What We Believe But We Cannot Prove Analysis

As technology is catching on human existence and becoming an increasingly significant part of people’s lives, contrasting discussions upon how much it should be present -especially in delicate topics as education- are emerging across the nation. Some argue that technology is fundamental for connections within the school, but its benefits are being challenged by the view of many who consider it a menace to the learning of most students, as it constitutes a distraction, a source of corrupt contents and a danger to the clear processing of reality. Cons of having technology in schools undeniably win its pros, and for this reason it is fundamental for educators to carefully ponder whether they should allow their students to access it at the moment

In his essay What We Believe But We Cannot Prove: Today’s Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty (2006), science and technology writer Dyson Esther writes that because of how humans measure time in minor chunks, “Businesses focus on short-term results; politicians focus on elections; school systems focus on test results; most of us on the weather rather than on the climate.” (Esther, par. 6). In the same way as people are always more focused on details, it might be difficult for students to manage the overwhelming amount of information that technology allows them to reach. For example, trying to research upon a topic, students can be distracted from their assignments by focusing too much on the marginal studies, pop-up advertisements and activities going on their

According to David Gelernter, computer scientist and author of the article Should Schools Be Wired To The Internet, schools have enough data even without the internet, and students are overwhelmed and distracted by too much information and immoral contents of the internet. Willing to aware schools’ administrators and parents that internet in schools only provides disadvantages to education, Gelernter wrote that “I’ve never met one parent or teacher or student or principal or even computer salesman who claimed that insufficient data is the root of the problem” (Gelernter, par. 1) and that “While it’s full of first-rate information, it’s also full of lies, garbage and pornography so revolting you can’t even describe it. There is no quality control on the internet” (Gelernter, par. 3). Gelernter shows that internet researches would only replace researches in libraries with no real advantage rather than a multitude of deceptions and time-wasting materials. Some may argue that books could be difficult to find and consult, resulting in a waste of time; however, the time that a teenager will spend checking his social, emails and weather in the process of reading an article on his device will always be greater than the time spent flipping through the pages. Why should then schools promote internet and distribute