Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
an essay on ethical research
an essay on ethical research
an essay on ethical research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: an essay on ethical research
1) York claims that “if we are to understand the world in which we live and to bring about a sustainable and just society, we must grapple with both of these aspects of science: its power and its horror.”
a. How has science played a role “in generating the modern environmental crisis”? Provide examples.
Without science we would not have as many weapons as we do, such as the atomic bombs. Without science global warming would not be accelerating at such a high rate. We wouldn’t be testing new products on animals. We wouldn’t be dumping so much toxic waste everywhere, because without science many of the inventions we have would not have ever been invented. Science leaves out moral and ethical questions.
b. If science is complicit in creating the modern environmental crisis, how can science also be part of the solution to the modern environmental crisis?
Science
c. What is the difference between science-as-problem and science-as-solution?
Science-as-pro
2) According to York, “we must follow a fine line between two extremes: on the
…show more content…
Why does he claim that it is important not to reject science (as a method of knowledge generation) outright while at the same time being skeptical of the scientific establishment (the social organization of power that shapes how science is used)?
A lot of science is based in fact, though most is collected with biased because humans are collecting the data and humans aren’t perfect, we get caught up with our emotions and incentives. The general knowledge from science can help the environmental movement, most people acknowledge scientific data. The problem arises when the information was collected by corrupt means and biased agendas. People do science just to get specific answers to their problems, but that turns out to be bad if you skew your answers. Science isn’t bad, the human error is the bad part.
d. What are the political implications of rejecting the logic and methods of science as they relate to the modern environmental
The documentary begins with Stein speaking before an audience, addressing the principle of freedom in America. He then advances to discourse of the loss of academic freedom in the scientific community through interviews of scientific figures such as Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Michael Ignore, Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzalez. These interviews are contrasted with clips of scientists who refute the idea and validness of intelligent design. To get a perspective about the credibility and thoughts of Darwinism and intelligent design in the scientific community, Stein is referred to talk to other figures of science such as Bruce Chapman, Paul Nelson, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and Jonathan Wells. Stein then begins his in depth investigation interviewing Richard Dawkins, David Berlinski, and Michael Ruse, looking to determine how Darwin theory applies to the cr...
A nobel prize winning, architect of the atomic bomb, and well-known theoretical physicist, Professor Richard P. Feynman, at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of science, addresses the importance of science and its impact on society. Feynman contends, although some people may think that scientists don't take social problems into their consideration, every now and then they think about them. However he concedes that, because social problems are more difficult than the scientific ones, scientist don’t spend too much time resolving them (1). Furthermore he states that scientist must be held responsible for the decisions they make today to protect the future generation; also they have to do their best, to learn as much as possible,
Objection 1: One of the main issues with using all criticism in science is the fact that not all criticism is worthy of being taken into consideration. This comes up as an issue in the book “Merchants of Doubt” when talking about climate change research. In 1979, there were two studies done on the impact of carbon dioxide on the environment in response to others that had been done. One done by natural scientists and one done by economists. The report done by the natural scientists matched up with what had been said before -- that the amount it was increasing was a problem, but when the economists put out their report it was quite different. Their conclusion showed that any action at the time would be costly and that any serious changes would be so far off that they can be discounted. This is a substantial problem with including all criticism in science.
John Barry’s piece explores that science is more than the outcome of an experiment but rather the questions asked in the process. Through many different types of rhetorical strategies, he addresses the need to be uncertain to be a successful scientist.
“Science is not a body of facts. Science is a state of mind” (Angier 490). While both essays, “The Canon” by Natalie Angier, and “Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse” by Thomas W. Martin, discuss the fact that science is practiced through actions and is not a set of facts to be learned; these two articles approach the topic differently. By using different rhetorical modes and having alternate styles, these two articles appear different; but they contain the same foundation of science and make similar points. Even though the article’s main points have similarities, the essays also contain many differences through their rhetorical mode, approach, and appeals.
This is so in the case of climate change. Climate change is a controversial and complex topic that has not seen a victor in the debate it has become. Many scientists are perplexed as to how some do not accept the science of the issue. For this reason, many in science shy away from the media’s attention. However, the issue of climate change was not always seen in this perspective. At the turning point of the twentieth century, climate change was as foreign to humans as cancer was during the early twentieth century. The ...
In the article “Climate of Complete Certainty” by Bret Stephens, he argues upon the topic that politicians exaggerate scientific certitude to benefit themselves. Stephens uses Clinton’s campaign loss and the climatic debate as illustrations to show that scientific fact doesn’t always give the defining factor of gains or losses. As stated by Stephens, Brexit showed the Clinton campaign that the populist tide causes a major surprise factor when determining the end result. With this example in mind, Stephens conveys that the end result strayed away from absolute certainty. Another instance in which scientific certitude is altered is within the topic of climate change.
