<p>Hi ,
Could someone please read this essay and let me know if it is good for atleast 10 on not?
Thank you. This is for my S and I don't want to be biased.</p>
<p>Question: Is disagreement necessary to progress? </p>
<p>No change was ever made through concordance. People who are content with each other see no benefit in altering the status quo. Only when they disagree with something so they strive for progress. Major upheavals throughout history such as American Civil Rights Movement and the publication of Copernicuss heliocentric model exemplify this fact.
Frictional groups most often see major change. In the early 50s, Jim Crow Laws and segregation defined life for Southern blacks. Many blacks accepted the system as immutable. They felt that the segregationist system was for the better. Black and White community leaders believed that their races could never intermingle successfully. Thus there was very little progress. That is, until the first sparks of major dissent were unleashed. With the arrest of Rosa Parks for defending het seat on a bus, the anger of the black youth exploded into the Montgomery Bus Boycotts and sit-ins at restaurants and major businesses. The Black youth hadnt yet fallen into begrudging acceptance of the arduous system. They were compelled to disagree with leaders at the time and formed groups such as the SLCC. With time, these groups gave birth to new leaders who were more righteous and adamant than their predecessors. Those leaders Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, W.E.B, Dubios spearheaded the movement into major federal legislation by the 60s, but it all started the status quo.
Like justice, scientific truth can also be buried under a faulty system, and dissent is the only option to uncover it. Early 16th century Europe, right before the Renaissance, was dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. The church held a strict view of the Scripture, and much of scientific thought revolved around proofs of Biblical phenomena. So it was until amateur German astronomer Nicolas Copernicus entered the fray. By observing the heavens, he found that the planets and sun did not orbit the Earth. Rather, he proposed a heliocentric model. To the dismay of the Church, he proposed that the Sun was the center of the solar system. Although he was quickly censured he gained followers such as Galileo. Galileo further pushed this contrasting opinion, and it eventually gained credence in the scientific community, forcing the Church to reform its views. Had Copernicus, in foresight, believed that it was unnecessary to his career to dissent from orthodoxy, major scientific upheaval would not have been possible.
Social change, political change, and scientific change are intertwined to the concept of disagreement. When one dares to think against established view, he makes the first steps of progress. Change will never be made in blind agreement.</p>