NASA Ethos Pathos Logos

870 Words2 Pages

There are many people who see space as the last and greatest frontier for humankind. There are many groups who are leading the way and NASA is one of them. But should our tax dollars be invested in such an idea? No, according to British history professor Jerry DeGroot. His thesis, in the article “is that United States should, a sensually, defund NASA. From what I can tell, he uses mainly pathos to try to sway his argument, leaving very little appeals to ethos and practically none to logos. I’m going to explore these three appeals, as well as many of the fallacies he uses within the piece. His pathos appeal at the surface sound practical. He makes the claim NASA budget could be spent on social programs like feeding the poor. His case makes sense. We should be helping the poor, as well as, other socially helping programs with our tax dollars. He brings in a quote by President Eisenhower, who said that "every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Again I can’t argue with this …show more content…

The first is argumentum ad populum fallacy. He paraphrases a Stephen Hawking quote that say he “had argued that we must colonise other planets to ensure mankind's long-term survival.” The author goes on to say that, “Much as I admire Hawking, that's nonsense. The Earth is indeed doomed, but where might refugees go? Mars makes Antarctica seem like paradise. As for distant galaxies, a spaceship capable of travelling at a million miles per hour (20 times faster than Apollo) would take 4,000 years to reach the nearest star system that might theoretically be hospitable.” The reason this is an ad populum fallacy is because he going after the current weaknesses of mankind and has decided to ignore two basic facts. The speed of which technology improves over time and the drive of humans to explore. Both as back by general knowledge of human

More about NASA Ethos Pathos Logos

Open Document