Consider this: a random doctor comes up to you, professing to have a cure for any and all kinds of viruses. He presents a syringe of the “antidote”, he has not provided background nor the results of his experimentation. Would you take the antidote? Within a person's life time, there will be various moments of skepticism. Skepticism can be both beneficial and detrimental, it can also lead to the arising of various knowledge claims. One of the ways by, which a person can gain knowledge is through their level of skepticism. Some knowledge claims that can arise as a result of too much or too little skepticism include; does this approach allow for knowledge to be gained with some degree of certainty? Is this approach to gaining knowledge reliable? Within the various areas of knowledge, the manner in which we absorb the information and knowledge provided can vary. With some areas of knowledge, the information we gain we may take in without questioning. In other areas of knowledge, we might take in the information with a grain of salt; presenting our skepticism. My thesis is that while skepticism can be a beneficial approach to gaining knowledge in the AOKs of the natural sciences and history, it can also be detrimental, based on the impact the AOK has on the person observing it, as well as the perspective of the person. The subsequent knowledge issues that arise as a result, will need to be analyzed in order for me to be able to evaluate the “skeptics” approach in the AOKs of natural science and history.
Scientist and researchers use science and scientific methods to figure out what is occurring to the environment, climates and everything else related. Scientific methods include generating hypothesis and conducting experiments and yielding data which they can rely on and spread it amongst citizens with confidence. Scientific research over many years gaze the changes occurring over time and how climate is changing and effecting the Earth and life on Earth. Xifra (2015) states how science produces more captivating and distressing analyses, which means that science does say that there is change globally resulting in climate change but there is gap of knowledge between the scientific research and the social responses to climate change. O’Connor et al. (2015) states many studies conducted have evidence of climate change has affected the marine biological systems more than other factors; and confidently accrediting biological change to climate change is important to the application of scientific research to making decisions. Basically even though there are believers and deniers, believers are on the same beliefs that science says about there is climate change and its
Science is purely a study of what can be seen and tested in the world. That concept is shown in the following quote: “Science is the method of testing natural explanations for natural explanations for natural objects and events. Phenomenon that can be observed are amiable to scientific investigation” (“NSTA…”). The understanding of what is science is crucial because Evolution is based on changes that people can see in organism. With it being science (as it can be seen/tested), evolution is something that should be taught in schools. The evidence for it being able to be seen and tested is a...
.... Here the complex structure and the almost-paradoxical ideas of a scientist are obvious. However, the next few sentences are : “They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. In this process arguments based on ‘authority’ are no longer valid; in order to function, authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it” (218). In a sudden shift of style, the author engages the reader in less of complex logic, but more of slogan-based thinking, in which he starts to use words like “authority”, “freedom” and “jointly responsible”. Both styles merged create a text which seems universally attractive - as to the science-oriented logical mind, as well as to the less complex person who wishes to see catchy words to captivate his imagination.
Through their readings, Michael J. Bishop and Pamela Samuelson discuss the positive and negative aspects of science. Science can benefit humans by providing them with solutions to improve their lives, such as immunizations and cellular phones. Yet, the same positive solutions can turn detrimental and destructive when science's warnings are not respected and understood.
Many people dedicate their lives to spread the message about climate change being real. Even though some change in the climate is natural, many events that have happened cannot be explained away by nature. Climate change is causing damage to the world that is completely irreversible. Nasa says, “Most scientists say it 's very likely that most of the warming since the mid-1900s is due to the burning of coal, oil and gas. Burning these fuels is how we produce most of the energy that we use every day” (nasa). The energy that we use daily makes our life easier, but it hurts the earth. Why does the government still allow us to use these things? Science has shown us that sea levels are rising in many parts of the world. Warm weather is causing glaciers to melt which results in the sea level rising. Earth 's average temperature has been rising for the last century in a half; and there has also been a steady rise in ocean temperature since 1969. It is said that climate control is man made and it is dangerous. On the other side of the argument, many people do not believe that climate change is real. They argue that their has not been a big temperature change in almost two decades. They also bring up the point of there not being enough data in the climate history to draw the conclusion of what is happening in the climate now is abnormal. Scientist started to record climate change around the 1800’s which many people believe is not enough data to do a comparison. Another reason some believe that climate change is not real is because of some instances where a scientist predicts a date of a significant climate change never happens. Rinkesh writes, “ For example:- Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012” (conserve-energy-future). Many people find that these reasons are why climate change is not
Science can be defined as a concept of observations and inquiries that the whole world applies depending on certain natural laws which are discovered and tested. Some academics come across ideas which have existed, they explore and test these ideas using scientific methods. These methods are based on observations or experience which compel academics into hypothesis testing (Comer, Gould, & Furnham, 2013). It is suggested that science has key
made. Science also have a big part of how the world was created and how it will be destroyed.