Analysis Of Climate Of Complete Certainty By Bret Stephens

In characterizing scientific research, Barry chooses specific diction that has strong connotations so as to create the greatest effect by contrasting them. His juxtaposition of the words “certainty” and “uncertainty” serve a twofold purpose in the context of this piece. The first is to emphasize the fearfulness and timidity associated with uncertainty. Secondly, it serves to exhibit

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.

As a whole, Gore’s argument in “Climate of Denial” is powerful, persuasive, and effective. The points that he communicates are easily understandable, due to his straightforward language and moderately informal tone. Even more importantly, the analogies and imagery that he employs make his argument relatable and vivid. In his goal of persuading the reader, this emotionally compelling narration is invaluable. However, despite its many strengths, Gore’s composition does contain several weaknesses. First,

Barry opens his nonfiction text by emphasizing that certainty is a confident resilience while uncertainty produces frailty, but in a way that sends out opposite outcomes. He enhances this purpose by constantly using repetition with the word uncertainty to amplify how scientific research is an uncertain apparatus. By way of illustration,

The words “certainty” and “doubt” have many varying connotations and implications given a specific context. Even though the definitions of these two words are considered polar opposites of each other, there is one connection between the two that is undeniable: both certainty and doubt can be taken with a grain of salt, as they are all merely just opinions specific to the person that those concepts are presented to. Adding on to that, there is also a concept relating to this; the idea that there is always “the certainty of doubt” and that they are merely two sides of the same coin.

John Barry starts out his argument by using the anaphora of uncertainty. He repeatedly uses the word, uncertainty, to make his point. Barry is emphasizing that scientists have to possess the strength to move past the feeling of doubt. He states that science is filled with uncertainty, “science teaches us to doubt” (line 12). The scientific

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.

Although the climate scientists who say that the climate is changing (about 97 percent by some estimates) far outnumber those who don’t, Gore's comments indicate the strength of the

In regards to scientific facts, Gore explains that when it comes to samples and the analyses of many articles and studies on the matter, “the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we are causing global warming and that, it is indeed a serious problem” is zero. (Gore) At first, he also uses overemphasis and exaggeration when referring to mass media and its claims that, many

Throughout the first few paragraphs, Barry introduces the idea of diligence, which is the scientists' abilities to be careful and persistent in work. In the first few lines of the passage, the author features repetition, as well as a slight parallel structure; in lines 1-3, when the author is repeating and comparing "certainty" and "uncertainty", emphasizing the point that certainty and uncertainty are both equally required within the mind of a scientist; considering the concept that "certainty creates strength" and "uncertainty creates weakness. " Along with this, in line

Beyond the emotional appeal to American greatness in solving technical problems, he presents compellingly logical and ethical arguments. He starts by calling out anyone who would ignore the threat of climate change, a blunt shot at many Republicans in Congress (26:11). The president adopts a nonchalant approach, essentially mocking anyone who isn't on board with climate science. "Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely," Obama says. With tremendous confidence that his logical and ethical arguments cannot be countered, he attempts to win the day by overcoming any emotional

Starting with the background knowledge and miscellaneous information that gives us a better understanding of what goes on in scientific research, Barry gives us a comparison between certainty and uncertainty. Describing certainty, the author uses words with good connotation, “Certainty creates strength. Certainty gives one something upon which to lean.” The words to be looking at here are strength and an action that can be done with certainty that feels supportive. When describing uncertainty the author uses words with a bad connotation, sort of making connotation seem the better option, “Uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes on tentative if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles.” The word

John M. Barry uses the various different types of rhetorical strategies to characterize scientific research by comparing the opposites of both certainty and uncertainty, by referring to life in the woods as a metaphor towards the mind and creation of science, and a series of rhetorical questions that shows the process and mind of the scientists portrayed in John M Barry’s essay.

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

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.