What Science Can Do
I argue that 'we' the public of the United States of America, do not have an exaggerated view of what science can do. To support this claim I have compared and contrasted two articles: Enemies of Promise and The Hazards of Science. Both articles cover the topic of scientific research. Both authors are accredited scientists in their own right, and are excellent examples to cite for my thesis which I believe very strongly in. Although, I disagree with some of the conclusions made in the articles, I neverless hold both authors in very high regard.
Professor of microbiology and Nobel Prize winner, J. Michael Bishop continually makes the statement in his article, Enemies of Promise, that the public has exaggerated and unrealistic expectations as to what science can do; Just as physician-author Lewis Thomas asks in his article, The Hazards of Science, "are there some things in science we should not be learning about?" (238). These men both have relevant opinions about science today. I can not say that they agree with each other because their articles are structured differently. Bishop makes arguments for science while stating it's limitations; and Thomas highlights some of sciences' achievements while questioning how far science should go. In discussing the topic of science, albeit from different frameworks, they touch upon some of the same topics.
Bishop alleges that, "Science, is not the exclusive source of knowledge about human existence." (256). Then sites Thomas as saying that science is "the best way to learn how the world works." As Bishop cites Thomas to make his point, they both obviously agree with this statement. However, Thomas questions the lengths that science should go to while Bishop does not.
Lewis Thomas asks the central question, "are there some kinds of information leading to some sorts of knowledge that human beings are really better off not having? Is there a limit to scientific inquiry not set by what is knowable but by what we ought to be knowing? Should we stop short of learning about some things, for fear of what we, or someone, will do with the knowledge?" (237). The author then answers his own questions: No, but he qualifies his answer by stating that it is an intuitive response that he is incapable of reasoning through. I too believe that we should not place limitations on science, while admitting that it is also an intuitive response.
“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.”
The article, “Motivated Rejection of Science” stood out to me because the vast amount of scientific research to back up findings and the vast majority of the population that rejects it. Lewandowsky and Oberauer discuss the prevalence of false beliefs in the general population. They bring up the popular conspiracy theories that have either false or no scientific research, plaguing the minds of many. When the majority of the general population believe in a certain theory – like the vaccines that are ‘linked’ to measles, Autism, mumps, and rubella – the effects can be detrimental. The vaccine craze was felt worldwide and is the best example of misinformation.
Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz. New York: St. Martins, 1997, 230-235. Thomas, Lewis "The Hazards of Science" The Presence of Others. Comp. Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz.
“The result of the last week must convince you of the hopelessness of further resistance… [I] regard it as my duty to shift from myself the responsibility for further [loss] of blood, by asking you surrender [of] the Army of Northern Virginia.” is what General Ulysses S. Grant as the highest ranking officer of the Union Army, wrote to the opposing the highest ranking officer of the opposing Confederate army, General Robert E. Lee on April 7, 1865. (Alter, 2002) In 1861, the Southern states of the United States of America had seceded from the Union, forming the Confederate States of America, and President Lincoln deciding it was worth it to bring them back, declared war, sparking the American Civil War. (Gaines, 2009) Grant joined the army and was quickly promoted to general-in-chief, and despite a few setbacks, managed to force the Confederates to surrender after forcing their forces from the Rapidan River to the James River in a manner one soldier describe simply as "unspoken, unspeakable history." in 1865. (Civil War Trust, 2013) Four years later, Grant was voted as the United States president at forty six years old – the youngest president at that time. (Simon, 2013) Grant tried to help ease racial tensions during his term, but his presidency is most remembered as one filled with scandal. (PBS, 2013) From a humble background, to a soldier, and after some time, to a gifted and experienced general, eventually becoming a president, Grant fought his entire life as hard as he could for what he believed in, through both hardship and peace, helping America in many ways.
Arthur L. Caplan, in his news article, “Distinguishing Science from Nonsense,” warns the audience about the uncertain economic future of the United States of America due to the abandonment of science within society. Further, Caplan’s purpose is to inform the audience how the dwindling importance of science in children is not only due to schools, but also due to American culture. Therefore, Caplan uses a combination of rhetorical devices to not only warn and inform the public about the importance of science, but to also engage them to an extent that persuades the audience to take action.
Society seems to be divided between the idea if science is more harmful than helpful. We live in a world where humans depend on science and technology to improve important aspects of society, such as medical machinery, which supports the fact that science is more of a friend than a foe. Science is advancing every day. The United States has come a long way with its ongoing developments, giving individuals a chance to improve society as a whole. Not only does the United States benefit from such growth, but every modernized country does so as well. Through science and technology, individuals learn from past endeavors and apply it to present and future projects, paving the way for new discoveries and efficient enhancements
...om society. Although Bishop makes no excuses for the shortcomings of science and academia, he delivers an ominous message to those who would attack the scientific community: Science is the future. Learn to embrace it or be left behind.
SAINATI, TATIANA E. "Toward A Comparative Approach To The Crime Of Genocide." Duke Law Journal 62.1 (2012): 161-202. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Nov. 2013
The Fear of Science To live in the today's world is to be surrounded by the products of science. For it is science that gave our society color television, the bottle of aspirin, and the polyester shirt. Thus, science has greatly enhanced our society; yet, our society is still afraid of the effects of science. This fear of science can be traced back to the nineteenth century, where scientists had to be secretive in experimenting with science. Although science did wonders in the nineteenth century, many people feared science and its effects because of the uncertainty of the results of science.
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
The issue shall discuss the various differences between science and other types of knowledge and discuss the argument whether the science can rely without the separate theories posted by non-scientific educational bodies. ...
What is Science Essay Incomplete The word "science" means "knowledge." The baseline definition of "science," then, is human knowledge. Empirical thought is founded on the idea that all knowledge of the world comes from sensory experience; this sensory experience can be trusted to give us an accurate picture of the world. From sensory experience, we can derive the principles whereby the world works by observing phenomena repeatedly and in controlled circumstances.
"We often think of science as something inescapably linked to progress, and of progress as continually marching forward. We assume that there is something inevitable about the increase of knowledge and the benefits this knowledge brings" (Irvine & Russell). Provide humanity with wisdom and speculative enjoyment. This enjoyment of the public is through reading, learning and thinking. But scientists are met with the real research work.
Public understanding of science is considered to be one of the most important issues facing educators in today’s technological world. It is see...
Science is a method of understanding how things work. It is important because we need science in order for things to work and to develop new technology that is used in every day life. It is personally important to me because I really want to become a vet when I get older and I would need to do really well in science. Even though science isn’t exactly my best subject, I am willing to put in the hard work and determination so I may eventually get better and learn what I need to know.