A sentence cannot be a complete thought. Instead, thought is structured by using a combination of statements, sentences and personal being. Therefore, the task of writing a biology essay is about being and using language constructively. So far, it appears that it is possible for someone or a group of persons to think about the wrong things and even to go as far as expending lots of energy on the wrong or false track. Answering the wrong questions or solving the least urgent problems have the downside of being economically inefficient and ineffective; thus it is important that in learning how to write a biology essay we should take care that our essays resolve the most critical issues first. Identification of critical issues and ordering them is not an easy feat. In this article we learn how to write an biology essay by first ensuring that we are tackling the most relevant and urgent topics and by applying a deliberate method that leads to how to write a good essay in biology.
How we order experience and how we interpret them is mostly a matter of personality and desired outcomes. It is difficult enough for an individual to see something for what it truly is. If one is restricted to the subjective entirely, then it becomes difficult to ascertain whether the person can deliver truth. Therefore, among the first requirements for how to write essay for biology is to ensure that our perception is objective.
The task of how to write an biology essay, as we have seen, requires an objective mind, but how can we know that a mind is objective in the first place, and that the ideas it generates are worthy of our attention? Some thought about this question reveals that ordering and measuring the relative urgencies of our experiences and expectations requires conformity to the political and economic pressures surrounding the people concerned.
But this conformity may get in the way of how to write a good essay in biology since the subject for thought, the methods and results may be skewed to such an extent that it were better for one not to venture in the business altogether.
B K Jennings shows us an example of how uncritical thought in science can go wrong, by explicating how Thomists stuck to the Aristotelian method that they lost out in the advent of the Copernican revolution, where the problems caused by patient and age after age stellar observation, led thinkers of the time to reconsider the geocentric model of the universe. By the time we got into the renaissance there was so much doubt on the veracity and validity of what was presented as traditional knowledge that some concerned parties decided to go back in the past to find out what was deemed to be lost.
It, therefore, follows that in order for us to write any good scientific papers we need to have:
These are the first conditions for being able to know how to write a good essay in biology. That is, we can know what a good biology essay is, or what makes a scientific paper good.
How to write a good essay in biology is shown when:
The task of how to write a biology essay is one that calls for the writer to be holistically aware of his/her situation. But how easy is it to achieve this state?
The history of science is replete with cases where revolutionary thought was introduced only to be met with hostility and horror, that it only took many years for the scientific community to come to terms with the thoughts that were presented and harshly rejected. In fact, it is possible for one to execute how to write a good essay in biology and be punished for it.
Evidence from even contemporary science points to the fact that the scientific community has not been able to rid itself of bias, and by extension, the scientific community has been unable to hold true stewardship of truth. There are significant times when we have been presented with papers that have hardly been true or even good, but we not only remained ignorant of the facts, but also used other forms of authentication to the detriment of truth.
Good examples of such a phenomenon are in the areas of cancer research and climate change. These two apparently urgent issues have failed to generate significant action in some cases because the scientific community has managed to be divided in opinion. Corporate organizations making carcinogenic products have well managed to fund counter-research, while climate change deniers have often found scientific evidence to support their beliefs.
Is a peer review mechanism enough guarantee for objectivity in science, or more precisely, ‘epistemology'? If the answer is ‘yes', then it must follow that there'd never be cause for paradigm shifts as elaborated by Popper. If the answer is ‘yes' then we'd not have ideas elaborated in our times by a thinker like Sir Fred Hoyle being sidelined. If anything, a peer review mechanism only goes as far as establishing what has been predetermined and or presupposed by political outcomes that ensure the players involved don't lose their privileges. Given the nature of political influence it is difficult to show that a group of peers will intentionally endanger their positions without a fight. A moral question that arises is; would you accept to lose all that you have, and probably sleep on the streets for a truth that you've discovered? Chances are that you would bend the truth to fit your desire for a cozy home.
