiration.

Essay on Science and Technology for High School Students

Essay on Science and Technology for College Students

Essay on Science and Technology for University Students

Essay About Science and Technology Innovation - Example PDF

Essay About Science and Technology for Sustainable Future

Argumentative Example Essay About Science And Technology

Example Essay About Science And Technology

Essay on Science and Technology in 1000 words

Short Essay on Science and Technology

A short essay, typically consisting of around 300 words, offers a concise yet insightful exploration of a specific topic.

Let’s take a look at one:

How To Write a Science and Technology Essay?

Writing a science and technology essay can be challenging, but it doesn't have to be.

Here are the steps you need to take to write a successful essay:

Choose a Topic

The first step is to choose a relevant and interesting topic for your essay. Any topic or idea that catches your interest is good to go.

You should also make sure that enough information is available on the topic. Moreover, you should be confident that you can present the information efficiently within the scope of your essay.

Continue reading the blog to find a list of essay topics you can choose!

Do Your Research

After you've chosen a topic, it's time to do your research.

Science and technology are constantly growing, with new developments every day. So, read up on the latest developments in your chosen field.

This will help you provide an up-to-date and accurate analysis of your essay. It will also help you make your essay more credible and effective.

Write a Thesis Statement

You should be able to create a thesis statement after you’ve done your research.

A thesis statement defines your main argument and usually comes at the end of the introduction paragraph.

But you have to think of your main argument before you set out to write the essay because it sets the direction of your essay. So make sure it is as clear and specific as possible.

Outline Your Essay

Once you have a clear thesis statement, it's time to make an outline of your essay .

An essay outline should include the main points you want to discuss and the sub-points under each of these main topics.

This will help you organize your thoughts and structure your argument in a logical way.

Making an outline is the final step in the pre-writing preparation stage. Once you’ve done that, it's time to start writing your first draft.

Write the Introduction

The introduction is the first part of your essay. It should catch the readers' interest and lead them to your main argument.

You should start with an attention-grabbing statement or a quote related to your topic. Then, you can provide some context and explain why the topic is important. Finally, end the introduction with your thesis statement.

For a five-paragraph essay, your introduction should be about 150 words to 200 words at maximum.

Write the Main Body

After the introduction, move on to the body paragraphs.

Follow the outline you made and write the body paragraphs. Each paragraph should be focused on a single point determined in the topic sentence.

Make sure to include evidence from reliable sources to support your arguments.

In addition, make sure to connect your paragraphs by adding transitions between them and showing how they relate to the main thesis.

Write The Conclusion

Finally, write a strong conclusion that summarizes your main points and argument. Your conclusion should leave readers with a clear understanding of the topic.

Moreover, it should also reinforce your thesis statement. Your conclusion should leave your readers with a sense of closure.

Want to learn more about how to write a conclusion? Here is a detailed blog that shows how you can write the best essay conclusion .

Edit Your Draft

The last step before submitting your essay is to edit and proofread it carefully.

Check for any spelling or grammar mistakes and inconsistencies in facts or arguments. Also, make sure all the references are correctly cited. You can hire our professional science essay writer to edit your draft if you don’t have enough time.

Let's read some good science and technology essays to see these steps in action!

Science and Technology Essay Topics

Now that you have an idea of how to write a science and technology essay, here are some topics you can use to get started:

The Role of Nuclear Energy in the Modern World: Advantages, Challenges, and Future Prospects.
How Space Technology is Revolutionizing our Day-to-Day Lives.
Science and Technology in Developing Countries: Bridging the Gap for Improved Quality of Life.
The Synergy of Science and Technology: Enhancing the Quality of Life in the Modern World.
Nuclear Energy: A Sustainable Power Source for the Future?
From Lab to Life: Practical Applications of Science for Daily Living.
Space Technology Advancements: Impact on Daily Life and the Future.
Science and Technology: Catalysts for Improving the Quality of Life Globally.
Nuclear Energy and Sustainable Development in Developing Nations.
The Partnership of Science and Technology: Transforming the Modern World for the Better.

If you need more general topics about science, visit our blog about science essay topics . You can find 150+ interesting science topics and get tips on how to choose a topic for your essay.

Science and Technology Essay Writing Tips

When writing your essay, here are some tips to keep in mind:

Provide specific examples

You should provide appropriate evidence and examples to support your points whenever possible. This will make your argument more compelling.

Stay on topic

Don’t veer off-topic, as this will weaken your argument. Make sure that every point and sub-point you make is connected to your main thesis.

Avoid jargon

While technical terms may be useful in some cases, you should avoid using too much jargon, as this can make your essay difficult to follow.

Be critical

Don’t be afraid to challenge existing assumptions or theories in your essay. Your essay will be more impactful if it goes out of the box.

Use reliable sources

Make sure to include evidence from reliable sources such as academic journals, government reports, and recognized experts in the field.

Before submitting your essay, proofread it for any mistakes or typos. This will ensure that your essay is polished and professional.

Here is what you can do for effective proofreading:

Read through your essay several times.
Have someone else proofread your essay for you. They may be able to catch mistakes that you missed.
Use grammar and spelling checker software to check for spelling mistakes.

If you're feeling intimated by the thought of writing an essay on science and technology, don't worry! You can do a good job with the right steps!

By following the steps and using the examples and writing tips provided above, you will be well on your way to creating a powerful essay.

However, if you are unable to write your essay, our science essay writing service can help you out!

Our expert writing service has a team of experienced writers who are experts in the fields of science and technology. They know how to write compelling essays that will impress your professor.

Also, if you need instant help, don't hesitate to try our essay typer tool for free!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Betty is a freelance writer and researcher. She has a Masters in literature and enjoys providing writing services to her clients. Betty is an avid reader and loves learning new things. She has provided writing services to clients from all academic levels and related academic fields.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Publications
Conferences & Events
Professional Learning
Science Standards
Awards & Competitions
Daily Do Lesson Plans
Free Resources
American Rescue Plan
For Preservice Teachers
NCCSTS Case Collection
Partner Jobs in Education
Interactive eBooks+
Digital Catalog
Regional Product Representatives
e-Newsletters
Bestselling Books
Latest Books
Popular Book Series
Prospective Authors
Web Seminars
Exhibits & Sponsorship
Conference Reviewers
National Conference • Denver 24
Leaders Institute 2024
National Conference • New Orleans 24
Submit a Proposal
Latest Resources
Professional Learning Units & Courses
For Districts
Online Course Providers
Schools & Districts
College Professors & Students
The Standards
Teachers and Admin
eCYBERMISSION
Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision
Junior Science & Humanities Symposium
Teaching Awards
Climate Change
Earth & Space Science
New Science Teachers
Early Childhood
Middle School
High School
Postsecondary
Informal Education
Journal Articles
Lesson Plans
e-newsletters
Science & Children
Science Scope
The Science Teacher
Journal of College Sci. Teaching
Connected Science Learning
NSTA Reports
Next-Gen Navigator
Science Update
Teacher Tip Tuesday
Trans. Sci. Learning

MyNSTA Community

My Collections

Position Statement

Nature of Science

Share Start a Discussion

Introduction

Nature of science (NOS) is a critical component of scientific literacy that enhances students’ understandings of science concepts and enables them to make informed decisions about scientifically-based personal and societal issues. NOS is derived not only from the eight science practices delineated in the Framework for K–12 Science Education (2012), but also from decades of research supporting the various forms of systematic gathering of information through direct and indirect observations of the natural world and the testing of this information by the various research methods used in science, such as descriptive, correlational, and experimental designs. All science educators and those involved with science teaching and learning should have a shared accurate view of nature of scientific knowledge, and recognize that NOS should be taught explicitly alongside science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts.

It is important to know that this new iteration of NOS improves upon the previous NSTA position statement on this topic (NSTA 2000) that used the label “nature of science,” which included a combination of characteristics of scientific knowledge (NOS) and scientific inquiry. It demonstrated the common conflation of how scientific knowledge is developed and its characteristics. Since the recent NSTA position statement on science practices, previously referred to as “inquiry” (NSTA 2018), clearly delineates how knowledge is developed in science, a more appropriate label for the focus of this position statement would be “nature of scientific knowledge” (NOSK). This would clarify the difference between how knowledge is developed from the characteristics of the resulting knowledge. Clearly the two are closely related, but they are different (Lederman & Lederman 2014). However, introducing a new label (i.e., NOSK), given that the NGSS refers to the characteristics of scientific knowledge as NOS, would create more confusion. It will be clear that the discussion of NOS here is about the characteristics of scientific knowledge. Additionally, the word “the” is removed preceding NOS to avoid implying that a single set of knowledge characteristics exists.

Why Learn About Nature of Science?

Understanding of NOS is a critical component of scientific literacy. It enhances students’ understandings of science concepts and enables them to make informed decisions about scientifically-based personal and societal issues. Although NOS has been viewed as an important educational outcome for science students for more than 100 years, it was Showalter’s (1974) work that galvanized NOS as an important construct within the overarching framework of scientific literacy. Admittedly, the phrase scientific literacy had been discussed by numerous others before Showalter (e.g., Dewey 1916; Hurd 1958; National Education Association 1918, 1920; National Society for the Study of Education 1960; among others), but it was his work that clearly delineated the dimensions of scientific literacy in a manner that could easily be translated into objectives for science curricula. NOS and science processes (now known as inquiry or practices) were clearly emphasized as equally important as “traditional” science subject matter and should also be taught explicitly, just as is done with other science subject matter (Bybee 2013). The attributes of a scientifically literate individual were later reiterated and elaborated upon by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA 1982).

Declarations

The National Science Teaching Association endorses the proposition that science, along with its methods, explanations, and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all nonscientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations, and products.

NSTA makes the following declarations for science educators to support teaching NOS . The following premises, as well as the terminology (e.g., tentative, subjective, etc.) of nature of science, are critical and developmentally appropriate (for precollege students). They should be understood by all students by the time they graduate high school. The understandings are elaborated slightly beyond the items listed in the Next Generation Science Standards ( NGSS ).

Scientific knowledge is simultaneously reliable and subject to change. Having confidence in scientific knowledge is reasonable, while also realizing that such knowledge may be abandoned or modified in light of new evidence or a re-conceptualization of prior evidence and knowledge. The history of science reveals both evolutionary and revolutionary changes. With new evidence and interpretation, old ideas are replaced or supplemented by newer ones. Because scientific knowledge is partly the result of inference, creativity, and subjectivity, it is subject to change (AAAS 1993; Kuhn 1962).
Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review, and reproducibility of the work. This characteristic of science is also a component of the idea that “science is a way of knowing” as distinguished from other ways of knowing (Feyerabend 1975; Moore 1993; NGSS Lead States 2013).
In general, all scientific knowledge is a combination of observations and inferences (Chalmers 1999; Gould 1981). For example, students of all ages pay attention to weather forecasts. Weather forecasters make observations, and their forecasts are inferences. All science textbooks have a picture of the atom, but the picture is really an inference from observable data of how matter behaves.
Creativity is a vital, yet personal, ingredient in the production of scientific knowledge. It is a component of science as a human endeavor (Bronowski 1956; Hoffman & Torrence 1993; Kuhn 1962).
Subjectivity is an unavoidable aspect of scientific knowledge. Because “science is a human endeavor,” it is subject to the functions of individual human thinking and perceptions. Although objectivity is always desired in the interpretation of data, some subjectivity is unavoidable and often beneficial (Chalmers 1999; Gould 1981; Laudan 1977).
Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations, and as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. This is a component of the recognition that scientific knowledge is empirically based (Hoffman & Torrence 1993).
A primary goal of science is the formation of theories and laws, which are terms with very specific meanings:
Laws are generalizations or universal relationships related to the way that some aspect of the natural world behaves under certain conditions. They describe relationships among what has been observed in the natural world. For example, Boyle’s Law describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a gas at a constant temperature (Feynman 1965; Harre 1983; National Academy of Sciences 1998).
Theories are inferred explanations of some aspect of the natural world. They provide explanations for what has been stated in scientific laws. Theories do not become laws even with additional evidence; they explain laws. However, not all scientific laws have accompanying explanatory theories (Feynman 1965; Harre 1983; Mayr 1988; National Academy of Sciences 1998; Ruse 1998).
be internally consistent and compatible with the best available evidence;
be successfully tested against a wide range of applicable phenomena and evidence; and
possess appropriately broad and demonstrable effectiveness in further research (Kuhn 1962; Lakatos 1983; Popper 1968).
Contributions to science can be made and have been made by people the world over. As a consequence, science does not occur in a vacuum. It affects society and cultures, and it is affected by the society and culture within which it occurs (AAAS 1993; Showalter 1974).
The scientific questions asked, the observations made, and the conclusions in science are to some extent influenced by the existing state of scientific knowledge, the social and cultural context of the researcher, and the observer’s experiences and expectations. Again, scientific knowledge is partially subjective and socially and culturally embedded (Lederman & Lederman 2014; NSTA 2000).

