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.
Not all scientific knowledge is misused, and it’s only brought to our attention when it has been. When this occurs people often question the validity of scientific work which leads to criticism. Some scientific progress will bring with it disruptive change in our society, but with change comes progress and the hope that we can better our lives. In the two stories I will present in this paper, Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” and Catherine Asaro’s “The Veiled Web,” they discuss the negative consequences of the actions from people who try and offer good insight to the scientific community and the general population. In both stories, two men take it upon themselves to manipulate science for the good of mankind.
As a scientist, Bishop believes that science has "solved many of nature's puzzles and greatly enlarged human knowledge" (237) as well as "vastly improved human welfare" (237). Despite these benefits, Bishop points out that some critics are skeptical and have generally mistrusted the field. Bishop believes that "the source of these dissatisfactions appears to be an exaggerated view of what science can do" (239). In the defense of science, Bishop argues that this problem is not due to science rather, it results from a lack of resources. "When scientists fail to meet unrealistic expectations, they are condemned by critics who do not recognize the limits of science" (240).
It also angers me that scientists do not hold values, but rather feel as though facts are more important. To me, it is not always the case. Most scientists and researchers are so caught up in finding “evidence” and “truth”. In striving to do this, they often lose sight of the important things. Science is not truth and truth is not science.
It is actually a very scary thought. But then on the other end of the spectrum you have J. Michael Bishop who defends scientists against people's critiques. Bishop is correct in his argument that scientists have done great things. According to him, people begin to lose faith in science because they don't see results as fast as they would like to but as Bishop states research may take years and even then, there may not be a concrete answer. The important thing is that they are working towards one and people should not expect miracles, they should allow scientists to do their work and only hope for a quick solution.
I learned that Science is filled with human values, and it matters to me because it means that Science is not broken. No, science is not broken. People are. Following one of my weird rational lines, I recognize how science and society share a relationship between transmitted values and the results we expect from science. The majority of psychology and biomedical researches cannot be replicated because their results are not true at all, P-values are being played as a puzzle, and scientists are just accommodated, working in appearances and developing money.
In the scientific community, if a hypothesis has been proven and is widely recognized and is supported by the other logic of scientists without actually doing their own research of experiment, then what has been proven true, they believe to be true. When I also claim to know something, I am able to reach ... ... middle of paper ... ... a hole of doubt, therefore decreasing the reliability held within whichever knowledge claim I am trying to prove to be correct. Within our society, there have been occasional instances where doubt has been heightened during the journey to prove a knowledge claim correct. The process of a skeptic works only to illuminate the weaknesses in our knowledge claims and in doing this will prove or disprove the claim itself. There have been many examples of skepticism within the fields of science that have led to doubt such as the ability for other planets to sustain life and skepticism within history can be seen in the simple idea of whether or not certain events even took place in the past.
A greater subject fitteth Faustus' wit.” (Marlowe 4) He’s being scientific, and he’s trying to get across the idea that he’s not biased. When he dismisses a field of study, he wants the audience to believe that he has reached that conclusion by scientific reasoning, not by his own personal desire. He shows off his knowledge by making Latin references to his studies. The majority of the public at the time wouldn’t understand these quotations, because so few of the population went to school. However, Faustus is immensely flawed as a person.
The scientific community saw a paper, which was not peer reviewed, of a scientific principle go out into the public without their consent. While the concept of cold fusion is contrary to the accepted views of physics, this small fact is not what had the community outraged. It was the way Pons and Fleischmann presented the experiment that caused problems. The accepted way of presenting research results within the scientific community is to first publish your experiment to the rest of the scientific community, have other scientist verify your results, and then only after your results have been tested and verified should you go to the press. Science often has experiments that are contrary to the current theory, when these experiments are observed the theory is changed to allow the results to happen and be pre... ... middle of paper ... ...could all be showing the same effects without there being any merit to their clams.
Introduction Science, by its very nature, is insular. In general, chemists read and write about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology, and physicists read and write about physics. But they may all be competing for the same research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if scientists wanted more money for themselves, they might decide to compete unfairly. The way they can do this is convince the funding agencies that they are more important than any other branch of science.