A nobel prize winning, architect of the atomic bomb, and well-known theoretical physicist, Professor Richard P. Feynman, at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of science, addresses the importance of science and its impact on society. Feynman contends, although some people may think that scientists don't take social problems into their consideration, every now and then they think about them. However he concedes that, because social problems are more difficult than the scientific ones, scientist don’t spend too much time resolving them (1). Furthermore he states that scientist must be held responsible for the decisions they make today to protect the future generation; also they have to do their best, to learn as much as possible, …show more content…
improve all solutions, and pass them on. Finally he concludes his speech by highlighting the importance of freedom of thought for generations to come. To achieve that he suggests, not to fear uncertainty, but to confront, and discuss it. Feynman uses personal anecdotes, irony, forced teaming, rhetorical question, and persuasive tone, to effectively inform his audience about the importance of science, and its impact on society. While Feynman’s speech is valid in most aspects, employing more related statistical data can improve its validity, so he can prove his point in a more effective way. Feynman opens his speech with a concession. He uses irony to make his concession in the beginning of his speech so that the audience pay more attention to the point that he is going to make after his conception. He starts his public talk by acknowledging what many people are expecting from scientists to resolve social issues. “From time to time people suggest to me that scientists ought to give more consideration to social problems” (1 Feynman) then he emphasizes the same topic in a more humorous way: “ It seems to be generally believed that if the scientists would only look at these very difficult social problems and not spend so much time fooling with less vital scientific ones, great success would come out of it”(1 Feynman). It shows that what really feynman means is that all scientific problems are important and also even if scientists spend so much time solving social issues nothing good comes out of it. Since his audience consists of scientists, feynman tries to give them credit for what they do so the audience respect him more. Therefore the speaker can pass his point, the audience in an effective way. Feynman pursues his opening by defining three different values of science.
And throughout these three different aspects of science he implies logos, ethos, and pathos to inform his audience the importance of science. Since feynman is a well known theoretical physicist and his successful establishments towards making the first atomic bomb in the world is known by his audience, it creates a substantial appeal to his audience. Feynman doesn't need to try so hard to show his audience how knowledgeable he is, therefore his presence there, makes his audience to trust what he has to announce. Furthermore he uses pathos to touches the audience's emotion. In the middle of his speech when he tries to highlight the importance of the scientific research and an idea itself, he mentions how newspapers are more interested in use of the idea; for instance, they may type that the importance of this discovery is for research for a cure for cancer, therefore people are less likely to understand significance of an idea, however he then points out that it is more likely for some children to understand, “And when a child catches on to an idea like that, we have a scientist”(4 Feynman). When he talks about children in his speech he wants the audience to feel sorry, for the children who may not be able to become future scientists just because they weren't taught about the scientific ideas. In Fact because feynman uses children as an example to prove his point, it is more likely that the audience may agree with him, since they may have children of their own or going to have. To make his argument persuasive and more appealing for the audience he employs logos to his public address, so he can clearly fairly illustrate the importance of
science.
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
Thank God for the Atom Bomb by Paul Fussell is one of many essay written in favor of the Atom bomb that aided the ending of World War 2 in 1945. Fussells claim was that not only was the bomb necessary to end the war, but the bomb actually saved thousands of lives.
...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.
This is the day Albert Einstein signed the letter that prompted the U.S.’s exploration into nuclear weaponry. Frankly put, he messed up. That letter led to the laughter of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America is an experimental country - the first wholly democratic country – and it backfires sometimes. The Creed is warped to fit a definition of a moment and the wrong course of action is pursued. Einstein didn’t sign that latter with the intention of giving the world heartache and terror. He signed it to preserves the peace and it was hopelessly misconstrued. The only peace he can make with that decision is that it is one of those undervalued days in
Polkinghorne asserts that “scientists are motivated by the desire understand what is happening in the world.”(551, Polkinghorne). As a physicist himself, Polkinghorne understands the desire to understand the world, even shifting careers to become a priest to better his understanding. Science asks how things happen, and does not attempt to answer every question. Questions asking why go ignored, as if they are not necessary to fully understand the world and the life that lives here. Science alone
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.
... in American history’, there is much evidence to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, Strickland’s study does offer a valuable guide to the development of ideas, organizations and associations the formed by atomic scientists immediately after the World War II. It, however, not does include an extensive analysis of the Manhattan Project scientists’ wartime messages, nor does it investigate the tenets behind them. Correspondingly, Robert Gilpin’s study extensively covers the scientists’ role in atomic energy policy-making in the post-war decades. Although his study in useful for evaluating how scientists can be more successfully integrated into matters of nuclear weapons policy, it fails to consider the varying forms of the atomic scientists’ wartime movement and its relevance for considering their successes and failures in influencing post-war nuclear weapons policy.