These premises combined provide the foundation for how scientific knowledge is formed and are foundational to nature of science. The NGSS (2013) lists the following eight components of NOS. Given the previous discussion about the differences between how knowledge is developed and what is done with that knowledge as scientific practice, items 1, 5, and 6 are arguably more aligned with science practices (or inquiry) than characteristics of scientific knowledge. Practices and knowledge are obviously entangled in the real world and in classroom instruction, yet it is important for teachers of science to know the difference between science practices and the characteristics of scientific knowledge to best lead students to a comprehensive understanding of nature of science. Items 5 and 7 are a bit vague for concrete use in K–12 classrooms. Consequently, a more concrete discussion of what these items mean was provided in the previous section.

NSTA recommends that by the time they graduate from high school, students should understand the following concepts related to NOS:

Scientific Investigations Use a Variety of Methods;
Scientific Knowledge Is Based on Empirical Evidence;
Scientific Knowledge Is Open to Revision in Light of New Evidence;
Science Models, Laws, Mechanisms, and Theories Explain Natural Phenomena;
Science Is a Way of Knowing;
Scientific Knowledge Assumes an Order and Consistency in Natural Systems;
Science Is a Human Endeavor; and
Science Addresses Questions About the Natural and Material World.

Concluding Remarks

NOS (i.e., the characteristics of scientific knowledge as derived from how it is produced) has long been recognized as a critical component of scientific literacy. It is necessary knowledge for students to make informed decisions with respect to the ever-increasing scientifically-based personal and societal issues. The research clearly indicates that for students to learn about NOS, it must be planned for and assessed just like any of the instructional goals focusing on science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts (Lederman 2007; Lederman & Lederman 2014). It is not learned by chance, simply by doing science. NOS is best understood by students if it is explicitly addressed within the context of students’ learning of science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. “Explicit” does not mean that the teacher should lecture about NOS. Rather, it refers to reflective discussions among students about the science concepts they are learning (Clough 2011).All aspects of NOS cannot and should not be taught in a single lesson, nor are all aspects developmentally appropriate for all grade levels. For example, understandings of the differences between theories and laws or the cultural embeddedness of science are not developmentally appropriate for K–5 students. Nevertheless, NOS should be included at all grade levels as a unifying theme for the K–12 science curriculum. All too often, NOS is only taught explicitly at the beginning of a science course, independent of any of the science content that will subsequently follow. Instead, NOS should be taught as a unifying theme with the expectation that students’ knowledge will progressively become more and more sophisticated as they progress through the K–12 curriculum.

—Adopted by the NSTA Board of Directors, January 2020

Research and Theoretical References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., and N.G. Lederman. 2000. Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education 22 (7): 665–701.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bronowski, J. 1956. Science and human values. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

Bybee, R.W. 2013. Translating the NGSS for classroom imstruction. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Chalmers, A.F. 1999. What is this thing called science? Queensland, AU: University of Queensland Press.

Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.

Feyerabend, P.F. 1975. Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Great Britain: Redwood, Burn Limited.

Feynman, R.P. 1965. The character of physical law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gould, S.J. 1981. The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Hoffman, R., and V. Torrence. 1993. Chemistry imagined: Reflections on science. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hurd, P.D. 1958. Science literacy : 16 (1): 13–16.

Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakatos, I. 1983. Mathematics, science, and epistemology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Lederman, N.G. 2007. Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of research on science education, ed. S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman, 831–880. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lederman, N.G., and J.S. Lederman. 2014. Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In Handbook of research on science education, Volume II, ed. N.G. Lederman and S.K. Abell, 600–620. New York: Routledge.

Mayr, E. 1988. Toward a new philosophy in biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, J. 1993. Science as a way of knowing: The foundation of modern biology . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Education Association. 1918. Cardinal principles of secondary education: A report of the commission on the reorganization of secondary education. (U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 35). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Education Association. 1920. Reorganization of science in secondary schools: A report of the commission on the reorganization of secondary education. (U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 20). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Science Teachers Association. 1982. Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Teachers Association. 2018. Transitioning from scientific inquiry to three-dimensional teaching and learning. Arlington, VA: Author.

National Science Teachers Association. 2000. The nature of science: NSTA Position Statement . Arlington, VA: Author.

National Society for the Study of Education. 1960. Rethinking Science Education: Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 59: 113.

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.

Popper, K.R. 1968. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Ruse, M. (Ed.) 1998. Philosophy of biology. New York: Prometheus Books.

Showalter, V.M. 1974. What is unified science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy. Prism 2 (3–4): 1–6.

References of Teaching Resources

Bell, R.L. 2008. Teaching the nature of science through process skills: Activities for grades 3–8 . New York: Pearson.

Clough, M.P. 2011. Teaching and assessing the nature of science: How to effectively incorporate the nature of science in your classroom. The Science Teacher 78 (6): 56–60

Clough, M.P., and J.K. Olson. 2004. The nature of science: Always part of the science story. The Science Teacher 71 (9): 28–31.

Lederman, N.G., and F. Abd-El-Khalick. 1998. Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies , ed. W.F. McComas, 83–126. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McComas, W.F., ed. 2019. Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publishing.

National Academy of Sciences. 1998. Teaching about evolution and the nature of science . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Essay on Importance of Science in Our Life

Science is a systematic process in which various theories, formulas, laws, and thoughts are analysed and evaluated in order to determine the truth about the facts of anything.

This systematic process studies and generates new knowledge from any kind of activity that occurs in the nature around us or in the universe, of which we are a tiny part.

Science is essential.

Importance of Science in Society
Frequently Asked Questions – FAQs

Science is a methodical process of extracting true facts from any given thought by adhering to a set of rules known as methodology.

It includes the following:

Observation: The observations are made based on the collected data and measurements.
Evidence: If any evidence is gathered for further processing of data evaluation.
Experiment : Using the data and evidence gathered, experiments are carried out to test the assumption.
Initiation: Identify the facts based on data and evidence analysis.
Re-examination and complex analysis: To ensure the veracity and authenticity of the results, the data and evidence are examined several times and critically analysed.
Verification and review of the results: The results of the experiment are verified and tested by experts to ensure that they are correct.

Science is concerned with generating new knowledge and proving new hypotheses by collecting and analysing data in a systematic manner.

There are numerous scientific disciplines:

Astrophysics
Climate science
Atmospheric science

Importance of science in society

Science and technology play an important role in today’s changing world. Everything from the road to the buildings, the shop to the educational instructions is the result of modern science and technology. Almost everything we see in society is the result of applied science and technology. Even the toothpaste we use to clean our teeth after waking up in the morning and before going to bed at night are products of science and technology.

Electricity

The discovery of electricity was the first modern scientific marvel. It has altered our way of life, society, and culture. It’s a fantastic source of power and energy.

The radio and television Lights, fans, electric irons, mills, factories, and refrigerators are all powered by electricity.

Transport and Communication

Science has simplified and shortened our communication. Ships, boats, trains, buses, and cars can be found on the seas, rivers, and roads. All of these are scientific gifts.

Telegraph, telephone, fax, and wireless communication are also important modes of communication. Trains, steamers, aeroplanes, buses, and other modes of transportation make communication quick and easy.

Medicine and Surgery

It elevates one’s overall standard of living, quality of life, and life expectancy.
It aids in detecting and treating diseases, ailments, and conditions.
It dissects the molecular mechanism of any disease and helps to develop drugs and pharmaceuticals.
Basic Medical Sciences, in addition to curative care, sow the seeds of preventive care.
It teaches researchers, doctors, scientists, and even laypeople about living a healthy lifestyle.
It fosters a fundamental understanding of medical science principles, which may be useful in the future.

Agriculture

A great deal of agricultural research was conducted, which resulted in the production of artificial fertilisers, which are now a basic requirement for all agricultural activities. Agricultural education is now taught in schools across the country. Scientists have gone so far as to study the genomic makeup of plants to select crops that can withstand harsh climate changes. Improved farming techniques have been developed using new technologies such as computer science and biotechnology.

Science has played an important role in agriculture, and the two cannot be separated. Science must be used to help produce better yields on a small piece of land for the world to be able to provide enough food for all of its citizens.

Frequently Asked Questions on Essay on Importance of Science in Our Life

What role does science play in our lives.

It helps us live a longer and healthier life by monitoring our health, providing medicine to cure our diseases, alleviating aches and pains, assisting us in providing water for our basic needs – including our food – providing energy and making life more enjoyable by including sports, music, entertainment, and cutting-edge communication technology.

How has science influenced our daily lives?

Science has changed how we live and what we believe since the invention of the plough. Science has allowed man to pursue societal concerns such as ethics, aesthetics, education, and justice, to create cultures, and to improve human conditions by making life easier.

How has science made our lives easier?

When scientific discoveries are combined with technological advancements, machines make managing our lives easier. Science has created everything from household appliances to automobiles and aeroplanes. Farmers can now save their crops from pests and other problems thanks to advances in science.

What is the social significance of science and technology?

The essence of how science and technology contribute to society is the creation of new knowledge and then the application of that knowledge to improve human life and solve societal problems.

Why is science education important in the 21st century?

Exemplary science education can offer a rich context for developing many 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and information literacy, especially when instruction addresses the nature of science and promotes the use of science practices.

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

The Meaning of Life

Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms (with such talk having arisen only in the past 250 years or so, on which see Landau 1997). Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. Relatedly, think about Koheleth, the presumed author of the Biblical book Ecclesiastes, describing life as “futility” and akin to “the pursuit of wind,” Nietzsche on nihilism, as well as Schopenhauer when he remarks that whenever we reach a goal we have longed for we discover “how vain and empty it is.” While these concepts have some bearing on happiness and virtue (and their opposites), they are straightforwardly construed (roughly) as accounts of which highly ranked purposes a person ought to realize that would make her life significant (if any would).

Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only since the 1980s or so that a distinct field of the meaning of life has been established in Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy, on which this survey focuses, and it is only in the past 20 years that debate with real depth and intricacy has appeared. Two decades ago analytic reflection on life’s meaning was described as a “backwater” compared to that on well-being or good character, and it was possible to cite nearly all the literature in a given critical discussion of the field (Metz 2002). Neither is true any longer. Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy of life’s meaning has become vibrant, such that there is now way too much literature to be able to cite comprehensively in this survey. To obtain focus, it tends to discuss books, influential essays, and more recent works, and it leaves aside contributions from other philosophical traditions (such as the Continental or African) and from non-philosophical fields (e.g., psychology or literature). This survey’s central aim is to acquaint the reader with current analytic approaches to life’s meaning, sketching major debates and pointing out neglected topics that merit further consideration.

When the topic of the meaning of life comes up, people tend to pose one of three questions: “What are you talking about?”, “What is the meaning of life?”, and “Is life in fact meaningful?”. The literature on life's meaning composed by those working in the analytic tradition (on which this entry focuses) can be usefully organized according to which question it seeks to answer. This survey starts off with recent work that addresses the first, abstract (or “meta”) question regarding the sense of talk of “life’s meaning,” i.e., that aims to clarify what we have in mind when inquiring into the meaning of life (section 1). Afterward, it considers texts that provide answers to the more substantive question about the nature of meaningfulness (sections 2–3). There is in the making a sub-field of applied meaning that parallels applied ethics, in which meaningfulness is considered in the context of particular cases or specific themes. Examples include downshifting (Levy 2005), implementing genetic enhancements (Agar 2013), making achievements (Bradford 2015), getting an education (Schinkel et al. 2015), interacting with research participants (Olson 2016), automating labor (Danaher 2017), and creating children (Ferracioli 2018). In contrast, this survey focuses nearly exclusively on contemporary normative-theoretical approaches to life’s meanining, that is, attempts to capture in a single, general principle all the variegated conditions that could confer meaning on life. Finally, this survey examines fresh arguments for the nihilist view that the conditions necessary for a meaningful life do not obtain for any of us, i.e., that all our lives are meaningless (section 4).

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

2.1. god-centered views, 2.2. soul-centered views, 3.1. subjectivism, 3.2. objectivism, 3.3. rejecting god and a soul, 4. nihilism, works cited, classic works, collections, books for the general reader, other internet resources, related entries.

One of the field's aims consists of the systematic attempt to identify what people (essentially or characteristically) have in mind when they think about the topic of life’s meaning. For many in the field, terms such as “importance” and “significance” are synonyms of “meaningfulness” and so are insufficiently revealing, but there are those who draw a distinction between meaningfulness and significance (Singer 1996, 112–18; Belliotti 2019, 145–50, 186). There is also debate about how the concept of a meaningless life relates to the ideas of a life that is absurd (Nagel 1970, 1986, 214–23; Feinberg 1980; Belliotti 2019), futile (Trisel 2002), and not worth living (Landau 2017, 12–15; Matheson 2017).

A useful way to begin to get clear about what thinking about life’s meaning involves is to specify the bearer. Which life does the inquirer have in mind? A standard distinction to draw is between the meaning “in” life, where a human person is what can exhibit meaning, and the meaning “of” life in a narrow sense, where the human species as a whole is what can be meaningful or not. There has also been a bit of recent consideration of whether animals or human infants can have meaning in their lives, with most rejecting that possibility (e.g., Wong 2008, 131, 147; Fischer 2019, 1–24), but a handful of others beginning to make a case for it (Purves and Delon 2018; Thomas 2018). Also under-explored is the issue of whether groups, such as a people or an organization, can be bearers of meaning, and, if so, under what conditions.

