“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. In “The Canon” written by Natalie Angier, a variety of interesting stories are used to prove that science isn’t something that can be learned but, instead, is a mindset. Angier confirms this statement by using examples from everyday life to show how people behave scientifically, whether they know it or not (491). She also points out that by simplifying concepts, such as the solar system, to help children understand science, it skews their view of science more than aiding in their knowledge (497). This goes to show that by making simple hypothesis’ and conclusions on
Martin argues in his essay, “Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse,” that people believe changing their minds results in weakness, when it is actually a growth in knowledge (502-503). He argues this declaration through the use of factual evidence, which shows how people prefer to keep their beliefs than conform to new truths that are discovered (502). By using examples from his own life, Martin also shows how using science as a process is more beneficial in learning than knowing scientific facts (501). Martin concludes his argument by explaining that through the use of science as a process, the user will become more scientifically literate; and therefore, have a greater overall understanding of science itself
Barry successfully conveys the many traits that scientists will endure in their work, and the qualities essential in order to be successful by using three effective rhetorical devices-- exemplification, powerful diction, and insightful figurative language. He uses his experience with the flu epidemic and rhetorical strategies to prove his claim that there is much more to science
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.
Natalie Angier, a well-known author of multiple books and journalist for The New York Times, began her post-secondary education at the University of Michigan and finished at Barnard College, graduating with a high honor. Later on in her life, she published a controversial article in The New York Times over evolutionary psychology. According to Angier, evolutionary psychology refers to “the fundamental modules of human nature, most notably the essential nature of man and of woman” (Angier 161). Within the article, Men, Women, Sex, and Darwin, Angier attempts to argue against theories of evolutionary psychology by diving into the differences between men and women through cardinal premises. Angier provides a strong argument against theories of
Science is a study that can be viewed and interpreted in various ways. Some believe science to be based on facts and specific results, while others believe it to be based on creativity and spontaneity. In his account of the 1918 flu epidemic, The Great Influenza, John M. Barry characterizes scientific research as work that requires creativity, spontaneity, and intelligence through his use of rhetorical devices such as allusions, metaphors, and rhetorical questions.
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.
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
Earlier Science was treated as an institution but now, it includes many things like "scientific experiments, "theories" etc. The authors argue that this knowledge should viewed in terms of "socially constructed" and not the one known as "scientific truth". This article points that in the social constructivist view, the 'science' it is just another system of knowledge which contains empirical researches and studies. It is basically concerned with what is "truth", how it has emerged, accepted and explained in social domain. ...
Studies have found that most people learn a large amount about science through consuming mass media news (Wilson 1995) and many surveys ha...
In the article, the author reveals his passion for science began at an early age becoming curious to learning how things work, and as an adult qualified the gratification you receive from its understanding when he states “Doing science is still among my chief pleasures” (Sagan 2). Throughout the article, Sagan reiterates his passion for science while he explains the disconnect in today’s democratic American society due to the movement away from science and into an information and service economy. The author argues from the point of view of how children and adults who do not understand science could be detrimental to society because people are less knowledgeable about the world and have the inability to find new ideas. In a plea, the author explains “…how gratifying it is when we get it…” Sagan’s article in the Washington Post directly aligns with the interest and passion with our protagonist, Victor Frankenstein who says “I read and studied the wild fancies of these writers with delight; they appeared to me treasure know too few besides myself” (Shelley 22). Frankenstein describes his passion to learn the secrets to which nature holds for the purpose of rewards of discovery. And Sagan just like Frankenstein indicates “When you’re in love, you want to tell the world ” and”when we understand and put this knowledge to use, many feel, if not a wild exhilaration, a least a deep satisfaction” (Sagan 3). Although science is not absolute with a definitive answer it is important to collaborate with others thus roping them into thinking about how science integrates into their lives instead of maintain isolation giving no room for
Science and the Media Pop Culture depicts science not as the technical art that it is, but as more of a practice of great magic. It illustrates the professional conduits of the discipline as sorcerers and sorceresses, portraying to the average person an image of an inexplicable, divine phenomena rather than a series of cooperative components. Though this depiction is inaccurate at best, the magical, and often times supernatural, practices of science in media influences younger generations to study in the various realms of the art. Growing up, I always thought that being a scientist meant concocting potions all day in a white lab coat, or pacing back and forth in a dimly light room surrounded by beakers full of mysterious glowing liquids as
"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.
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. ...
Public understanding of science is considered to be one of the most important issues facing educators in today’s technological world. It is see...
There are many myths when talking about science. Myths are usually routined views or stories that help make sense of things. Misunderstandings of science are most likely due to educational programs. The article focuses on ten myths.
By incorporating NOS in science textbooks, not only we will be addressing the problem suggested by Sutton (1998), but, also, as teachers, we will be reinforcing scientific expertise needed in to develop active citizens while attaining two roles in scientific understandings that are “knowing how” science was established and “knowing that” which is constituted of facts and scientific knowledge (Bellous &Siegel, 1991). Finally, Sutton’s chapter provides a concise framework for teachers and research scholars to view science teaching and scientific knowledge from a different perspective. Such that the science content and teaching should be viewed from the scientists’ perspective to the extent that collaboration between scientific community is needed to reach such