In Jeanne Fahnestock’s (1998) article “Accommodating Science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts”, she observes the distortions that occur when attempting to accommodate scientific discourse for a popular audience. Fahnestock cautions that although accommodating has its place in conveying scientific discoveries to the public, it is vital to evaluate how accommodating methods affect the accuracy of interpreting such discoveries. Through assessing the shift in genre, the shift in information and classical stasis theory, Fahnestock examines how scientific writings are altered through the process of accommodating. Fahnestock investigates how original science writing is primarily devoted to presenting facts and assumes the audience has relevant background knowledge and understands the significance. Conversely, accommodated writings shift the genre to become epideictic and thus neglect addressing facts, instead focus on emphasizing the importance of a discovery. One reason Fahnestock provides for the shift in genre is in order for an audience to realize the significance of a discovery accommodators must ensure the audience is able to accept a fact and align it according with existing beliefs. To ensure they are successful, Fahnestock argues that accommodators rely on …show more content…
Accommodated writings often skip presenting the first stasis, Fahnestock contrasts this method with that used in original science writings arguing that in original writings, the first stasis gives an opportunity to discuss evidence. Although accommodators avoid the first stasis, Fahnestock contends that the “audience would have no interest in staying dispassionately in the first stasis” (1998, p. 346), and naturally would move beyond the first
In the passage from “The Great Influenza,” by John M. Barry, he characterizes scientific research through the utilization of figurative language, organization, and rhetorical appeals. Barry asserts us that a scientist’s notion and beliefs can easily be undermined by uncertainty, while certainty can enhance their experimental views and confidence. Throughout this excerpt, Barry uses rhetorical devices to explain the qualities of scientists that enable them to achieve higher levels of success.
Sometimes careless science publishing can weaken the public’s confidence in science and the government. The Media is enormously powerful and leading and will influence people’s opinions on everything. There are plenty of stories in the media that will change the public’s perception of science or even make them see a new perception. Sometimes these stories are just written to scare the public into believing a certain thing just so they can sell their stories.
Bronowski, J. (2012). Science. In The Norton reader: An anthology of nonfiction (13th ed., pp. 886-889). New York: W.W. Norton
In his nonfiction text, The Great Influenza, John M. Barry explains that scientific research is an uncertain process. Barry supports this explanation by using rhetorical strategies such as repetition and a metaphor. Barry’s purpose is to prove scientific research is a confident process that allows one to be courageous on the side of uncertainty. Barry uses formal tone with his audience that goes beyond researchers.
John M. Barry, the author of The Great Influenza, writes about scientists and the obstacles they face. He claims that scientists are explorers in the wilderness that is science. There is no charted path to go down and no one to follow. Scientists will always be uncertain, however scientists should possess certain characteristics to overcome the doubt. He appeals to our emotions to explain the necessary characteristics a scientist has to posses. John M. Barry uses anaphoras, motifs, and pathos in his definition of what scientists do.
In John M. Barry’s “The Great Influenza” he states, “All real scientists exist on the frontier”(Barry 23). During the 1918 influenza epidemic Barry wrote “The Great Influenza” to describe the research that was happening revolving influenza. He describes different characteristic the scientist had to have researching the flu. He recognized the challenges that came with it. He also believes that if you are a scientist that you must be courageous to accept the uncertainty that comes with the job. “The Great Influenza” written by John M. Barry utilizes metaphors and descriptive diction to analyze the characteristics regarding scientist.
In his book The Great Influenza, author John M. Barry writes about his opinion on the characteristics of scientists and their research. He believes that science is full of uncertainty and scientists must be able to deal comfortably with the unknown, as well as the fact that scientists must be creative and accept that their own beliefs can be easily broken by their own research. He accomplishes this by utilizing rhetorical strategies such as allusions, references to relatable examples, and a “matter of fact”, harsh tone.
Preview/Warning: (Say in a weird voice) Just a precaution you all are about to be in for a very weird couple of minutes. This presentation contains subliminal messages and inside jokes that most of you won 't understand. Be in for a fabulous time.