Most analytic philosophers have been interested in meaning in life, that is, in the meaningfulness that a person’s life could exhibit, with comparatively few these days addressing the meaning of life in the narrow sense. Even those who believe that God is or would be central to life’s meaning have lately addressed how an individual’s life might be meaningful in virtue of God more often than how the human race might be. Although some have argued that the meaningfulness of human life as such merits inquiry to no less a degree (if not more) than the meaning in a life (Seachris 2013; Tartaglia 2015; cf. Trisel 2016), a large majority of the field has instead been interested in whether their lives as individual persons (and the lives of those they care about) are meaningful and how they could become more so.

Focusing on meaning in life, it is quite common to maintain that it is conceptually something good for its own sake or, relatedly, something that provides a basic reason for action (on which see Visak 2017). There are a few who have recently suggested otherwise, maintaining that there can be neutral or even undesirable kinds of meaning in a person’s life (e.g., Mawson 2016, 90, 193; Thomas 2018, 291, 294). However, these are outliers, with most analytic philosophers, and presumably laypeople, instead wanting to know when an individual’s life exhibits a certain kind of final value (or non-instrumental reason for action).

Another claim about which there is substantial consensus is that meaningfulness is not all or nothing and instead comes in degrees, such that some periods of life are more meaningful than others and that some lives as a whole are more meaningful than others. Note that one can coherently hold the view that some people’s lives are less meaningful (or even in a certain sense less “important”) than others, or are even meaningless (unimportant), and still maintain that people have an equal standing from a moral point of view. Consider a consequentialist moral principle according to which each individual counts for one in virtue of having a capacity for a meaningful life, or a Kantian approach according to which all people have a dignity in virtue of their capacity for autonomous decision-making, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity. For both moral outlooks, we could be required to help people with relatively meaningless lives.

Yet another relatively uncontroversial element of the concept of meaningfulness in respect of individual persons is that it is logically distinct from happiness or rightness (emphasized in Wolf 2010, 2016). First, to ask whether someone’s life is meaningful is not one and the same as asking whether her life is pleasant or she is subjectively well off. A life in an experience machine or virtual reality device would surely be a happy one, but very few take it to be a prima facie candidate for meaningfulness (Nozick 1974: 42–45). Indeed, a number would say that one’s life logically could become meaningful precisely by sacrificing one’s well-being, e.g., by helping others at the expense of one’s self-interest. Second, asking whether a person’s existence over time is meaningful is not identical to considering whether she has been morally upright; there are intuitively ways to enhance meaning that have nothing to do with right action or moral virtue, such as making a scientific discovery or becoming an excellent dancer. Now, one might argue that a life would be meaningless if, or even because, it were unhappy or immoral, but that would be to posit a synthetic, substantive relationship between the concepts, far from indicating that speaking of “meaningfulness” is analytically a matter of connoting ideas regarding happiness or rightness. The question of what (if anything) makes a person’s life meaningful is conceptually distinct from the questions of what makes a life happy or moral, although it could turn out that the best answer to the former question appeals to an answer to one of the latter questions.

Supposing, then, that talk of “meaning in life” connotes something good for its own sake that can come in degrees and that is not analytically equivalent to happiness or rightness, what else does it involve? What more can we say about this final value, by definition? Most contemporary analytic philosophers would say that the relevant value is absent from spending time in an experience machine (but see Goetz 2012 for a different view) or living akin to Sisyphus, the mythic figure doomed by the Greek gods to roll a stone up a hill for eternity (famously discussed by Albert Camus and Taylor 1970). In addition, many would say that the relevant value is typified by the classic triad of “the good, the true, and the beautiful” (or would be under certain conditions). These terms are not to be taken literally, but instead are rough catchwords for beneficent relationships (love, collegiality, morality), intellectual reflection (wisdom, education, discoveries), and creativity (particularly the arts, but also potentially things like humor or gardening).

Pressing further, is there something that the values of the good, the true, the beautiful, and any other logically possible sources of meaning involve? There is as yet no consensus in the field. One salient view is that the concept of meaning in life is a cluster or amalgam of overlapping ideas, such as fulfilling higher-order purposes, meriting substantial esteem or admiration, having a noteworthy impact, transcending one’s animal nature, making sense, or exhibiting a compelling life-story (Markus 2003; Thomson 2003; Metz 2013, 24–35; Seachris 2013, 3–4; Mawson 2016). However, there are philosophers who maintain that something much more monistic is true of the concept, so that (nearly) all thought about meaningfulness in a person’s life is essentially about a single property. Suggestions include being devoted to or in awe of qualitatively superior goods (Taylor 1989, 3–24), transcending one’s limits (Levy 2005), or making a contribution (Martela 2016).

Recently there has been something of an “interpretive turn” in the field, one instance of which is the strong view that meaning-talk is logically about whether and how a life is intelligible within a wider frame of reference (Goldman 2018, 116–29; Seachris 2019; Thomas 2019; cf. Repp 2018). According to this approach, inquiring into life’s meaning is nothing other than seeking out sense-making information, perhaps a narrative about life or an explanation of its source and destiny. This analysis has the advantage of promising to unify a wide array of uses of the term “meaning.” However, it has the disadvantages of being unable to capture the intuitions that meaning in life is essentially good for its own sake (Landau 2017, 12–15), that it is not logically contradictory to maintain that an ineffable condition is what confers meaning on life (as per Cooper 2003, 126–42; Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014), and that often human actions themselves (as distinct from an interpretation of them), such as rescuing a child from a burning building, are what bear meaning.

Some thinkers have suggested that a complete analysis of the concept of life’s meaning should include what has been called “anti-matter” (Metz 2002, 805–07, 2013, 63–65, 71–73) or “anti-meaning” (Campbell and Nyholm 2015; Egerstrom 2015), conditions that reduce the meaningfulness of a life. The thought is that meaning is well represented by a bipolar scale, where there is a dimension of not merely positive conditions, but also negative ones. Gratuitous cruelty or destructiveness are prima facie candidates for actions that not merely fail to add meaning, but also subtract from any meaning one’s life might have had.

Despite the ongoing debates about how to analyze the concept of life’s meaning (or articulate the definition of the phrase “meaning in life”), the field remains in a good position to make progress on the other key questions posed above, viz., of what would make a life meaningful and whether any lives are in fact meaningful. A certain amount of common ground is provided by the point that meaningfulness at least involves a gradient final value in a person’s life that is conceptually distinct from happiness and rightness, with exemplars of it potentially being the good, the true, and the beautiful. The rest of this discussion addresses philosophical attempts to capture the nature of this value theoretically and to ascertain whether it exists in at least some of our lives.

2. Supernaturalism

Most analytic philosophers writing on meaning in life have been trying to develop and evaluate theories, i.e., fundamental and general principles, that are meant to capture all the particular ways that a life could obtain meaning. As in moral philosophy, there are recognizable “anti-theorists,” i.e., those who maintain that there is too much pluralism among meaning conditions to be able to unify them in the form of a principle (e.g., Kekes 2000; Hosseini 2015). Arguably, though, the systematic search for unity is too nascent to be able to draw a firm conclusion about whether it is available.

The theories are standardly divided on a metaphysical basis, that is, in terms of which kinds of properties are held to constitute the meaning. Supernaturalist theories are views according to which a spiritual realm is central to meaning in life. Most Western philosophers have conceived of the spiritual in terms of God or a soul as commonly understood in the Abrahamic faiths (but see Mulgan 2015 for discussion of meaning in the context of a God uninterested in us). In contrast, naturalist theories are views that the physical world as known particularly well by the scientific method is central to life’s meaning.

There is logical space for a non-naturalist theory, according to which central to meaning is an abstract property that is neither spiritual nor physical. However, only scant attention has been paid to this possibility in the recent Anglo-American-Australasian literature (Audi 2005).

It is important to note that supernaturalism, a claim that God (or a soul) would confer meaning on a life, is logically distinct from theism, the claim that God (or a soul) exists. Although most who hold supernaturalism also hold theism, one could accept the former without the latter (as Camus more or less did), committing one to the view that life is meaningless or at least lacks substantial meaning. Similarly, while most naturalists are atheists, it is not contradictory to maintain that God exists but has nothing to do with meaning in life or perhaps even detracts from it. Although these combinations of positions are logically possible, some of them might be substantively implausible. The field could benefit from discussion of the comparative attractiveness of various combinations of evaluative claims about what would make life meaningful and metaphysical claims about whether spiritual conditions exist.

Over the past 15 years or so, two different types of supernaturalism have become distinguished on a regular basis (Metz 2019). That is true not only in the literature on life’s meaning, but also in that on the related pro-theism/anti-theism debate, about whether it would be desirable for God or a soul to exist (e.g., Kahane 2011; Kraay 2018; Lougheed 2020). On the one hand, there is extreme supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for any meaning in life. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life is meaningless. On the other hand, there is moderate supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for a great or ultimate meaning in life, although not meaning in life as such. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life could have some meaning, or even be meaningful, but no one’s life could exhibit the most desirable meaning. For a moderate supernaturalist, God or a soul would substantially enhance meaningfulness or be a major contributory condition for it.

There are a variety of ways that great or ultimate meaning has been described, sometimes quantitatively as “infinite” (Mawson 2016), qualitatively as “deeper” (Swinburne 2016), relationally as “unlimited” (Nozick 1981, 618–19; cf. Waghorn 2014), temporally as “eternal” (Cottingham 2016), and perspectivally as “from the point of view of the universe” (Benatar 2017). There has been no reflection as yet on the crucial question of how these distinctions might bear on each another, for instance, on whether some are more basic than others or some are more valuable than others.

Cross-cutting the extreme/moderate distinction is one between God-centered theories and soul-centered ones. According to the former, some kind of connection with God (understood to be a spiritual person who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful and who is the ground of the physical universe) constitutes meaning in life, even if one lacks a soul (construed as an immortal, spiritual substance that contains one’s identity). In contrast, by the latter, having a soul and putting it into a certain state is what makes life meaningful, even if God does not exist. Many supernaturalists of course believe that God and a soul are jointly necessary for a (greatly) meaningful existence. However, the simpler view, that only one of them is necessary, is common, and sometimes arguments proffered for the complex view fail to support it any more than the simpler one.

The most influential God-based account of meaning in life has been the extreme view that one’s existence is significant if and only if one fulfills a purpose God has assigned. The familiar idea is that God has a plan for the universe and that one’s life is meaningful just to the degree that one helps God realize this plan, perhaps in a particular way that God wants one to do so. If a person failed to do what God intends her to do with her life (or if God does not even exist), then, on the current view, her life would be meaningless.

Thinkers differ over what it is about God’s purpose that might make it uniquely able to confer meaning on human lives, but the most influential argument has been that only God’s purpose could be the source of invariant moral rules (Davis 1987, 296, 304–05; Moreland 1987, 124–29; Craig 1994/2013, 161–67) or of objective values more generally (Cottingham 2005, 37–57), where a lack of such would render our lives nonsensical. According to this argument, lower goods such as animal pleasure or desire satisfaction could exist without God, but higher ones pertaining to meaning in life, particularly moral virtue, could not. However, critics point to many non-moral sources of meaning in life (e.g., Kekes 2000; Wolf 2010), with one arguing that a universal moral code is not necessary for meaning in life, even if, say, beneficent actions are (Ellin 1995, 327). In addition, there are a variety of naturalist and non-naturalist accounts of objective morality––and of value more generally––on offer these days, so that it is not clear that it must have a supernatural source in God’s will.

One recurrent objection to the idea that God’s purpose could make life meaningful is that if God had created us with a purpose in mind, then God would have degraded us and thereby undercut the possibility of us obtaining meaning from fulfilling the purpose. The objection harks back to Jean-Paul Sartre, but in the analytic literature it appears that Kurt Baier was the first to articulate it (1957/2000, 118–20; see also Murphy 1982, 14–15; Singer 1996, 29; Kahane 2011; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). Sometimes the concern is the threat of punishment God would make so that we do God’s bidding, while other times it is that the source of meaning would be constrictive and not up to us, and still other times it is that our dignity would be maligned simply by having been created with a certain end in mind (for some replies to such concerns, see Hanfling 1987, 45–46; Cottingham 2005, 37–57; Lougheed 2020, 111–21).

There is a different argument for an extreme God-based view that focuses less on God as purposive and more on God as infinite, unlimited, or ineffable, which Robert Nozick first articulated with care (Nozick 1981, 594–618; see also Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014). The core idea is that for a finite condition to be meaningful, it must obtain its meaning from another condition that has meaning. So, if one’s life is meaningful, it might be so in virtue of being married to a person, who is important. Being finite, the spouse must obtain his or her importance from elsewhere, perhaps from the sort of work he or she does. This work also must obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is meaningful, and so on. A regress on meaningful conditions is present, and the suggestion is that the regress can terminate only in something so all-encompassing that it need not (indeed, cannot) go beyond itself to obtain meaning from anything else. And that is God. The standard objection to this relational rationale is that a finite condition could be meaningful without obtaining its meaning from another meaningful condition. Perhaps it could be meaningful in itself, without being connected to something beyond it, or maybe it could obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is beautiful or otherwise valuable for its own sake but not meaningful (Nozick 1989, 167–68; Thomson 2003, 25–26, 48).

