Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of historians
Compare different research methodologies
Compare different research methodologies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of historians
Scientists have greatly taken todays advantage to make what once was research, factual evidence. To be a scientist takes great creativity and intelligence, and today’s scientists even past scientists had to rely on their hypothesis as a form to make a new discovery. John M Barry, the author of The Great Influenza explains how scientific reasoning. Barry compares scientific reasoning as very important, that a scientists works “…May break apart upon the sharp edge of a single laboratory finding.” This idea of his, compares what a scientists work may be with what it actually is. Barry states with comparing scientists to hard working’s men. Scientists can work long hard hours on only one single project the way a hard worker at a construction
site can. He uses this analogy to get his point out that a scientists single idea’s step “…Can take them through the looking glass into a world that seems entirely different…” along with a hard worker like an construction worker. Scientists when making a hypothesis must use their brain and use the “tools” of their brain which are not represented physically where as a construction wo2rker will have physical tools like hammers and nails. Barry talks about uncertainty which is sometimes what scientists have when using scientific reasoning. He states the main qualities a “good” scientist should have. For example they should be courageous, passionate, curios and creative. Here he portrays what a good scientists with reasonable evidence and knowledge should be like. He states that a good scientist should have so much courage, as much courage as a lion to be successful. Barry states that being a good scientist means that you have to believe only what has been proven, scientifically. You can basically put all your things down and stop what you’re doing if what you’re doing has already been proved to either have been right or wrong. Nearing the end of Barry’s story all the audience sees are questions. Rhetorical questions are all to be seen which have a simple answer to them. Barry wants to make you think nearing the end of this passage like a scientist. As if you were a scientist what would you do? At the end Barry’s passage he states that scientists always end with success no matter how long. There will always be mistakes in the beginning but you will shortly have time to fix your mistakes. Scientists always experiment and most are determined to never stop until their research is finally proved and finished.
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.
Albert Einstein declared, “The most important thing is to never stop questioning.” Questions help extend our knowledge by opening our minds to change and new possibilities. The excerpt talks about the mindset that scientists need to become successful and the process they go through to make new discoveries. In The Great Influenza, John M. Barry educates citizens of the everyday challenges that scientists face through utilizing rhetorical questions, cause and effect, and contrast.
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.
Both in fiction and in real life a certain breed of scientists has decided to ignore the scientific method and chase dreams of fame. With that fame, they hope to dig deep into our pockets and reap the benefits of their poor workmanship. It is most evident from the examples given that these scientists, who have seemingly reversed scientific evolution, no longer care for true science and the scientific method, but rather are interested in personal glory.
The Great War rages on. An influenza epidemic claims the lives of several Americans. But, the Boston Red Sox have done it again. Last night, in a 2-1 victory over the Chicago Cubs at Fenway Park (thanks to Carl Mays' three-hitter), the Boston Red Sox won their fifth World Series championship--amid death and disease, a reason to live ... Babe Ruth and the 1918 Red Sox. If I die today, at least I lived to see the Sox win the championship. For, it could be a long, long, time before this happens again.
Influenza can be contacted due to close contact with infected individuals, influenza actually originated in Spain, but since then it has spread worldwide with the exception of possibly Antarctica.
Those who consider themselves as scientists will always be assign a workload, but will be under appreciated by those who go against their beliefs and their projects. As it’s epistemology states, it is a philosophy in which we must learn to accept things as true, and we should find justification to that acceptance. The philosophy of science is basically a method of reasoning through the process of experimentation and observational studies. This branch can extend to several areas such as natural sciences, physical sciences, and mathematics. These subjects are known for well thought out reasoning, and making insertions about their studies.
Seeing that humans do science and that people are of value and judgments, the distinctive quality known as “man” leaves room for some sort of mark of bias, skew, or impression on - each quality having the potential to take away from science existing as pure. Science is not supposed to be s...
