Critical Essay: Analysis of Science vs. Medieval Thinking by Spears

This essay presents a critical analysis of Tom Spears' article, "Science vs. Medieval Thinking," focusing on the impact of scientific advancements versus medieval thought regarding vaccinations and genetically modified crops. The essay critiques the article's title, structure, and lack of clear objectives and referencing, highlighting the importance of these elements in academic writing. It discusses the author's presentation of facts and data, the absence of detailed explanations, and the limited exploration of education's role in changing societal viewpoints. The analysis further examines the article's discussion of disease outbreaks, medieval perspectives on treatments like measles, and the shift towards scientific approaches. The essay concludes by summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of Spears' article, emphasizing the need for improved structure, referencing, and a more comprehensive exploration of the subject matter to enhance its credibility and impact.

Running head: CRITICAL WRITING
Critical Writing
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1CRITICAL WRITING
This essay introduces a critical analysis and thinking of the article “science versus
medieval thinking” by Spears, 2013. The article explains the impact of science and medieval
thinking of the society on vaccinations thereby, getting rid of the diseases. According to me, an
article needs to highlight clearly the objective so that the readers are able to have an idea of the
article by reading the title. The given article “science vs. medieval thinking” highlights that the
article will emphasize its take on the impact of science and medieval thinking on disease and
treatment. However, on the contrary, I think, the title of the article needs to be precise and
concise rather than giving a highlight to the readers. This article sheds light on the persisting
contradictory views of vaccines and genetically modified crops among the population.
According to me, the language of an article plays a crucial role in engaging the readers.
However, on the contrary, I think the language used needs to be professional as well as simple in
order to connect with the readers. In the case of the given article, the language used by the author
is extremely simple that hampers the quality of the article to a certain extent. The article
successfully explains the graphs and the percentage of the people in the 19th century suffering
from diseases rather than explaining the thinking of the individuals behind the cause.
Additionally, the report also states the view of the educated people of the 21st century but lacked
to provide a detailed insight of them about vaccination and genetically modified crops.
According to me, the article title and the objectives need to support each other for helping
the readers. However, the title of the article does not highlight the objective of the article. The
article title says ‘science vs. medieval thinking” but fails to highlight which aspect is discussed in
terms of science and medieval thinking. Therefore, the title fails to provide an overview of the
topic that is explained through science and medieval thinking. However, I also think, the
objectives provide a shape to the article thereby, successfully completing it. In the case of the

2CRITICAL WRITING
given article by Tom Spears “Science vs. Medieval Thinking”, the article fails to develop distinct
objectives through the entire article. Therefore, the article lacks proper structure thereby, making
it disorganized. I think lack of appropriate structure has made the report look haphazard thereby,
making it difficult for the readers to understand the chronological order.
The report highlights the medieval thinking about vaccines and genetically modified
crops that resulted in outbreaks and plaque in the US. According to me, the appropriate structure
of the article is required to make the article look professional. However, as I also think, the
structure of the article does not always define the credibility of the work. This article does not
follow a definite structure thereby, making it confusing. The first part of the article highlights the
medieval thinking of vaccines and genetically modified crops whereas the second part consists of
the scientific aspect of the vaccines and genetically modified crops that people developed in the
21st century due to exposure to education.
An article needs to appropriately referenced in order to determine the authenticity of the
data and information used. According to me, appropriate sourcing provides credibility to the
research. However, in the case of the article written by Tom Spears “Science vs. medieval
thinking”, the entire writing lacks referencing of the data and information provided. However,
the information used by the author is intriguing but reliability in an issue in this case. The author
has majorly presented facts and information without mentioning the appropriate source of
collecting the information. Therefore, the reliability of the article is questionable due to lack of
references.
According to me, the explanation of the facts and science and their implications are
important in order to enhance the quality of the article. However, on the contrary, I think, a large

3CRITICAL WRITING
quantity of data and graphs rather than explanation enriches the quality of the article. In the case
of this article, the author has presented only the facts and present and past viewpoints of the
society. Therefore, though the article is able to differentiate between the impact of science and
medieval thinking on the society, the article is unable to explain the reason for the difference.
The article fails to show the impact of education on the mindset and opinion of the people in
terms of vaccines and genetically modified crops that helped in reducing the rate of disease
outbreaks and plaques.
According to me, the article successfully discusses the various outbreaks of diseases in
the past and due to the medieval thinking of the society. The article states that measles was
considered just as an itching disorder that would reduce with time. This medieval thinking
disallowed the society to know the adverse and degenerating impact of measles on the
individuals. However, the article fails to discuss the onset of science in treating the disease
outbreaks. The article vaguely discusses that science helped in considering the use of vaccines
and genetically modified crops. Additionally, I also think the author also fails to highlight when
actually science helped in changing people viewpoint in terms of considering the use of vaccines
for treating the disease.
I also think the author has explained that education has helped in changing the opinions
and viewpoints of the people. The author signifies that the use of education and science has
changed the perceptions of the society in terms of using vaccines and genetically modified crops.
The data provided by the author also signifies that the rate of disease outbreak has also decreased
after the use of vaccination has increased. However, I also think the author has failed to
determine to what extent science and education have helped in forcing people to get rid of their
medieval thinking in respect to disease treatment and using genetically modified crops. The

4CRITICAL WRITING
article also presents the data from 11 Nobel Prize winners that states people are destroying
golden rice physically that is essential for the body. However, according to me, the author fails to
mention the rate of the destruction of golden rice. However, the author successfully states the
benefit of using vaccines and genetically modified crops.
In this essay, it can be concluded that though Tom Spears wrote the article "Science vs.
Medieval thinking" successfully discusses the benefits of using vaccines for treating business the
article has various negatives. I also think the title of the article fails to highlight the issue based
on which the science and medieval thinking is discussed. I also feel the article also lacks
objectives and appropriate structure due to which the author fails to meet the criteria of
professional write up. Additionally, the author has presented data before and after the use of
science without any appropriate referencing. Therefore, there is no confirmation whether the
information used for the article is recent or not. This questions the credibility and authenticity of
the article thereby, criticizing the originality of the information. The information in this article
lacks coordination and interconnection, as the author has presented the article in two section. The
author has failed to establish a relationship between the two sections. It can also be concluded
that the author has forgotten to consider the viewpoints and opinion of different individuals and
explaining it supporting the data. Therefore, the credibility and authenticity of the article are
questionable largely. Therefore, According to me, though the topic of the article vital but the way
it is presented along with the explanation, pictures and language used needs improvement.

5CRITICAL WRITING
References
Spears, T. (2013). Science vs. Medieval thinking, Opposition to vaccines, GM foods persists.
Edmonton.