A serious concern for any extreme God-based view is the existence of apparent counterexamples. If we think of the stereotypical lives of Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, and Pablo Picasso, they seem meaningful even if we suppose there is no all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good spiritual person who is the ground of the physical world (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 31–37, 49–50; Landau 2017). Even religiously inclined philosophers have found this hard to deny these days (Quinn 2000, 58; Audi 2005; Mawson 2016, 5; Williams 2020, 132–34).

Largely for that reason, contemporary supernaturalists have tended to opt for moderation, that is, to maintain that God would greatly enhance the meaning in our lives, even if some meaning would be possible in a world without God. One approach is to invoke the relational argument to show that God is necessary, not for any meaning whatsoever, but rather for an ultimate meaning. “Limited transcendence, the transcending of our limits so as to connect with a wider context of value which itself is limited, does give our lives meaning––but a limited one. We may thirst for more” (Nozick 1981, 618). Another angle is to appeal to playing a role in God’s plan, again to claim, not that it is essential for meaning as such, but rather for “a cosmic significance....intead of a significance very limited in time and space” (Swinburne 2016, 154; see also Quinn 2000; Cottingham 2016, 131). Another rationale is that by fulfilling God’s purpose, we would meaningfully please God, a perfect person, as well as be remembered favorably by God forever (Cottingham 2016, 135; Williams 2020, 21–22, 29, 101, 108). Still another argument is that only with God could the deepest desires of human nature be satisfied (e.g., Goetz 2012; Seachris 2013, 20; Cottingham 2016, 127, 136), even if more surface desires could be satisfied without God.

In reply to such rationales for a moderate supernaturalism, there has been the suggestion that it is precisely by virtue of being alone in the universe that our lives would be particularly significant; otherwise, God’s greatness would overshadow us (Kahane 2014). There has also been the response that, with the opportunity for greater meaning from God would also come that for greater anti-meaning, so that it is not clear that a world with God would offer a net gain in respect of meaning (Metz 2019, 34–35). For example, if pleasing God would greatly enhance meaning in our lives, then presumably displeasing God would greatly reduce it and to a comparable degree. In addition, there are arguments for extreme naturalism (or its “anti-theist” cousin) mentioned below (sub-section 3.3).

Notice that none of the above arguments for supernaturalism appeals to the prospect of eternal life (at least not explicitly). Arguments that do make such an appeal are soul-centered, holding that meaning in life mainly comes from having an immortal, spiritual substance that is contiguous with one’s body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. Some think of the afterlife in terms of one’s soul entering a transcendent, spiritual realm (Heaven), while others conceive of one’s soul getting reincarnated into another body on Earth. According to the extreme version, if one has a soul but fails to put it in the right state (or if one lacks a soul altogether), then one’s life is meaningless.

There are three prominent arguments for an extreme soul-based perspective. One argument, made famous by Leo Tolstoy, is the suggestion that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that something is worth doing only if it will make a permanent difference to the world, and that making a permanent difference requires being immortal (see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Critics most often appeal to counterexamples, suggesting for instance that it is surely worth your time and effort to help prevent people from suffering, even if you and they are mortal. Indeed, some have gone on the offensive and argued that helping people is worth the sacrifice only if and because they are mortal, for otherwise they could invariably be compensated in an afterlife (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Another recent and interesting criticism is that the major motivations for the claim that nothing matters now if one day it will end are incoherent (Greene 2021).

A second argument for the view that life would be meaningless without a soul is that it is necessary for justice to be done, which, in turn, is necessary for a meaningful life. Life seems nonsensical when the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer, at least supposing there is no other world in which these injustices will be rectified, whether by God or a Karmic force. Something like this argument can be found in Ecclesiastes, and it continues to be defended (e.g., Davis 1987; Craig 1994). However, even granting that an afterlife is required for perfectly just outcomes, it is far from obvious that an eternal afterlife is necessary for them, and, then, there is the suggestion that some lives, such as Mandela’s, have been meaningful precisely in virtue of encountering injustice and fighting it.

A third argument for thinking that having a soul is essential for any meaning is that it is required to have the sort of free will without which our lives would be meaningless. Immanuel Kant is known for having maintained that if we were merely physical beings, subjected to the laws of nature like everything else in the material world, then we could not act for moral reasons and hence would be unimportant. More recently, one theologian has eloquently put the point in religious terms: “The moral spirit finds the meaning of life in choice. It finds it in that which proceeds from man and remains with him as his inner essence rather than in the accidents of circumstances turns of external fortune....(W)henever a human being rubs the lamp of his moral conscience, a Spirit does appear. This Spirit is God....It is in the ‘Thou must’ of God and man’s ‘I can’ that the divine image of God in human life is contained” (Swenson 1949/2000, 27–28). Notice that, even if moral norms did not spring from God’s commands, the logic of the argument entails that one’s life could be meaningful, so long as one had the inherent ability to make the morally correct choice in any situation. That, in turn, arguably requires something non-physical about one’s self, so as to be able to overcome whichever physical laws and forces one might confront. The standard objection to this reasoning is to advance a compatibilism about having a determined physical nature and being able to act for moral reasons (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77). It is also worth wondering whether, if one had to have a spiritual essence in order to make free choices, it would have to be one that never perished.

Like God-centered theorists, many soul-centered theorists these days advance a moderate view, accepting that some meaning in life would be possible without immortality, but arguing that a much greater meaning would be possible with it. Granting that Einstein, Mandela, and Picasso had somewhat meaningful lives despite not having survived the deaths of their bodies (as per, e.g., Trisel 2004; Wolf 2015, 89–140; Landau 2017), there remains a powerful thought: more is better. If a finite life with the good, the true, and the beautiful has meaning in it to some degree, then surely it would have all the more meaning if it exhibited such higher values––including a relationship with God––for an eternity (Cottingham 2016, 132–35; Mawson 2016, 2019, 52–53; Williams 2020, 112–34; cf. Benatar 2017, 35–63). One objection to this reasoning is that the infinity of meaning that would be possible with a soul would be “too big,” rendering it difficult for the moderate supernaturalist to make sense of the intution that a finite life such as Einstein’s can indeed count as meaningful by comparison (Metz 2019, 30–31; cf. Mawson 2019, 53–54). More common, though, is the objection that an eternal life would include anti-meaning of various kinds, such as boredom and repetition, discussed below in the context of extreme naturalism (sub-section 3.3).

3. Naturalism

Recall that naturalism is the view that a physical life is central to life’s meaning, that even if there is no spiritual realm, a substantially meaningful life is possible. Like supernaturalism, contemporary naturalism admits of two distinguishable variants, moderate and extreme (Metz 2019). The moderate version is that, while a genuinely meaningful life could be had in a purely physical universe as known well by science, a somewhat more meaningful life would be possible if a spiritual realm also existed. God or a soul could enhance meaning in life, although they would not be major contributors. The extreme version of naturalism is the view that it would be better in respect of life’s meaning if there were no spiritual realm. From this perspective, God or a soul would be anti-matter, i.e., would detract from the meaning available to us, making a purely physical world (even if not this particular one) preferable.

Cross-cutting the moderate/extreme distinction is that between subjectivism and objectivism, which are theoretical accounts of the nature of meaningfulness insofar as it is physical. They differ in terms of the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are conditions of meaning that are invariant among human beings. Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subject, i.e., depends on an individual’s pro-attitudes such as her particular desires or ends, which are not shared by everyone. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she strongly wants it or intends to seek it out and she gets it. Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for meaning because meaning is at least partly mind-independent, i.e., obtains not merely in virtue of being the object of anyone’s mental states. Here, something is meaningful (partially) because of its intrinsic nature, in the sense of being independent of whether it is wanted or intended; meaning is instead (to some extent) the sort of thing that merits these reactions.

There is logical space for an orthogonal view, according to which there are invariant standards of meaningfulness constituted by what all human beings would converge on from a certain standpoint. However, it has not been much of a player in the field (Darwall 1983, 164–66).

According to this version of naturalism, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one’s variable pro-attitudes. Common instances are views that one’s life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, achieves one’s highly ranked goals, or does what one believes to be really important (Trisel 2002; Hooker 2008). One influential subjectivist has recently maintained that the relevant mental state is caring or loving, so that life is meaningful just to the extent that one cares about or loves something (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94, 2004). Another recent proposal is that meaningfulness consists of “an active engagement and affirmation that vivifies the person who has freely created or accepted and now promotes and nurtures the projects of her highest concern” (Belliotti 2019, 183).

Subjectivism was dominant in the middle of the twentieth century, when positivism, noncognitivism, existentialism, and Humeanism were influential (Ayer 1947; Hare 1957; Barnes 1967; Taylor 1970; Williams 1976). However, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, inference to the best explanation and reflective equilibrium became accepted forms of normative argumentation and were frequently used to defend claims about the existence and nature of objective value (or of “external reasons,” ones obtaining independently of one’s extant attitudes). As a result, subjectivism about meaning lost its dominance. Those who continue to hold subjectivism often remain suspicious of attempts to justify beliefs about objective value (e.g., Trisel 2002, 73, 79, 2004, 378–79; Frankfurt 2004, 47–48, 55–57; Wong 2008, 138–39; Evers 2017, 32, 36; Svensson 2017, 54). Theorists are moved to accept subjectivism typically because the alternatives are unpalatable; they are reasonably sure that meaning in life obtains for some people, but do not see how it could be grounded on something independent of the mind, whether it be the natural or the supernatural (or the non-natural). In contrast to these possibilities, it appears straightforward to account for what is meaningful in terms of what people find meaningful or what people want out of their lives. Wide-ranging meta-ethical debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language are necessary to address this rationale for subjectivism.

There is a cluster of other, more circumscribed arguments for subjectivism, according to which this theory best explains certain intuitive features of meaning in life. For one, subjectivism seems plausible since it is reasonable to think that a meaningful life is an authentic one (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94). If a person’s life is significant insofar as she is true to herself or her deepest nature, then we have some reason to believe that meaning simply is a function of those matters for which the person cares. For another, it is uncontroversial that often meaning comes from losing oneself, i.e., in becoming absorbed in an activity or experience, as opposed to being bored by it or finding it frustrating (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94; Belliotti 2019, 162–70). Work that concentrates the mind and relationships that are engrossing seem central to meaning and to be so because of the subjective elements involved. For a third, meaning is often taken to be something that makes life worth continuing for a specific person, i.e., that gives her a reason to get out of bed in the morning, which subjectivism is thought to account for best (Williams 1976; Svensson 2017; Calhoun 2018).

Critics maintain that these arguments are vulnerable to a common objection: they neglect the role of objective value (or an external reason) in realizing oneself, losing oneself, and having a reason to live (Taylor 1989, 1992; Wolf 2010, 2015, 89–140). One is not really being true to oneself, losing oneself in a meaningful way, or having a genuine reason to live insofar as one, say, successfully maintains 3,732 hairs on one’s head (Taylor 1992, 36), cultivates one’s prowess at long-distance spitting (Wolf 2010, 104), collects a big ball of string (Wolf 2010, 104), or, well, eats one’s own excrement (Wielenberg 2005, 22). The counterexamples suggest that subjective conditions are insufficient to ground meaning in life; there seem to be certain actions, relationships, and states that are objectively valuable (but see Evers 2017, 30–32) and toward which one’s pro-attitudes ought to be oriented, if meaning is to accrue.

So say objectivists, but subjectivists feel the pull of the point and usually seek to avoid the counterexamples, lest they have to bite the bullet by accepting the meaningfulness of maintaining 3,732 hairs on one’s head and all the rest (for some who do, see Svensson 2017, 54–55; Belliotti 2019, 181–83). One important strategy is to suggest that subjectivists can avoid the counterexamples by appealing to the right sort of pro-attitude. Instead of whatever an individual happens to want, perhaps the relevant mental state is an emotional-perceptual one of seeing-as (Alexis 2011; cf. Hosseini 2015, 47–66), a “categorical” desire, that is, an intrinsic desire constitutive of one’s identity that one takes to make life worth continuing (Svensson 2017), or a judgment that one has a good reason to value something highly for its own sake (Calhoun 2018). Even here, though, objectivists will argue that it might “appear that whatever the will chooses to treat as a good reason to engage itself is, for the will, a good reason. But the will itself....craves objective reasons; and often it could not go forward unless it thought it had them” (Wiggins 1988, 136). And without any appeal to objectivity, it is perhaps likely that counterexamples would resurface.

Another subjectivist strategy by which to deal with the counterexamples is the attempt to ground meaningfulness, not on the pro-attitudes of an individual valuer, but on those of a group (Darwall 1983, 164–66; Brogaard and Smith 2005; Wong 2008). Does such an intersubjective move avoid (more of) the counterexamples? If so, does it do so more plausibly than an objective theory?

