Rhetoric can be a compliment to scientific discourse because of the impact it can have on the intensity of argument in the scientific world. If science research is merely stating the facts and making no argument for the legitimacy of the issues researched, than it has failed to truly make an impact with the discoveries. Relevant issues today such as climate change and alternative fuels are often the topics of scientific research because scientists hope to find solutions. If a solution for an alternative fuel source is presented, but the benefits are not argued to convince the reader, the scientist has not accomplished anything. ... ... middle of paper ... ...nisms in the food industry.
If scientists do not have knowledge to find cures for dise... ... middle of paper ... ... evolved a lot. Therefore, the practice of science has become normal to some people and I agree when Bishop mentions that science is a “continuing thing”. Humanity is characterized to do whatever it takes to seek knowledge and to get a better life. In conclusion, I think scientists take risks by practicing researches when they do not know the results until they see the final product. I believe that in some point of our lives we need to take risks because if we do not take risks we will never find out what difference could we make in society.
Progress or Alienation Our society has alienated itself far from the reality of the way things are and the way they should be, through the use and misuse of scientific knowledge and technology. Science is defined as, “a logical organized method of obtaining information through direct, systematic observation.” Sometimes science does not seem organized, in fact it seems like it opens us up to a different realm of possibilities that have consequences far beyond our wildest dreams. Scientific knowledge is something that sometimes cannot be controlled or monitored, but needs to be for the sake of the greater population. Those with the most power, for example political leaders and corporation giants, are often allowed privileged information that could jeopardize the safety of all of us. Now whether or not this information is taken in good faith, or for the almighty dollar doesn’t mean its right, nor does it mean that we should not explore scientific possibilities.
The principal purpose of genetic engineering is to cure deadly diseases, contrary the principal purpose of genetic enhancement is to improve the human capacities, for example make them more handsome , taller or more smarter. The pricipal reason why genetic enhancement should not be allowed is because it would limit children 's autonomy to shape their own destinies. Dr. Arthur Caplan Ph.D. serves as Chief of the Division of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, states “Renegade scientists and totalitarian loonies are not the folks most likely to abuse genetic engineering. You and I are--not because we are bad, but because we want to do good. In a world dominated by competition, parents understandably want to give their kids every advantage.
The purpose of the scientific method is to provide explanations to better understand a phenomenon through a process that stipulates that assumptions must be verified by observations, stringent measurements and rigorous tests. Thus, the very validity of the scientific process is based on the intellectual honesty of the researchers. The intellectual honesty that Richard Feynman refers to is similar but not limited to i... ... middle of paper ... ...fact that the easiest person to fool is our self. Scientific research is now a lucrative business; companies and business groups are looking to develop the next technology that will generate billions in profits. Any research that does not have direct and marketable applications is considered futile and is rarely funded.
Knowledge can be used for both good and evil. Of course, scientists in their work have the responsibilities of all citizens to do no harm and be honest. Their additional responsiblity is to put their work and its possible applications in the public domain. Rotblat does not want to distinguish between scientific knowledge and its application, but the very nature of science is that it is not possible to predict what will be discovered or how these discoveries could be applied. Cloning provides a nice example.
In fact, he does not. The World Controller states that science is dangerous to the society, since it can destroy stability (231). Since Huxley portrays that society negatively, science and technology are therefore put in a positive light. However, Huxley gives examples of how the problems raised by new technology can be solved poorly. When mass production becomes simple, the Brave New World society allows production to increase and requires that consumption increase, a solution that seems flawed by current American standards.
Strong groups need simple tasks and common motivations. Ensuring safety from terrorists and nuclear weapons seems to have a lot more draw than sacrificing industry for the environment, or relative gains for economic success. This is not to say that nothing will be done to confront every major global issue. When trying to save the world, though, it might be best to keep countries out of it.
While many can argue that pure research is just as beneficial as applied science since it can help prepare for things we do not know are coming, such as future problems. For example, we probably would not have known about global warming or the reason why plants and animals exist without pure research. Pure research is important because the human race is curious about its origins and about the world around them. However, applied science is more useful as applied science helps solve the basic problems the human race faces first, before allowing them to confront the issues that pure research hopes to answer. Pure research satiates the world’s desire to figure out how the world works, but this may only benefit a part of the human race.
For example, the government has drastically given the US postal service subsidies and advantages, such as mailboxes to be used by only their business. This increases the steep curve for any other possible competitor to possibly join in on the market, which demonstrates the monopoly that they control. Secondly, due in part to the direct government interference with the market, the topic of equity can also be brought into question. The economic definition of equity is defined as the ability for the economy to use resources and distribute them fairly between the members of society. The following quote explains the inefficiency created by a monopoly and government intervened market: “When a government intervenes to change price or quantity to an amount other than the efficient free market amount, economists say that the government is distorting the market.” (Cocktail Party Economics, 142) Most likely, when a government sets up a monopoly, as seen in the article – the price consumers pay drastically increases.