Ever since the beginning of the Revolution of science, the western world has valued the scientific improvement over any other, placing scientific theories and leaders on the base above their equals in lower sectors of society such as leaders within the business sector or governmental leaders, which leads to the question: Why is it that the Sciences and theories are held in such as great respects? With the two different areas of knowledge what results and consequences, do these two different sciences utilize methods such as observation, empirical evidence and the scientific method, in the development of theories? These two areas of knowledge have key differences at their conclusion, which leads to their differences in their ways that they persuade others. In what why do the aspects vary? Are the truths established in the sciences unquestionably true? But importantly, what is it about theories in Human Sciences and Natural Sciences that make them Convincing?
For instance, the simple aspect of the “scientific process,” which is also similar to the scientific method we earlier learned in the first week of lecture, is evidence of how we have matured from earlier and more primitive efforts to differentiate between a real story and a false one. Science tries to analyze phenomena to answer the questions of how, where, what and which giving answers that are logical.
In order to be convinced by a statement, I require solid evidence that yields the truth of that statement. Upon speculating how to go about finding this evidence, I examine how the rest of society does so. A vast amount of credit is given toward theories found in the human and natural sciences. Scientists are recognized as authoritative figures with the recent development of inventions, medicine and scientific discoveries in the past century. This poses the question of how science has influenced and shaped the world with the credibility of its theories. This knowledge issue will be studied by analyzing how these two areas of knowledge approach a conclusion, assessing common reasons for high value placement of scientific theories, comparing science to another area of knowledge, and exploring problems with this method of gaining knowledge. I shall attempt to explain why and to what extent scientific theories are convincing to the general world.
Few people would disagree that the study of science is a vital part of the world we live in. It is when you take a step back and assess why is true that you are able to appreciate science for it’s many contributions to our daily lives. When thinking of science, people commonly think of some high school or college laboratories filled with students working with Bunsen burners and beakers bubbling with colored liquids, but science goes far beyond the walls of these educational facilities. Science can be found not only in laboratories and classrooms, but also outside in a meadow, or in the kitchen of a restaurant, or even in the night sky. From pharmaceutical labs that create medication to helps people fight diseases, to a seventh grade class excited to launch their hand-crafted rockets, to understanding that scientific theories are used to better describe natural occurrences; science is everywhere, and is utilized in all different types of mediums. It is important to remember that science plays a crucial role in society and each person individually because constantly effecting us all in so many extraordinary ways.
Science has become an unreliable epistemological resource for several reasons. First, the assumptions of science are suspect. Second, the scientific method exhibits narrow limits to the acquisition of universal knowledge. Third, the conclusions of the scientific community at large are questionable and inadequate. Fourth, the practice of science has developed a particular perspective about its place in the world of knowing that diminishes all other avenues of knowledge, to its detriment. Finally, the practice of science involves a philosophical approach which makes scientism and "pure science" hard to differentiate. Thus, science itself, as an epistemological discipline, has been discovered to be unworthy of the extreme admiration granted it by the present technology-loving world.
The scientific method is the uttermost logical process that lets scientists learn about the world. As trained as a scientist may be there's no saying opinions would never influence an experiment, so this tool eliminates any chance of bias within one's theory. Without this significant blueprint perhaps half of what has been discovered in this world would be
Society cannot escape from its dependence upon science. It is worth noticing that nearly every aspect of an individual's life is affected by science in some form or another. The technology people utilize, the hospitals they attend, and the lives they lead are immersed with scientific findings, advancements, and mastery. Most individuals gladly accept these various advancements to their lives; appreciating their convenience and usefulness, society does not consistently look down upon the fruit which science has born. Regardless of these facts, the reputation of science in today's world is not one of flagrant and unrelenting praise (237). In fact, science has been referred to with many angry expressions, including "socially constructed fictions" and "useful myths" (238). The question must be asked, then, as to why science has been the target of severe scrutiny. J. Michael Bishop, leading a ...