Objective naturalists believe that meaning in life is constituted at least in part by something physical beyond merely the fact that it is the object of a pro-attitude. Obtaining the object of some emotion, desire, or judgment is not sufficient for meaningfulness, on this view. Instead, there are certain conditions of the material world that could confer meaning on anyone’s life, not merely because they are viewed as meaningful, wanted for their own sake, or believed to be choiceworthy, but instead (at least partially) because they are inherently worthwhile or valuable in themselves.

Morality (the good), enquiry (the true), and creativity (the beautiful) are widely held instances of activities that confer meaning on life, while trimming toenails and eating snow––along with the counterexamples to subjectivism above––are not. Objectivism is widely thought to be a powerful general explanation of these particular judgments: the former are meaningful not merely because some agent (whether it is an individual, her society, or even God) cares about them or judges them to be worth doing, while the latter simply lack significance and cannot obtain it even if some agent does care about them or judge them to be worth doing. From an objective perspective, it is possible for an individual to care about the wrong thing or to be mistaken that something is worthwhile, and not merely because of something she cares about all the more or judges to be still more choiceworthy. Of course, meta-ethical debates about the existence and nature of value are again relevant to appraising this rationale.

Some objectivists think that being the object of a person’s mental states plays no constitutive role in making that person’s life meaningful, although they of course contend that it often plays an instrumental role––liking a certain activity, after all, is likely to motivate one to do it. Relatively few objectivists are “pure” in that way, although consequentialists do stand out as clear instances (e.g., Singer 1995; Smuts 2018, 75–99). Most objectivists instead try to account for the above intuitions driving subjectivism by holding that a life is more meaningful, not merely because of objective factors, but also in part because of propositional attitudes such as cognition, conation, and emotion. Particularly influential has been Susan Wolf’s hybrid view, captured by this pithy slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (Wolf 2015, 112; see also Kekes 1986, 2000; Wiggins 1988; Raz 2001, 10–40; Mintoff 2008; Wolf 2010, 2016; Fischer 2019, 9–23; Belshaw 2021, 160–81). This theory implies that no meaning accrues to one’s life if one believes in, is satisfied by, or cares about a project that is not truly worthwhile, or if one takes up a truly worthwhile project but fails to judge it important, be satisfied by it, or care about it. A related approach is that, while subjective attraction is not necessary for meaning, it could enhance it (e.g., Audi 2005, 344; Metz 2013, 183–84, 196–98, 220–25). For instance, a stereotypical Mother Teresa who is bored by and alienated from her substantial charity work might have a somewhat significant existence because of it, even if she would have an even more significant existence if she felt pride in it or identified with it.

There have been several attempts to capture theoretically what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning in a person’s life. Over the past few decades, one encounters the proposals that objectively meaningful conditions are just those that involve: positively connecting with organic unity beyond oneself (Nozick 1981, 594–619); being creative (Taylor 1987; Matheson 2018); living an emotional life (Solomon 1993; cf. Williams 2020, 56–78); promoting good consequences, such as improving the quality of life of oneself and others (Singer 1995; Audi 2005; Smuts 2018, 75–99); exercising or fostering rational nature in exceptional ways (Smith 1997, 179–221; Gewirth 1998, 177–82; Metz 2013, 222–36); progressing toward ends that can never be fully realized because one’s knowledge of them changes as one approaches them (Levy 2005); realizing goals that are transcendent for being long-lasting in duration and broad in scope (Mintoff 2008); living virtuously (May 2015, 61–138; McPherson 2020); and loving what is worth loving (Wolf 2016). There is as yet no convergence in the field on one, or even a small cluster, of these accounts.

One feature of a large majority of the above naturalist theories is that they are aggregative or additive, objectionably treating a life as a mere “container” of bits of life that are meaningful considered in isolation from other bits (Brännmark 2003, 330). It has become increasingly common for philosophers of life’s meaning, especially objectivists, to hold that life as a whole, or at least long stretches of it, can substantially affect its meaningfulness beyond the amount of meaning (if any) in its parts.

For instance, a life that has lots of beneficence and otherwise intuitively meaning-conferring conditions but that is also extremely repetitive (à la the movie Groundhog Day ) is less than maximally meaningful (Taylor 1987; Blumenfeld 2009). Furthermore, a life that not only avoids repetition but also ends with a substantial amount of meaningful (or otherwise desirable) parts seems to have more meaning overall than one that has the same amount of meaningful (desirable) parts but ends with few or none of them (Kamm 2013, 18–22; Dorsey 2015). Still more, a life in which its meaningless (or otherwise undesirable parts) cause its meaningful (desirable) parts to come about through a process of personal growth seems meaningful in virtue of this redemptive pattern, “good life-story,” or narrative self-expression (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Wong 2008; Fischer 2009, 145–77; Kauppinen 2012; May 2015, 61–138; Velleman 2015, 141–73). These three cases suggest that meaning can inhere in life as a whole, that is, in the relationships between its parts, and not merely in the parts considered in isolation. However, some would maintain that it is, strictly speaking, the story that is or could be told of a life that matters, not so much the life-story qua relations between events themselves (de Bres 2018).

There are pure or extreme versions of holism present in the literature, according to which the only possible bearer of meaning in life is a person’s life as a whole, and not any isolated activities, relationships, or states (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Tabensky 2003; Levinson 2004). A salient argument for this position is that judgments of the meaningfulness of a part of someone’s life are merely provisional, open to revision upon considering how they fit into a wider perspective. So, for example, it would initially appear that taking an ax away from a madman and thereby protecting innocent parties confers some meaning on one’s life, but one might well revise that judgment upon learning that the intention behind it was merely to steal an ax, not to save lives, or that the madman then took out a machine gun, causing much more harm than his ax would have. It is worth considering how far this sort of case is generalizable, and, if it can be to a substantial extent, whether that provides strong evidence that only life as a whole can exhibit meaningfulness.

Perhaps most objectivists would, at least upon reflection, accept that both the parts of a life and the whole-life relationships among the parts can exhibit meaning. Supposing there are two bearers of meaning in a life, important questions arise. One is whether a certain narrative can be meaningful even if its parts are not, while a second is whether the meaningfulness of a part increases if it is an aspect of a meaningful whole (on which see Brännmark 2003), and a third is whether there is anything revealing to say about how to make tradeoffs between the parts and whole in cases where one must choose between them (Blumenfeld 2009 appears to assign lexical priority to the whole).

Naturalists until recently had been largely concerned to show that meaning in life is possible without God or a soul; they have not spent much time considering how such spiritual conditions might enhance meaning, but have, in moderate fashion, tended to leave that possibility open (an exception is Hooker 2008). Lately, however, an extreme form of naturalism has arisen, according to which our lives would probably, if not unavoidably, have less meaning in a world with God or a soul than in one without. Although such an approach was voiced early on by Baier (1957), it is really in the past decade or so that this “anti-theist” position has become widely and intricately discussed.

One rationale, mentioned above as an objection to the view that God’s purpose constitutes meaning in life, has also been deployed to argue that the existence of God as such would necessarily reduce meaning, that is, would consist of anti-matter. It is the idea that master/servant and parent/child analogies so prominent in the monotheist religious traditions reveal something about our status in a world where there is a qualitatively higher being who has created us with certain ends in mind: our independence or dignity as adult persons would be violated (e.g., Baier 1957/2000, 118–20; Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). One interesting objection to this reasoning has been to accept that God’s existence is necessarily incompatible with the sort of meaning that would come (roughly stated) from being one’s own boss, but to argue that God would also make greater sorts of meaning available, offering a net gain to us (Mawson 2016, 110–58).

Another salient argument for thinking that God would detract from meaning in life appeals to the value of privacy (Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 55–110). God’s omniscience would unavoidably make it impossible for us to control another person’s access to the most intimate details about ourselves, which, for some, amounts to a less meaningful life than one with such control. Beyond questioning the value of our privacy in relation to God, one thought-provoking criticism has been to suggest that, if a lack of privacy really would substantially reduce meaning in our lives, then God, qua morally perfect person, would simply avoid knowing everything about us (Tooley 2018). Lacking complete knowledge of our mental states would be compatible with describing God as “omniscient,” so the criticism goes, insofar as that is plausibly understood as having as much knowledge as is morally permissible.

Turn, now, to major arguments for thinking that having a soul would reduce life’s meaning, so that if one wants a maximally meaningful life, one should prefer a purely physical world, or at least one in which people are mortal. First and foremost, there has been the argument that an immortal life could not avoid becoming boring (Williams 1973), rendering life pointless according to many subjective and objective theories. The literature on this topic has become enormous, with the central reply being that immortality need not get boring (for more recent discussions, see Fischer 2009, 79–101, 2019, 117–42; Mawson 2019, 51–52; Williams 2020, 30–41, 123–29; Belshaw 2021, 182–97). However, it might also be worth questioning whether boredom is sufficient for meaninglessness. Suppose, for instance, that one volunteers to be bored so that many others will not be bored; perhaps this would be a meaningful sacrifice to make. Being bored for an eternity would not be blissful or even satisfying, to be sure, but if it served the function of preventing others from being bored for an eternity, would it be meaningful (at least to some degree)? If, as is commonly held, sacrificing one’s life could be meaningful, why not also sacrificing one’s liveliness?

Another reason given to reject eternal life is that it would become repetitive, which would substantially drain it of meaning (Scarre 2007, 54–55; May 2009, 46–47, 64–65, 71; Smuts 2011, 142–44; cf. Blumenfeld 2009). If, as it appears, there are only a finite number of actions one could perform, relationships one could have, and states one could be in during an eternity, one would have to end up doing the same things again. Even though one’s activities might be more valuable than rolling a stone up a hill forever à la Sisyphus, the prospect of doing them over and over again forever is disheartening for many. To be sure, one might not remember having done them before and hence could avoid boredom, but for some philosophers that would make it all the worse, akin to having dementia and forgetting that one has told the same stories. Others, however, still find meaning in such a life (e.g., Belshaw 2021, 197, 205n41).

A third meaning-based argument against immortality invokes considerations of narrative. If the pattern of one’s life as a whole substantially matters, and if a proper pattern would include a beginning, a middle, and an end, it appears that a life that never ends would lack the relevant narrative structure. “Because it would drag on endlessly, it would, sooner or later, just be a string of events lacking all form....With immortality, the novel never ends....How meaningful can such a novel be?” (May 2009, 68, 72; see also Scarre 2007, 58–60). Notice that this objection is distinct from considerations of boredom and repetition (which concern novelty ); even if one were stimulated and active, and even if one found a way not to repeat one’s life in the course of eternity, an immortal life would appear to lack shape. In reply, some reject the idea that a meaningful life must be akin to a novel, and intead opt for narrativity in the form of something like a string of short stories that build on each other (Fischer 2009, 145–77, 2019, 101–16). Others, though, have sought to show that eternity could still be novel-like, deeming the sort of ending that matters to be a function of what the content is and how it relates to the content that came before (e.g., Seachris 2011; Williams 2020, 112–19).

There have been additional objections to immortality as undercutting meaningfulness, but they are prima facie less powerful than the previous three in that, if sound, they arguably show that an eternal life would have a cost, but probably not one that would utterly occlude the prospect of meaning in it. For example, there have been the suggestions that eternal lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Nussbaum 1989, 339; Kass 2002, 266–67), could not exemplify virtues such as courageously risking one’s life for others (Kass 2002, 267–68; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94), and could not obtain meaning from sustaining or saving others’ lives (Nussbaum 1989, 338; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Note that at least the first two rationales turn substantially on the belief in immortality, not quite immortality itself: if one were immortal but forgot that one is or did not know that at all, then one could appreciate life and obtain much of the virtue of courage (and, conversely, if one were not immortal, but thought that one is, then, by the logic of these arguments, one would fail to appreciate limits and be unable to exemplify courage).

The previous two sections addressed theoretical accounts of what would confer meaning on a human person’s life. Although these theories do not imply that some people’s lives are in fact meaningful, that has been the presumption of a very large majority of those who have advanced them. Much of the procedure has been to suppose that many lives have had meaning in them and then to consider in virtue of what they have or otherwise could. However, there are nihilist (or pessimist) perspectives that question this supposition. According to nihilism (pessimism), what would make a life meaningful in principle cannot obtain for any of us.

One straightforward rationale for nihilism is the combination of extreme supernaturalism about what makes life meaningful and atheism about whether a spiritual realm exists. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither is real, then you are committed to nihilism, to the denial that life can have any meaning. Athough this rationale for nihilism was prominent in the modern era (and was more or less Camus’ position), it has been on the wane in analytic philosophical circles, as extreme supernaturalism has been eclipsed by the moderate variety.

The most common rationales for nihilism these days do not appeal to supernaturalism, or at least not explicitly. One cluster of ideas appeals to what meta-ethicists call “error theory,” the view that evaluative claims (in this case about meaning in life, or about morality qua necessary for meaning) characteristically posit objectively real or universally justified values, but that such values do not exist. According to one version, value judgments often analytically include a claim to objectivity but there is no reason to think that objective values exist, as they “would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe” (Mackie 1977/1990, 38). According to a second version, life would be meaningless if there were no set of moral standards that could be fully justified to all rational enquirers, but it so happens that such standards cannot exist for persons who can always reasonably question a given claim (Murphy 1982, 12–17). According to a third, we hold certain beliefs about the objectivity and universality of morality and related values such as meaning because they were evolutionarily advantageous to our ancestors, not because they are true. Humans have been “deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a distinterested, objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey” (Ruse and Wilson 1986, 179; cf. Street 2015). One must draw on the intricate work in meta-ethics that has been underway for the past several decades in order to appraise these arguments.