How different would the world be if America had never dropped the bomb on Japan to end World War II? If America had simply offered Japan a way to surrender by simply threatening the use of the atomic bomb, would Japan have surrendered? The world will never know, however Leo Szilard, one of the scientists that created the atomic bomb, tried to make a plea for this to happen. A month before the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in WWII, Leo Szilard and 59 scientists stood up for what they believed in and tried to alter the thinking and decision that the President was making.
During World War ll, Japan was on the brink of collapse. The Atomic Bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United State were unnecessary to end the war. The allied forces which were Great Britain, Soviet Union, France, United States and China, would conduct countless air raids and fire bombings on Japan. Japan’s military and civil defenses were inadequate to defend themselves and had no chance. For months Japans cities suffered attacks of bombs and fire raining down on them by the allied forces. The country was weak, starving and had no strength to fight back. On August 6 and 9, 1945, Nagasaki and Hiroshima would be the first cities to ever experience an atomic blast. Hiroshima and Nagasaki became literally test dummies for the atomic bomb. Japan had attempted to settle a peace treaty with the United States, but they refused and were determined for a unconditional surrender. Instead, the United States should have made an effort to make a peace treaty, not force them into surrender with the ultimate destruction weapon. The reason for this unconditional surrender was to prove America’s superiority over the Japanese. America used propaganda to convince Americans and demoralize the japanese people rather than their army. The use of the atomic bombs was caused by a strong racism motivating factor.
Not many people want to be a part of a study of the physical world by using experiments and different methods of observation, in other words being part of science. Likewise, individuals who have become scientist were not just born to be a scientist; either there were influential factors or an interest that developed from the theories of the world. One man who fits in this category is the scientist, Richard P. Feynman. He was a man of wonder, as he was born his father pushed him to find the meanings to why and how things on earth work the way they do. Ever since then Feynman became curious of all the things around him and wanted to discover the details to all living things. Flowers to Feynman were much more beautiful to him than to a non-scientist, because not only could he see the beautiful colors, but also could see the cells inside the flowers that have much more beauty. What Do You Care What Other People Think? By Richard P. Feynman is a novel that not only discusses Feynman’s intelligence, confidence and the ability to solve environmental dilemmas, but also mentions his romantic and loving side. In this essay, observations made from this novel will be discussed. Including of how Feynman had made a name for himself as the true genius. With Feynman’s carefree, down to earth, emotional character with a bit of hatred of politics still however, manages to figure out the cause and reason to the ‘Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster’. All in all because he was such a curious and intelligent individual, nothing to him was impossible.
World War II brought up many new technologies for warfare. Advanced on existing developments such as weaponry, ships, vehicles air crafts, navigational devices and medicine are just a few broad examples of developments in warfare during this time in United States and World history. One development, however, changed the entire way of warfare. The Atomic bomb was developed during this time out of fears that the Germans had the same technologies, or at least were working to obtain it. Once the United States had this technological capability of producing atomic weapons, the way of fighting was changed. Two bombs were dropped on Japan in August of 1945, one on the city of Hiroshima and the other on the city of Nagasaki. Afterward, the ear of atomic diplomacy came up in American international relations, which as we have seen today, has led to the development of even stronger, more deadly weaponry and bombs. The bombing of Japan also brings up the still prevalent debate of whether the bombings were justifiable or not. Historians Gar Alperovitz, Robert P. Newman and Barton Bernstein all have written essays expressing their opinions in the matter.
Sixty-nine years ago, was the year that the most deadliest kind of weapon was put to use. The Atomic Bomb was used twice on Japan during World War II. There are many devastating facts on this topic, but the most facts that people wonder about are the following: the reasons for this attack, Who made the decision and why, What are the names of the Atomic bombs, and what was the outcome of this decision?
After the first few days of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Americans, without knowledge of the aftermath of these cities, began cheering and celebrating as the bombings marked the end of World War II. Also, this event showed that Americans would be the ones who would lead the world into the nuclear age. In a Gallup Poll taken from August 10-15, 1945, Americans were asked whether or not they approved or disapproved of the use of atomic bombs on Japanese cities, 85 percent approved, ten percent disapproved and five had no opinion.30 then when asked if the development of the atomic bomb was a good or bad thing, 69 percent said it was a good thing, 17 percent said it was bad, and 14 percent had no opinion (Steele).
When it come to be publicly acknowledged that the United States government planned on using atomic bombs to fight the war against Japan, a group of scientists who had worked on the atomic bomb for many years, felt the need to protest the idea. Leo Szilard who was a head of the group of scientists came up with a petition for the president for his associated scientists to look over. In his petition he asked the President “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs” (Szilard, par. 1). Szilard’s thoughts mentioned in the petition sought the strength and persuasion needed to sway the President that the use of the atomic bomb was uncalled for because of the shortage of facts presented, their poor reasoning found in the writing, and the failure to communicate the significance that their arguments held in the decision.
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