Take the difference between refined sugars and natural sugars, and the lack of distinguishment leading to the demonization of sugar. Likewise, the same for carbohydrates. Take the Flat Earth Society, which doubts the authority of photographic evidence, but members would evoke the bible. Take scientific skepticism. Countless misconceptions about evolution and casual denial of climate change. What these have in common is that they are all scientific ideas challenged by not scientific authority, but people and mere journalists.

Navigating the world is hard without an understanding of statistics, biology, and physics. I as a writer I aim to educate, but do not understand some of the science myself. I could make sense of blog posts and papers like Scientific American but couldn’t understand the composition of scientific literature other than the abstract.

Moreover with the exchange of these ideas, there is the specific idea that civilization was brought by Europeans; as most inventions were done by Europeans. With this idea comes the fall of civilization along with Europeans, and I see this issue brought up concerning immigration. I was sure to have had a similar education, but didn’t come to such conclusions; I think of the formalization of the Algebra science as one, and the advancements of ancient China. Understanding history was important because I needed to understand the wide discrepancy between ideas of people of opposing views.  When I signed up for my courses I noticed an opportunity to study Latin America, a topic we studied briefly – remember going a lot of the encomienda system, for two of my classes but generally saw an opportunity understand history.

Growing up in New York, I didn’t see such viewpoints. But on the contrary, I have heard about the evils of Europeans. My goal for this class is to gain a broader understanding of Latin American culture and history. If I aim to educate it is important I understand my audience and their viewpoints. More broadly I aim to help unify ideas.

Contradictory, I do not believe educating directly is the best way to do this. Entrepreneurship is the best way to do this, as progression of science forces people to adapt. Take the heliocentric model of Galileo for example, his ideas took a century to be adopted. Take business moguls like Elon Musk and Jeff Bozos and their space pursuits. They are both proof that the private sector can undertake tasks previously only bodies like government can handle. And they say they are exceptions to the rule of people to the task, but this is proof that entrepreneurship can be used for scientific advancement, more

generally as a unit of organization.

I believe science is the best way to unify ideas. Perhaps there isn’t a single conclusion but in doing so I can at least weed out scientifically incorrect ones