You know why you make mistakes don’t you? I’d say you know less than you think you do. Challenge yourself to see more, to do more, to act in ways that bring you to the forefront of technology and science instead of listening to science as a religious word, or scripture. Schools are the reason we err. According to Kathryn Schulz to err comes from the word to move, and making mistakes really do get us going. In college I screw up. In high school, I screwed up too. These things tied me to my work and kept me going. There shouldn’t have to be so much error inherent to life to keep us going.

I wanted to write for my critical thinking class the error inherent to the spanish colonial missionization. The Spaniards focused on forcing people into a new way of life without regard to the old system. With this they wanted to create an agrarian utopia, one where people are able to fend for themselves. Instead of working with people trying to get the people to do what they wanted, I proposed that they focus on the birds. So numerous were their populations in California, and so diverse were their adaptations, colonials, by developing their scientific way of thinking, could create a more advanced utopia. They wanted agrarian self-sufficiency. With the techniques of the day, nearly everyone would have to pitch in. Today, with modern technology less than three percent of the population for the entire earth is in agriculture. Maybe I have that statistic wrong. Maybe this statistic only applies to the United States, but it is still impressive. If there are roughly three million or four million people in the united states then it only takes about five people to feed one hundred. Instead of missions having to teach everyone to farm, only a few people would actually have to learn to farm.

The very least birds offer insight into predatory adaptations, but by scientifically investigating one area, you open up pathways to another. In mathematics, for instance, in order to create calculus, Isaac Newton created calculus. Calculus is used today for all kinds of things like physics, business, sports and kinesthetic, and cartography. The tools inherent to one field are ultimately useful to other disciplines. Studying the way birds have adapted can open up a door to other disciplines because to study in the scientific method is creates such findings that open new doors.

My teacher told me that this was a good topic, but she said I should stay away from utopia. Se didn’t think that it was an error of them to not use science, it was an oversight, or not natural to their way of thinking. It would be like saying someone was erroneous for not being able to predict the future. I considered this reason in three ways. First, I decided I would write two papers, and the one I would turn in would be the simple one essentially written by the instructions of my teacher without much effort on my part to think critically. Second, I thought, “Why can’t people be expected to strive toward a vision of the future by way of discovery?” In this way, discovery would shape the future. In this way, people wouldn’t have to predict the future. They would observe, create a theory, test it, and re-test it under scrutiny from other individuals. This is the scientific process. I assumed that when my teacher was talking about utopia that the idea of utopia meant perfection. The dictionary explains that this concept is right, but is missing a key concept to the primary usage: imagination, an imagined place of perfection. She could not see the connection between the two different images of perfection, one agrarian, the other industrial. The idea of utopia evolved out of scientific discoveries. The mistake is not in the idea of utopia, but the limitation that they were on the way toward realizing utopia.

My teacher and I may have minced words as I was in a hurry and tired resulting in the desire for my to limit or alter my course to study something I could write a short research paper about. This fear that I would not succeed limited her Idea of what I could write about to things that she had already taught. I wanted to push toward something I want to be true. I wanted to point out that people can get to their chosen utopia by aiming to a more perfect place, a step beyond where they were. To conceive of this better utopia would make the first one, while unappealing, wholly manageable.

The third realization I had was science was available even back then. I had not drawn the connection between science’s availability because my teacher made a point that the people back then would not have been able to conceive of the same utopia as the nineteenth century, scientific-industrial utopia. This clouded my judgement and allowed me to believe that science didn’t exist. I realized science, the practice, has always been available but was only standardized and accessible to common people when it was first taught in primary and secondary education sometime in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries.

In this confrontation I learned that school Is inherently malpracticed, while it is inherently superior to cultural learning, fundamental illiteracy makes schools over-instructive. The basis for fundamental illiteracy comes from the amount of explanation giving to supplement theoretical comprehension, and it comes from the lack of significant observation to standardize the theory. Standard theory requires standard observation. With schools trying to cut costs while increasing the amount of supplements to learning, classrooms often skip over observations and experiments essential to the field and the time needed to decompress the knowledge.