In contrast to error-theoretic arguments for nihilism, there are rationales for it accepting that objective values exist but denying that our lives can ever exhibit or promote them so as to obtain meaning. One version of this approach maintains that, for our lives to matter, we must be in a position to add objective value to the world, which we are not since the objective value of the world is already infinite (Smith 2003). The key premises for this view are that every bit of space-time (or at least the stars in the physical universe) have some positive value, that these values can be added up, and that space is infinite. If the physical world at present contains an infinite degree of value, nothing we do can make a difference in terms of meaning, for infinity plus any amount of value remains infinity. One way to question this argument, beyond doubting the value of space-time or stars, is to suggest that, even if one cannot add to the value of the universe, meaning plausibly comes from being the source of certain values.

A second rationale for nihilism that accepts the existence of objective value is David Benatar’s (2006, 18–59) intriguing “asymmetry argument” for anti-natalism, the view that it is immoral to bring new people into existence because doing so would always be on balance bad for them. For Benatar, the bads of existing (e.g., pains) are real disadvantages relative to not existing, while the goods of existing (pleasures) are not real advantages relative to not existing, since there is in the latter state no one to be deprived of them. If indeed the state of not existing is no worse than that of experiencing the benefits of existence, then, since existing invariably brings harm in its wake, it follows that existing is always worse compared to not existing. Although this argument is illustrated with experiential goods and bads, it seems generalizable to non-experiential ones, including meaning in life and anti-matter. The literature on this argument has become large (for a recent collection, see Hauskeller and Hallich 2022).

Benatar (2006, 60–92, 2017, 35–63) has advanced an additional argument for nihilism, one that appeals to Thomas Nagel’s (1986, 208–32) widely discussed analysis of the extremely external standpoint that human persons can take on their lives. There exists, to use Henry Sidgwick’s influential phrase, the “point of view of the universe,” that is, the standpoint that considers a human being’s life in relation to all times and all places. When one takes up this most external standpoint and views one’s puny impact on the world, little of one’s life appears to matter. What one does in a certain society on Earth over 75 years or so just does not amount to much, when considering the billions of temporal years and billions of light-years that make up space-time. Although this reasoning grants limited kinds of meaning to human beings, from a personal, social, or human perspective, Benatar both denies that the greatest sort of meaning––a cosmic one––is available to them and contends that this makes their lives bad, hence the “nihilist” tag. Some have objected that our lives could in fact have a cosmic significance, say, if they played a role in God’s plan (Quinn 2000, 65–66; Swinburne 2016, 154), were the sole ones with a dignity in the universe (Kahane 2014), or engaged in valuable activities that could be appreciated by anyone anywhere anytime (Wolf 2016, 261–62). Others naturally maintain that cosmic significance is irrelevant to appraising a human life, with some denying that it would be a genuine source of meaning (Landau 2017, 93–99), and others accepting that it would be but maintaining that the absence of this good would not count as a bad or merit regret (discussed in Benatar 2017, 56–62; Williams 2020, 108–11).

Finally, a distinguishable source of nihilism concerns the ontological, as distinct from axiological, preconditions for meaning in life. Perhaps most radically, there are those who deny that we have selves. Do we indeed lack selves, and, if we do, is a meaningful life impossible for us (see essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018; Le Bihan 2019)? Somewhat less radically, there are those who grant that we have selves, but deny that they are in charge in the relevant way. That is, some have argued that we lack self-governance or free will of the sort that is essential for meaning in life, at least if determinism is true (Pisciotta 2013; essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018). Non-quantum events, including human decisions, appear to be necessited by a prior state of the world, such that none could have been otherwise, and many of our decisions are a product of unconscious neurological mechanisms (while quantum events are of course utterly beyond our control). If none of our conscious choices could have been avoided and all were ultimately necessited by something external to them, perhaps they are insufficient to merit pride or admiration or to constitute narrative authorship of a life. In reply, some maintain that a compatibilism between determinism and moral responsibility applies with comparable force to meaning in life (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77), while others contend that incompatibilism is true of moral responsibility but not of meaning (Pereboom 2014).

Agar, N., 2013, Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Alexis., A., 2011, The Meaning of Life: A Modern Secular Answer to the Age-Old Fundamental Question , CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Arpaly, N., 2006, Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Audi, R., 2005, “Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 331–55.
Ayer, A. J., 1947, “The Claims of Philosophy”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 219–32.
Baier, K., 1957, “The Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 101–32.
Barnes, H., 1967, An Existentialist Ethics , New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Belliotti, R., 2019, Is Human Life Absurd? A Philosophical Inquiry into Finitude, Value, and Meaning . Leiden: Brill.
Belshaw, C., 2021, The Value and Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
Benatar, D., 2006, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2017, The Human Predicament , New York: Oxford University Press.
Bennett-Hunter, G., 2014, Ineffability and Religious Experience , Oxford: Routledge.
Blumenfeld, D., 2009, “Living Life over Again”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 79: 357–86.
Bradford, G., 2015, Achievement , New York: Oxford University Press.
Brännmark, J., 2003, “Leading Lives”, Philosophical Papers , 32: 321–43.
Brogaard, B. and Smith, B., 2005, “On Luck, Responsibility, and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 443–58.
Calhoun, C., 2018, Doing Valuable Time: The Present, the Future, and Meaningful Living , New York: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, S., and Nyholm, S., 2015, “Anti-Meaning and Why It Matters”, Journal of the American Philosophical Association , 1: 694–711.
Caruso, G. and Flanagan, O. (eds.), 2018, Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in an Age of Neuroscience , New York: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, D., 2003, Meaning . Durham: Acumen Publishing.
Cottingham, J., 2005, The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2016, “Meaningfulness, Eternity, and Theism”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 123–36.
Craig, W., 1994, “The Absurdity of Life Without God”, repr. in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013: 153–72.
Danaher, J., 2017, “Will Life Be Worth Living in a World Without Work? Technological Unemployment and the Meaning of Life”, Science and Engineering Ethics , 23: 41–64.
Darwall, S., 1983, Impartial Reason , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Davis, W., 1987, “The Meaning of Life”, Metaphilosophy , 18: 288–305.
de Bres, H., 2018, “Narrative and Meaning in Life”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 15: 545–71.
Dorsey, D., 2015, “The Significance of a Life’s Shape”, Ethics , 125: 303–30.
Egerstrom, K., 2015, “ Practical Identity and Meaninglessness ”, PhD Dissertation, Syracuse University.
Ellin, J., 1995, Morality and the Meaning of Life , Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Evers, D., 2017, “Meaning in Life and the Metaphysics of Value”, De Ethica , 4: 27–44.
Feinberg, J., 1980, “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” repr. in Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992: 297–330.
Ferracioli, L., 2018, “Procreative-parenting, Love’s Reasons, and the Demands of Morality”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 68: 77–97.
Fischer, J. M., 2009, Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
Frankfurt, H., 1988, The Importance of What We Care About , New York: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2004, The Reasons of Love , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gewirth, A., 1998, Self-Fulfillment , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goetz, S., 2012, The Purpose of Life: A Theistic Perspective , New York: Continuum.
Goldman, A., 2018, Life’s Values: Pleasure, Happiness, Well-Being, and Meaning , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greene, P., 2021, “It Doesn’t Matter Because One Day It Will End”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 24: 165–82.
Hanfling, O., 1987, The Quest for Meaning , New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
Hare, R. M., 1957, “Nothing Matters”, repr. in Applications of Moral Philosophy , London: Macmillan, 1972: 32–47.
Hauskeller, M. and Hallich, O. (eds.), 2022, “Would It Be Better if We Had Never Existed? David Benatar's Anti-Natalism”, special issue of The Journal of Value Inquiry , 56: 1–151.
Hooker, B., 2008, “The Meaning of Life: Subjectivism, Objectivism, and Divine Support”, in The Moral Life: Essays in Honour of John Cottingham , N. Athanassoulis and S. Vice (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 184–200.
Hosseini, R., 2015, Wittgenstein and Meaning in Life: In Search of the Human Voice , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kahane, G., 2011, “Should We Want God to Exist?”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 674–96.
–––, 2014, “Our Cosmic Insignificance”, Noûs , 48: 745–72.
Kamm, F. M., 2013, Bioethical Prescriptions: To Create, End, Choose, and Improve Lives , New York: Oxford University Press.
Kass, L., 2002, Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics , San Francisco: Encounter Books.
Kauppinen, A., 2012, “Meaningfulness and Time”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 345–77.
Kekes, J., 1986, “The Informed Will and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 47: 75–90.
–––, 2000, “The Meaning of Life”, in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume 24; Life and Death: Metaphysics and Ethics , P. French and H. Wettstein (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 17–34.
Kraay, K. (ed.), 2018, Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , New York: Routledge.
Landau, I., 1997, “Why Has the Question of the Meaning of Life Arisen in the Last Two and a Half Centuries?”, Philosophy Today , 41: 263–70.
–––, 2017, Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World , New York: Oxford University Press.
Le Bihan, B., 2019, “The No-Self View and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy East and West , 69: 419–38.
Levinson, J., 2004, “Intrinsic Value and the Notion of a Life”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 62: 319–29.
Levy, N., 2005, “Downshifting and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 18: 176–89.
Lougheed, K., 2020, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mackie, J. L., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong , repr. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
Markus, A., 2003, “Assessing Views of Life, A Subjective Affair?”, Religious Studies , 39: 125–43.
Martela, F., 2017, “Meaningfulness as Contribution”, Southern Journal of Philosophy , 55: 232–56.
Matheson, D., 2017, “The Worthwhileness of Meaningful Lives”, Philosophia , 48: 313–24.
–––, 2018, “Creativity and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 31: 73–87.
Mawson, T., 2016, God and the Meanings of Life , London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
–––, 2019, Monotheism and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
May, T., 2009, Death , Stocksfield: Acumen.
–––, 2015, A Significant Life: Human Meaning in a Silent Universe , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McPherson, D., 2020, Virtue and Meaning: A Neo-Aristotelian Perspective , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Metz, T., 2002, “Recent Work on the Meaning of Life”, Ethics , 112: 781–814.
–––, 2013, Meaning in Life: An Analytic Study , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2019, God, Soul and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mintoff, J., 2008, “Transcending Absurdity”, Ratio , 21: 64–84.
Moreland, J. P., 1987, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity , Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Morris, T., 1992, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life , Grand Rapids, MI: Willliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Mulgan, T., 2015, Purpose in the Universe: The Moral and Metaphysical Case for Ananthropocentric Purposivism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, J., 1982, Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
Nagel, T., 1970, “The Absurd”, Journal of Philosophy , 68: 716–27.
–––, 1986, The View from Nowhere , New York: Oxford University Press.
Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
–––, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon and Schuster.
Nussbaum, M., 1989, “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50: 303–51.
Olson, N., 2016, “Medical Researchers’ Ancillary Care Obligations”, Bioethics , 30: 317–24.
Pereboom, D., 2014, Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pisciotta, T., 2013, “ Determinism and Meaningfulness in Lives ”, PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne.
Purves, D. and Delon, N., 2018, “Meaning in the Lives of Humans and Other Animals”, Philosophical Studies , 175: 317–38.
Quinn, P., 2000, “How Christianity Secures Life’s Meanings”, in The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , J. Runzo and N. Martin (eds.), Oxford: Oneworld Publications: 53–68.
Raz, J., 2001, Value, Respect, and Attachment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Repp, C., 2018, “Life Meaning and Sign Meaning”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 403–27.
Ruse, M. and Wilson, E., 1986, “Moral Philosophy as Applied Science”, Philosophy , 61: 173–92.
Scarre, G., 2007, Death . Stocksfield: Acumen.
Schinkel, A., De Ruyter, D., and Aviram, A., 2015, “Education and Life’s Meaning”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 50: 398–418.
Seachris, J., 2011, “Death, Futility, and the Proleptic Power of Narrative Ending”, Religious Studies , 47: 141–63.
–––, 2013, “General Introduction”, in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1–20.
–––, 2016, “From the Meaning Triad to Meaning Holism: Unifying Life’s Meaning”, Human Affairs , 29: 363–78.
Singer, I., 1996, Meaning in Life, Volume 1: The Creation of Value , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Singer, P., 1995, How Are We to Live? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Smith, Q., 1997, Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language , New Haven: Yale University Press.
–––, 2003, “Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism”, in Time and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection , H. Dyke (ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 43–54.
Smuts, A., 2011, “Immortality and Significance”, Philosophy and Literature , 35: 134–49.
–––, 2018, Welfare, Meaning, and Worth , New York: Routledge
Solomon, R., 1993, The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life , Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Street, S., 2015, “Does Anything Really Matter or Did We Just Evolve to Think So?”, in The Norton Introduction to Philosophy , G. Rosen et al. (eds.), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.: 685–95.
Svensson, F., 2017, “A Subjectivist Account of Meaning in Life”, De Ethica , 4: 45–66.
Swenson, D., 1949, “The Dignity of Human Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 21–30.
Swinburne, R., 2016, “How God Makes Life a Lot More Meaningful”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 151–63.
Tabensky, P., 2003, “Parallels Between Living and Painting”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 37: 59–68.
Tartaglia, J., 2015, Philosophy in a Meaningless Life , London: Bloomsbury.
Taylor, C., 1989, Sources of the Self , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1992, The Ethics of Authenticity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, R., 1970, “The Meaning of Life”, in Good and Evil , repr. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Boooks, 2000: 319–34.
–––, 1987, “Time and Life’s Meaning”, The Review of Metaphysics , 40: 675–86.
Thomas, J., 2018, “Can Only Human Lives Be Meaningful?”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 265–97.
–––, 2019, “Meaningfulness as Sensefulness”, Philosophia , 47: 1555–77.
Thomson, G., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , South Melbourne: Wadsworth.
Tooley, M., 2018, “Axiology: Theism Versus Widely Accepted Monotheisms”, in Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , K. Kraay, (ed.), New York: Routledge: 46–69.
Trisel, B. A., 2002, “Futility and the Meaning of Life Debate”, Sorites , 14: 70–84.
–––, 2004, “Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts”, The Philosophical Forum , 35: 371–91.
–––, 2016, “Human Extinction, Narrative Ending, and Meaning of Life”, Journal of Philosophy of Life , 6: 1–22.
Velleman, J. D., 2015, Beyond Price: Essays on Birth and Death , Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
Visak, T., 2017, “Understanding ‘Meaning of Life’ in Terms of Reasons for Action”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 51: 507–30.
Waghorn, N., 2014, Nothingness and the Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches to Ultimate Meaning through Nothing and Reflexivity , London: Bloomsbury.
Wielenberg, E., 2005, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiggins, D., 1988, “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life”, rev. edn. in Essays on Moral Realism , G. Sayre-McCord (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 127–65.
Williams, B., 1973, “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”, in Problems of the Self , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 82–100.
–––, 1976, “Persons, Character and Morality”, in The Identities of Persons , A. O. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press: 197–216.
Williams, C., 2020, Religion and the Meaning of Life: An Existential Approach , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolf, S., 2010, Meaning in Life and Why It Matters , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–––, 2015, The Variety of Values: Essays on Morality, Meaning, and Love , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2016, “Meaningfulness: A Third Dimension of the Good Life”, Foundations of Science , 21: 253–69.
Wong, W., 2008, “Meaningfulness and Identities”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 11: 123–48.
Buber, M., 1923, I and Thou , W. Kaufmann (tr.), New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1970.
Camus, A., 1942, The Myth of Sisyphus , J. O’Brian (tr.), London: H. Hamilton, 1955.
James, W., 1899, “What Makes a Life Significant?”, in On Some of Life’s Ideals , New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1900.
Jaspers, K., 1931, Man in the Modern Age , E. Paul and C. Paul (tr.), New York: Routledge, 2010.
Kant, I., 1791, Critique of the Power of Judgment , P. Guyer and E. Mathews (tr.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Kierkegaard, S., 1849, The Sickness unto Death , H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Marx, K., 1844, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts , in Karl Marx Selected Writings, 2 nd Ed. , D. McLellan (ed., tr.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Nietzsche, F., 1885, Thus Spoke Zarathustra , in The Portable Nietzsche , W. Kaufmann (ed., tr.), New York: Viking Press, 1954.
Sartre, J.-P., 1946, Existentialism Is a Humanism , P. Mairet (tr.), London: Methuen & Co, 1948.
Schlick, M., 1927, “ On the Meaning of Life ”, P. Heath (tr.).
Schopenhauer, A., 1851, Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays, Volume 2 , E. F. J. Payne (tr.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Tolstoy, L., 1884, A Confession , L. Maude and A. Maude (tr.).
Wittgenstein, L., 1929, Lecture on Ethics , E. Zamuner et al. (eds.), Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014.
Benatar, D. (ed.), 2016, Life, Death & Meaning, 3 rd Ed. , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Cottingham, J. (ed.), 2007, Western Philosophy: An Anthology, 2 nd Ed. , Oxford: Blackwell: pt. 12.
Garcia, R. and King, N. (eds.), 2009, Is Goodness Without God Good Enough? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Klemke, E. D. and Cahn, S. M. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life: A Reader, 4 th Ed. , New York: Oxford University Press.
Kolodny, N. (ed.), 2013, Death and the Afterlife , New York: Oxford University Press.
Leach, S. and Tartaglia, J. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life and the Great Philosophers , London: Routledge.
Morioka, M. (ed.), 2015, Reconsidering Meaning in Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
––– (ed.), 2017, Nihilism and the Meaning of Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
Seachris, J. (ed.), 2013, Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Seachris, J. and Goetz, S. (eds.), 2016, God and Meaning: New Essays , New York: Bloombsury Academic.
Baggini, J., 2004, What’s It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , London: Granta Books.
Belliotti, R., 2001, What Is the Meaning of Life? , Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Belshaw, C., 2005, 10 Good Questions About Life and Death , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cottingham, J., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
Eagleton, T., 2007, The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, J. M., 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
Ford, D., 2007, The Search for Meaning: A Short History , Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hauskeller, M., 2020, The Meaning of Life and Death: Ten Classic Thinkers on the Ultimate Question , London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Martin, M., 2002, Atheism, Morality, and Meaning , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Messerly, J., 2012, The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Approaches , Seattle: Darwin and Hume Publishers.
Ruse, M., 2019, A Meaning to Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
Young, J., 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life , New York: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Delon, N., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life ”, a bibliography on PhilPapers.
Metz, T., 2021, “ Life, Meaning of ”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , E. Mason (ed.).
O’Brien, W., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life: Early Continental and Analytic Perspectives ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).
Seachris, J., 2021, “ Meaning of Life: The Analytic Perspective ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Skip to primary navigation
Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

