Synthesis task
Question: It has been said that popular science is little more than trivial rubbish. What is your view?
ES1541 Synthesis Assignment
Name: Lee Zixuan
Matriculation No.: A0123942J
Tutorial Group: LA1
Synthesis task
Question: It has been said that popular science is little more than trivial rubbish. What is your view?
Essay:
Popular science has been widely integrated into our lives that we see and hear them every day on different media platforms. People supporting popular science have exclaimed that popular science is essential for education. The opposition argued that popular science is just a mixture of lies and exaggeration fed to us by deceptive parties. Supporters however fail to understand that articles on popular science are written by journalists that may have no prior knowledge to such theories. Therefore, popular science articles are indeed a little more
…show more content…
Indeed, popular science provides us the information we need to better equip ourselves on what is happening around the globe. This argument shows how science is intricately linked with our lives and that the knowledge presented may serve as an important tool in helping people. As Source A illustrates, “the text (on the life cycles and reproductive habits of Maine Lobster) functions discursively by providing readers with a story of nature of knowledge production in a particular area of research”. (Perrault, 2013) As shown here, the publishing of a non exaggerated article enabled scientists to better understand the life processes in lobsters instead of being reduced to lab observations which may be tedious in nature. Furthermore, as could be seen from Source C, it allows intellectuals working in the same field as the research to “rethink, and to locate their own work in a larger context, particularly in the early development of the field,” (Paul, 2004) which may lead to scientists re-examining their
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
Scientists are constantly forced to test their work and beliefs. Thus they need the ability to embrace the uncertainty that science is based on. This is a point John M. Barry uses throughout the passage to characterize scientific research, and by using rhetorical devices such as, comparison, specific diction, and contrast he is able show the way he views and characterizes scientific research.
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.
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.
Opportunistic scientists, the most hypocritical deviants of the modern age, revolve around the scientific method, or at least they used to. The scientific method once involved formulating a hypothesis from a problem posed, experimenting, and forming a conclusion that best explained the data collected. Yet today, those who are willing to critique the work of their peers are themselves performing the scientific method out of sequence. I propose that scientists, or the "treasure hunters" of that field, are no longer interested in permanent solutions, achieved through proper use of the scientific method, and rather are more interested in solutions that guarantee fame and fortune.
...ing fascinating about science, one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investments of fact."
Many people are inclined to say why would science even wish to peruse this method of research? Lewis Thomas says in his essay "The Hazards of Science" It would seem to me a more unnatural thing and more of an offense against nature for us to come on the same scene endowed... ... middle of paper ... ... J. Michael Bishop states that "The price of science seems large, but to reject science is to deny the future.
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.
Diamond, J. (1987). The worst mistake in the history of the human race. Discover, 8(5), 64-66.
“ Can Jellyfish Unlock the Secret of Immortality?” by Nathaniel Rich accurately exhibits Mukherjee's interpretation of tenderness towards science, the article describes the patient nature of how science happens, the process of finding new discoveries in the article are a human-made process, and the scientist mentioned shares an intimate connection with his subject. The article " Can Jellyfish Unlock the Secret of Immortality?" by Nathaniel Rich accurately exhibits Mukherjee's interpretation of tenderness towards science, because the article describes the patient nature of how science
New York: Science Editions, 1994. Redhead, M.L.G. & Co., Inc. (1980, November ). The New York Times. A Bayesian Reconstruction of Methodology of Scientific Research Programs. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, pp.
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
"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...
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.