To accurately determine wether creationists should be involved with scientists in public debate, or in scientific debate at all, one must accurately define the institution that scientists represent. The issue present is the ability to provide an accurate definition of science. As Ruse stated “it is simply not possible to give a neat definition” (Ruse, 1982), however Ken Ham attempts to define science through the linguistics route. Using the origin of the latin word
Attention Getting Device: John Barry, in his writing The Great Influenza, he states, “To be a scientist requires not only intelligence and curiosity, but passion, patience, creativity, self-sufficiency, and courage. It is not the courage to venture into the unknown. It is the courage to accept — indeed, embrace — uncertainty.” (Barry 2). During all eras of time, scientists have endured enormous amounts of adversity. Scientists have to maintain a wide variety of skills in several different are to assist them in different circumstances that they endure. Scientists must have persistence due to their main activity being trial and error. This meaning that once they have failed, they most certainly have to being willing to try it again. A scientist also must posses acceptance, as there will be times when they receive results that are not their predictions. Scientist must obtain acceptance to come to terms with the results found in their laboratory. In John Barry’s The Great Influenza, he utilizes metonymy and rhetorical questioning to characterize scientific research.
Brilliant author, John M. Barry, once proclaimed, “Uncertainty makes one tentative if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles… It is the courage to accept—indeed, embrace—uncertainty” (Barry 3-5 & 9-10). These quotes can be traced back to John M. Barry’s passage of “The Great Influenza,” where he writes an account about the 1918 flu epidemic that struck the world. In his account, he goes into further explanation about the rigors and fulfillment of being a scientist, and simultaneously, discusses the tedious process of their research. Ultimately, society is educated that the life of a scientist should not be absolute, but it should consist of persistence and courage. In John M. Barry’s “The Great Influenza,” the author employs innovative metaphors and unique rhetorical questions to portray scientific research.
Attention Getting Device: John Barry, in his writing, The Great Influenza, he states, “To be a scientist requires not only intelligence and curiosity, but passion, patience, creativity, self-sufficiency, and courage. It is not the courage to venture into the unknown. It is the courage to accept — indeed, embrace — uncertainty” (Barry 2). During all eras of time, scientists have endured enormous amounts of adversity. Scientists have had to maintain a wide variety of skills in several different areas to assist them in different circumstances that they endure. Scientists must have persistence, due to their main activity being trial and error. This means that once they have failed, they most certainly have to be willing to try it again. A scientist also must posses acceptance, as there will be times when they receive results that are not their predictions. Scientist must obtain acceptance to come to terms with the results found in their laboratory. In John Barry’s The Great Influenza, he utilizes metonymy and rhetorical questioning to characterize scientific research.
This framework allows public congregation to consider the context's state of scientific knowledge, in academic settings, as well as its second tone of context, in all other settings, as establishing social practices which interconnect contrasting aspects in an intellectual attempt. Audiences with higher educational backgrounds and audiences with general education are not explicitly connected in terms of how well each side develops scientific jargon's essence, so she utilizes textual content found in research articles as well as popularized articles which generates an intertextual process that eradicates the commonly held view that the former is merely a simplified version of the latter. This creates a rhetorical strategic process in terms of how she spawns a larger audience, and appeals to everyone's knowledge attainability. The techniques and writing styles that are implemented in the article are suitable for individuals who bear diverse intellectual
In the episode “Scientific Studies” on the tv show “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver”, he employs a plethora of rhetorical strategies to depict his point that not all “science” is necessarily science as most might assume; and how we as a people have become blinded and misled because these scientists are contradicting each other's’ findings. He does so by using humor, making comments that some people might be able to relate to, and by presenting basic logic and common knowledge.
Feminist interaction with the philosophy of science, and in particular a feminist interpretation of epistemology, concerns the extent to which bias influences and shapes knowledge within the scientific community, and means to rectify this. There are three main distinctions of feminist philosophy of science - feminist empiricism, standpoint theory, and postmodernism. I am to be comparing and contrasting two of the three, specifically feminist standpoint theory and empiricism. I shall argue that standpoint theory and empiricism are both legitimate methods for feminist epistemology, yet standpoint theory is a more applicable and plausible method for the analysis of science in particular. I will first explain the main tenets of the feminist philosophy of science, going on to then explain reasons why standpoint theory and postmodernism are legitimate tools of analysis in their own right, and then evaluate their legitimacy.