Understanding Science 101

Science is embedded in, and influenced by, the broader society.

Science and society

Societies have changed over time, and consequently, so has science . For example, during the first half of the 20th century, when the world was enmeshed in war, governments made funds available for scientists to pursue research with wartime applications — and so science progressed in that direction, unlocking the mysteries of nuclear energy. At other times, market forces have led to scientific advances. For example, modern corporations looking for income through medical treatment, drug production, and agriculture, have increasingly devoted resources to biotechnology research, yielding breakthroughs in genomic sequencing and genetic engineering. And on the flipside, modern foundations funded by the financial success of individuals may invest their money in ventures that they deem to be socially responsible, encouraging research on topics like renewable energy technologies. Science is not static; it changes over time, reflecting shifts in the larger societies in which it is embedded.

Here, we’ll briefly examine a few of the many ways in which the larger society influences science. You can investigate:

Supporting science

Meeting society’s needs
Shaping scientists

Or just click the Next button to dive right in!

Take a sidetrip

Science changes over time, partly as a result of shifts within society at large. To find out what’s changing today see the advanced side trip Modern science: What’s changing?

Summing up the social side of science

Subscribe to our newsletter

The science flowchart
Science stories
Grade-level teaching guides
Teaching resource database
Journaling tool
Misconceptions

Solar Eclipse 2024

What the World Has Learned From Past Eclipses

C louds scudded over the small volcanic island of Principe, off the western coast of Africa, on the afternoon of May 29, 1919. Arthur Eddington, director of the Cambridge Observatory in the U.K., waited for the Sun to emerge. The remains of a morning thunderstorm could ruin everything.

The island was about to experience the rare and overwhelming sight of a total solar eclipse. For six minutes, the longest eclipse since 1416, the Moon would completely block the face of the Sun, pulling a curtain of darkness over a thin stripe of Earth. Eddington traveled into the eclipse path to try and prove one of the most consequential ideas of his age: Albert Einstein’s new theory of general relativity.

Eddington, a physicist, was one of the few people at the time who understood the theory, which Einstein proposed in 1915. But many other scientists were stymied by the bizarre idea that gravity is not a mutual attraction, but a warping of spacetime. Light itself would be subject to this warping, too. So an eclipse would be the best way to prove whether the theory was true, because with the Sun’s light blocked by the Moon, astronomers would be able to see whether the Sun’s gravity bent the light of distant stars behind it.

Two teams of astronomers boarded ships steaming from Liverpool, England, in March 1919 to watch the eclipse and take the measure of the stars. Eddington and his team went to Principe, and another team led by Frank Dyson of the Greenwich Observatory went to Sobral, Brazil.

Totality, the complete obscuration of the Sun, would be at 2:13 local time in Principe. Moments before the Moon slid in front of the Sun, the clouds finally began breaking up. For a moment, it was totally clear. Eddington and his group hastily captured images of a star cluster found near the Sun that day, called the Hyades, found in the constellation of Taurus. The astronomers were using the best astronomical technology of the time, photographic plates, which are large exposures taken on glass instead of film. Stars appeared on seven of the plates, and solar “prominences,” filaments of gas streaming from the Sun, appeared on others.

Eddington wanted to stay in Principe to measure the Hyades when there was no eclipse, but a ship workers’ strike made him leave early. Later, Eddington and Dyson both compared the glass plates taken during the eclipse to other glass plates captured of the Hyades in a different part of the sky, when there was no eclipse. On the images from Eddington’s and Dyson’s expeditions, the stars were not aligned. The 40-year-old Einstein was right.

“Lights All Askew In the Heavens,” the New York Times proclaimed when the scientific papers were published. The eclipse was the key to the discovery—as so many solar eclipses before and since have illuminated new findings about our universe.

Telescope used to observe a total solar eclipse, Sobral, Brazil, 1919.

To understand why Eddington and Dyson traveled such distances to watch the eclipse, we need to talk about gravity.

Since at least the days of Isaac Newton, who wrote in 1687, scientists thought gravity was a simple force of mutual attraction. Newton proposed that every object in the universe attracts every other object in the universe, and that the strength of this attraction is related to the size of the objects and the distances among them. This is mostly true, actually, but it’s a little more nuanced than that.

On much larger scales, like among black holes or galaxy clusters, Newtonian gravity falls short. It also can’t accurately account for the movement of large objects that are close together, such as how the orbit of Mercury is affected by its proximity the Sun.

Albert Einstein’s most consequential breakthrough solved these problems. General relativity holds that gravity is not really an invisible force of mutual attraction, but a distortion. Rather than some kind of mutual tug-of-war, large objects like the Sun and other stars respond relative to each other because the space they are in has been altered. Their mass is so great that they bend the fabric of space and time around themselves.

Read More: 10 Surprising Facts About the 2024 Solar Eclipse

This was a weird concept, and many scientists thought Einstein’s ideas and equations were ridiculous. But others thought it sounded reasonable. Einstein and others knew that if the theory was correct, and the fabric of reality is bending around large objects, then light itself would have to follow that bend. The light of a star in the great distance, for instance, would seem to curve around a large object in front of it, nearer to us—like our Sun. But normally, it’s impossible to study stars behind the Sun to measure this effect. Enter an eclipse.

Einstein’s theory gives an equation for how much the Sun’s gravity would displace the images of background stars. Newton’s theory predicts only half that amount of displacement.

Eddington and Dyson measured the Hyades cluster because it contains many stars; the more stars to distort, the better the comparison. Both teams of scientists encountered strange political and natural obstacles in making the discovery, which are chronicled beautifully in the book No Shadow of a Doubt: The 1919 Eclipse That Confirmed Einstein's Theory of Relativity , by the physicist Daniel Kennefick. But the confirmation of Einstein’s ideas was worth it. Eddington said as much in a letter to his mother: “The one good plate that I measured gave a result agreeing with Einstein,” he wrote , “and I think I have got a little confirmation from a second plate.”

The Eddington-Dyson experiments were hardly the first time scientists used eclipses to make profound new discoveries. The idea dates to the beginnings of human civilization.

Careful records of lunar and solar eclipses are one of the greatest legacies of ancient Babylon. Astronomers—or astrologers, really, but the goal was the same—were able to predict both lunar and solar eclipses with impressive accuracy. They worked out what we now call the Saros Cycle, a repeating period of 18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours in which eclipses appear to repeat. One Saros cycle is equal to 223 synodic months, which is the time it takes the Moon to return to the same phase as seen from Earth. They also figured out, though may not have understood it completely, the geometry that enables eclipses to happen.

The path we trace around the Sun is called the ecliptic. Our planet’s axis is tilted with respect to the ecliptic plane, which is why we have seasons, and why the other celestial bodies seem to cross the same general path in our sky.

As the Moon goes around Earth, it, too, crosses the plane of the ecliptic twice in a year. The ascending node is where the Moon moves into the northern ecliptic. The descending node is where the Moon enters the southern ecliptic. When the Moon crosses a node, a total solar eclipse can happen. Ancient astronomers were aware of these points in the sky, and by the apex of Babylonian civilization, they were very good at predicting when eclipses would occur.