It must, therefore, follow that objective realism in science has to be disinterested with the trappings of the world, and that the ascetic and austere scientist is the epitome of objective thought, for such a thinker would not fear any losses in the course of his/her work.
But if this primary condition for the observer and thinker is to be considered seriously then the basis for his/her practice must go beyond mere sentiment and must instead be rooted in the workings of his body and mind. That is, objective realism must be based on how our body systems and psychological systems work. It appears then that how to write an biology essay and specifically how to write a good essay in biology entails knowing the nature, functions and limits of the human body system.
A good question for us at this moment is whether there has ever been a moment in human history when science was based on objective realism that was deemed as universal truth by all people involved. Looking at past literature and evidence we find that there are accounts of such moments in the history of humanity. There are two witnesses to this fact; the first is the ancient writer Hesiod and the second is found in the book of Daniel in the Judeo - Christian tradition where the prophet Daniel explicates a narrative that is eerily similar to Hesiod's interpretation of human history.
Tracking the ages of humanity again by following archeological and monument based evidence we find that it is plausible that Gold was among the first precious metals used by humanity and that it was only after rapid population increases that the glory of humanity began to wane and there was a sudden desire for megastructures and monuments that would enable memories of human power to be recalled. Abraham is situated in the middle of the Bronze Age, apparently. So is Moses situated in the late Bronze Age!
Further archeological evidence shows that populations in Africa's hinterland were in the Iron Age by the time of the partition of the continent towards the end of the 19th century. Yet there has been little evidence for earlier usage of materials like Gold or Bronze. This confirms that it is plausible that these new Iron Age populations had migrated at a time when the other materials had ceased to be the prima materia for their work.
Therefore, it is plausible that Hesiod was right in his explication and that there was such a time when humans lived in a golden age. Thinking further about this historical explication leads us to the realization that objective realism is only possible when the thinkers or perceivers involved are engaged in the noble art of alchemy. This must have been the reason behind Sir Isaac Newton's insistence on alchemy.
History of science then provides us with the requisite knowledge that it is possible to have universal and objective knowledge and that the thinker must be noble to the extent of not needing any other forms of gold from without as did King Midas.
The science that assures objective realism is one that is alchemically oriented in the sense that it carries with it the moral obligation of being free from want and that seeks to transcend political realities that are often obstacles to clear knowledge. It is impossible for a thinker to know how to write a biology synoptic essay if his/her senses are blocked by want and desire. If one were to be evaluated as deficient in moral standing in the sense of not being alchemically inclined then it would follow that the person would be as well deemed blind, and his/her works would fail to achieve the standards of how to write a good essay in biology.
When one can see clearly, and knows how to write a biology synoptic essay, then it is possible for that person to exercise reason to the extent of using objective realism to show how to write a biology extended essay.
The alchemical world view is apparently based on Euclidian geometry and just as Archimedes used the method of circles to come with his great inventions, so would the biologist gain much by re-understanding the basic elements as derived from what is known as the ‘flower of life' or ‘the golden flower' which is a geometric construction used as a basis of meditation and mind training among the Buddhists and the yoga practitioners who alas come from a strictly mathematical background.
As Pythagoras is said to have declared that ‘all is number', objective realism entails the knowledge of application of numbers in knowing things in themselves and expanding to higher and more complex forms of truth. That is the science of how to write a biology extended essay is mathematical - physical reasoning applied to biological systems.
Given that we already know how to access objective realism in our work, it follows that how to write a biology essay introduction and how to write a conclusion for a biology essay are strictly determined by mathematical - physics postulates. The conditions for a good scientific paper determine how to write an introduction for a biology essay since one is aware of context and need, and this eventually determines how to write a conclusion for a biology essay too.
In this article, we have outlined how thoughts go beyond words and enter into conduct and psychological states of their users. We have seen how we can control these relevant factors to ensure that we know what is urgent and useful so that we can be able to write good scientific and in this case, biology essays. Charge is given to us to find the veracity of these thoughts and to apply them accordingly.