Two and a half millennia later, in 2016, astronomers used these same ancient records to measure the change in the rate at which Earth’s rotation is slowing—which is to say, the amount by which are days are lengthening, over thousands of years.

By the middle of the 19 th century, scientific discoveries came at a frenetic pace, and eclipses powered many of them. In October 1868, two astronomers, Pierre Jules César Janssen and Joseph Norman Lockyer, separately measured the colors of sunlight during a total eclipse. Each found evidence of an unknown element, indicating a new discovery: Helium, named for the Greek god of the Sun. In another eclipse in 1869, astronomers found convincing evidence of another new element, which they nicknamed coronium—before learning a few decades later that it was not a new element, but highly ionized iron, indicating that the Sun’s atmosphere is exceptionally, bizarrely hot. This oddity led to the prediction, in the 1950s, of a continual outflow that we now call the solar wind.

And during solar eclipses between 1878 and 1908, astronomers searched in vain for a proposed extra planet within the orbit of Mercury. Provisionally named Vulcan, this planet was thought to exist because Newtonian gravity could not fully describe Mercury’s strange orbit. The matter of the innermost planet’s path was settled, finally, in 1915, when Einstein used general relativity equations to explain it.

Many eclipse expeditions were intended to learn something new, or to prove an idea right—or wrong. But many of these discoveries have major practical effects on us. Understanding the Sun, and why its atmosphere gets so hot, can help us predict solar outbursts that could disrupt the power grid and communications satellites. Understanding gravity, at all scales, allows us to know and to navigate the cosmos.

GPS satellites, for instance, provide accurate measurements down to inches on Earth. Relativity equations account for the effects of the Earth’s gravity and the distances between the satellites and their receivers on the ground. Special relativity holds that the clocks on satellites, which experience weaker gravity, seem to run slower than clocks under the stronger force of gravity on Earth. From the point of view of the satellite, Earth clocks seem to run faster. We can use different satellites in different positions, and different ground stations, to accurately triangulate our positions on Earth down to inches. Without those calculations, GPS satellites would be far less precise.

This year, scientists fanned out across North America and in the skies above it will continue the legacy of eclipse science. Scientists from NASA and several universities and other research institutions will study Earth’s atmosphere; the Sun’s atmosphere; the Sun’s magnetic fields; and the Sun’s atmospheric outbursts, called coronal mass ejections.

When you look up at the Sun and Moon on the eclipse , the Moon’s day — or just observe its shadow darkening the ground beneath the clouds, which seems more likely — think about all the discoveries still yet waiting to happen, just behind the shadow of the Moon.

More Must-Reads From TIME

Jane Fonda Champions Climate Action for Every Generation
Passengers Are Flying up to 30 Hours to See Four Minutes of the Eclipse
Biden’s Campaign Is In Trouble. Will the Turnaround Plan Work?
Essay: The Complicated Dread of Early Spring
Why Walking Isn’t Enough When It Comes to Exercise
The Financial Influencers Women Actually Want to Listen To
The Best TV Shows to Watch on Peacock
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

A Solar Eclipse Means Big Science

By Katrina Miller April 1, 2024

Share full article

On April 8, cameras all over North America will make a “megamovie” of the sun’s corona, like this one from the 2017 eclipse. The time lapse will help scientists track the behavior of jets and plumes on the sun’s surface.

There’s more science happening along the path of totality →

An app named SunSketcher will help the public take pictures of the eclipse with their phones.

Scientists will use these images to study deviations in the shape of the solar surface , which will help them understand the sun’s churning behavior below.

The sun right now is approaching peak activity. More than 40 telescope stations along the eclipse’s path will record totality.

By comparing these videos to what was captured in 2017 — when the sun was at a lull — researchers can learn how the sun’s magnetism drives the solar wind, or particles that stream through the solar system.

Students will launch giant balloons equipped with cameras and sensors along the eclipse’s path.

Their measurements may improve weather forecasting , and also produce a bird’s eye view of the moon’s shadow moving across the Earth.

Ham radio operators will send signals to each other across the path of totality to study how the density of electrons in Earth’s upper atmosphere changes .

This can help quantify how space weather produced by the sun disrupts radar communication systems.

(Animation by Dr. Joseph Huba, Syntek Technologies; HamSCI Project, Dr. Nathaniel Frissell, the University of Scranton, NSF and NASA.)

NASA is also studying Earth’s atmosphere, but far from the path of totality.

In Virginia, the agency will launch rockets during the eclipse to measure how local drops in sunlight cause ripple effects hundreds of miles away . The data will clarify how eclipses and other solar events affect satellite communications, including GPS.

Biologists in San Antonio plan to stash recording devices in beehives to study how bees orient themselves using sunlight , and how the insects respond to the sudden atmospheric changes during a total eclipse.

Two researchers in southern Illinois will analyze social media posts to understand tourism patterns in remote towns , including when visitors arrive, where they come from and what they do during their visits.

Results can help bolster infrastructure to support large events in rural areas.

IMAGES

Essay on Science
What is Science?
Wonder of Science essay in very simple words
Importance of Science (400 Words)
Science Essay
A Guide to Writing Scientific Essays

VIDEO

Blessings of Science 150 word essay
Science for Sustainable Future Essay, Speech, Paragraph or Short Note in English
Blessing of science Essay in English |Blessing of science Essay |#English essay#english creative #yt
Wonder of Science essay for class 10th #essaywriting #wonderofscience
Short paragraph on Science in Daily Life
National Science Day Special Class By Abhishek Sir

COMMENTS

Science
science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws. Science can be divided into different branches based on the ...
Essay on Science: Meaning, Scope, Nature, Technology and Society
Essay # 1. Meaning and Definitions of Science: Meaning of Science: The English word Science is derived from a Latin Verb 'Scire', which means 'to know' and Latin Noun 'Scientia' which means 'knowledge'. Meaning of Science is based on German word ' Wissenchaft', which means systematic, organized knowledge. Thus, Science is a ...
What is science?
Science is exciting. Science is a way of discovering what's in the universe and how those things work today, how they worked in the past, and how they are likely to work in the future. Scientists are motivated by the thrill of seeing or figuring out something that no one has before. Science is useful. The knowledge generated by science is ...
The Science Essay
The science essay uses science to think about the human condition; it uses humanistic thinking to reflect on the possibilities and limits of science and technology. In this class we read and practice writing science essays of varied lengths and purposes. We will read a wide variety of science essays, ranging across disciplines, both to learn more about this genre and to inspire your own writing.
PDF PB 1 What is science?
"science" applies to a remarkably broad set of human endeavors, from developing la-sers, to analyzing the factors that affect human decision-making. To get a grasp on what science is, we'll look at a checklist that summarizes key char-acteristics of science and compare it to a prototypical case of science in action: Ernest
How to Write a Science Essay
A descriptive science essay aims to describe a certain scientific phenomenon according to established knowledge. On the other hand, the exploratory science essay requires you to go beyond the current theories and explore new interpretations. So before you set out to write your essay, always check out the instructions given by your instructor.
The philosophy of science
The philosophy of science is a field that deals with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge. In this website, we present a rough synthesis of some new and some old ideas from the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science. Photo credit: Wikimedia. In this website, we use a practical ...
Scientific Discovery
Scientific Discovery. Scientific discovery is the process or product of successful scientific inquiry. Objects of discovery can be things, events, processes, causes, and properties as well as theories and hypotheses and their features (their explanatory power, for example). Most philosophical discussions of scientific discoveries focus on the ...
Science
Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Modern science is typically divided into three major branches: the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals ...
The Concept of Science: Definition and Components Essay
Essential Components of Science. In order to attain the core of the concept of science, it would be reasonable to identify its principal components. The first is the ability to approach the subject critically and without preconceived notions. Essentially, this is the quality of open-mindedness that science is often accused of lacking.
What is Science?
Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation. So carry on. Thank you. Presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City, and reprinted from The Physics Teacher Vol ...
Essay on Science: Sample for Students in 100,200 Words
Sample Essay On Science in 100 words. Science, the bedrock of human progress, unveils the mysteries of our universe through empirical investigation and reason. Its profound impact permeates every facet of modern life. In medicine, it saves countless lives with breakthroughs in treatments and vaccines. Technology, a child of science, empowers ...
George Orwell: What is Science?
For the word science is at present used in at least two meanings, and the whole question of scientific education is obscured by the current tendency to dodge from one meaning to the other. Science is generally taken as meaning either (a) the exact sciences, such as chemistry, physics, etc., or (b) a method of thought which obtains verifiable ...
Essay About Science and Technology for Students
Here are simple definitions of science and technology: Science is a systematic study that helps us understand the natural world. Meanwhile, technology is the practical application of science that helps make our life easy. Moreover, science and technology play an important role in people's lives and human development.
Nature of Science
Introduction. Nature of science (NOS) is a critical component of scientific literacy that enhances students' understandings of science concepts and enables them to make informed decisions about scientifically-based personal and societal issues. NOS is derived not only from the eight science practices delineated in the Framework for K-12 ...
Essay on Importance of Science in Our Life
Essay on Importance of Science in Our Life - Science has unquestionably done a great service to humanity. Man has led to many discoveries in various parts of the world. The study of animals, chemicals, the force, the earth, and plants, among other things, are within various branches of science such as physics, chemistry, and biology.
The Meaning of Life
3. Naturalism. Recall that naturalism is the view that a physical life is central to life's meaning, that even if there is no spiritual realm, a substantially meaningful life is possible. Like supernaturalism, contemporary naturalism admits of two distinguishable variants, moderate and extreme (Metz 2019).
Science and society
Science and society. Societies have changed over time, and consequently, so has science. For example, during the first half of the 20th century, when the world was enmeshed in war, governments made funds available for scientists to pursue research with wartime applications — and so science progressed in that direction, unlocking the mysteries ...
Meaning Of Life: The Scientific Perspective
Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. The approach we employ in seeking to discover and understand the meaning of life is of utmost importance, as it greatly defines our eventual outcome. The philosopher has his own personal opinion about life, which he may innocuously presume to be absolute.
What the World Has Learned From Past Eclipses
"Lights All Askew In the Heavens," the New York Times proclaimed when the scientific papers were published. The eclipse was the key to the discovery—as so many solar eclipses before and ...
Global warming
Modern global warming is the result of an increase in magnitude of the so-called greenhouse effect, a warming of Earth's surface and lower atmosphere caused by the presence of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and other greenhouse gases. In 2014 the IPCC first reported that concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and ...
What Is Science Essay
1407 Words | 3 Pages. Science is the body of organized knowledge. Science is the collection of ideas and theories and the methodology used by people to prove them. It is the set of methods that people follow in order to explain the things that they see, the things that they perceive and the things that they believe in.
Free Essay: What is the meaning of science?
From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, science or scientia meant any systematic recorded knowledge. Science therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that philosophy had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the word corresponding to science also carries this meaning.…
A Solar Eclipse Means Big Science
An app named SunSketcher will help the public take pictures of the eclipse with their phones. Scientists will use these images to study deviations in the shape of the solar surface, which will ...
The True Meaning of Addiction (And How To Talk About It!)
Many of us have heard the saying "words matter". This is especially true when talking about substance use disorders and addiction. Substance use disorders affect millions of people, including adolescents and young adults. Addiction is a long-term medical condition. In many cases, people with addictions want to quit but find it difficult.

Browse Course Material

Departments

As Taught In

Learning Resource Types

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

The Concept of Science: Definition and Components Essay

What is Science?

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Essay on Science: Sample for Students in 100,200 Words

What Is Science?

Branches Of Science

Wonders Of Science

Sample Essay On Science in 100 words

Sample Essay On Science in 250 words

Amisha Khushara

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Need help with?

Country Preference

Which English test are you planning to take?

When are you planning to take the exam?

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

What is your budget to study abroad?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

Essex Direct Admission Day

Essay About Science and Technology| Tips & Examples

What is a Science and Technology Essay?

Science and Technology Essay Examples

Short Essay on Science and Technology

How To Write a Science and Technology Essay?

Choose a Topic

Do Your Research

Write a Thesis Statement

Outline Your Essay

Write the Introduction

Write the Main Body

Write The Conclusion

Edit Your Draft

Science and Technology Essay Topics

Science and Technology Essay Writing Tips

Keep reading

MyNSTA Community

Nature of Science

Introduction

Why Learn About Nature of Science?

Declarations

Concluding Remarks

Research and Theoretical References

References of Teaching Resources

Essay on Importance of Science in Our Life

Table of Contents

Importance of science in society

Electricity

Transport and Communication

Medicine and Surgery

Agriculture

Frequently Asked Questions on Essay on Importance of Science in Our Life

How has science influenced our daily lives?

How has science made our lives easier?

What is the social significance of science and technology?

Why is science education important in the 21st century?

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Bibliography

The Meaning of Life

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

2. Supernaturalism

3. Naturalism

Support SEP

Understanding Science

Science and society

What the World Has Learned From Past Eclipses

More Must-Reads From TIME

You May Also Like

A Solar Eclipse Means Big Science

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS