Bill Nye The Science Guy: Documentary Analysis

In a 2011 Mother Jones article, “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe in Science,” Chris Mooney, liberal author and journalist for the Washington Post, argues that people who have strong beliefs and value systems have difficulty being objective because their emotions allow them to reject or twist evidence they receive from observed facts and science. To support his claim, he provides both examples and scientific research showing that people can deny science and personally observed facts. The main examples he discusses are how people deny climate change, evolution, and the need for vaccinations for serious childhood diseases such as measles.

A new exhibition on the sciences and their impact is opening. These exhibits will range from the very beginnings of modern science up to the modern day. But five star exhibits will be displayed in prominence for their impact shaped the course of science. First is John Snow who revolutionized the way medicine was conducted. Secondly there is Isaac Newton, who is dubbed the father of the scientific revolution. Next is Albert Einstein’s famous equation E=mc² which in many ways shaped not only science but military and politics. Rachel Carson is the next prominent exhibit for her influence on agriculture and her influence on the historical perspective of science. Lastly we have Adam Gopnik, though not a scientist himself, he has given great insight

Furthermore, to support its arguments and increase the credibility of its claims, the documentary changes details of characters’ studies into some anecdotes, which makes it easier and more interesting for the audience to connect with their causes. The story of how Gore was first motivated to research global warming issues by his professor Roger Ravelle, together with the scientific studies made in Antarctica by his friends when measuring carbon dioxide levels over centuries, are only a few examples of the greatness and power of the documentary.

Through the analysis of the major televised debate, held February this year, between the popular science communicator, Bill Nye, and the US-based Australian creationist, Ken Ham. It has come to light that through careful analysis and research it is my belief that scientists should not be involved within any debates “scientific” or otherwise regarding topics pertaining to creationism or any other religious perspective. The inappropriate use of the loose definitions of science and religion lead to the intertwining of the two subjects that are extremely different in methodology, leaving the audience up for misinterpretation. While the debate did bring about the topic to the forefront of the public, which in itself was a positive, I do not believe that the post debate result was a win for science. Bill Nye’s derogatory demeanour represented post debate towards Ken Ham was in turn a representation of institutional science. Leading to which the validity of the debate and post debate could be brought into question.

Bill Nye is a major voice in Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change is a major problem that needs to be dealt with on Earth. Bill Nye has been advocating to the government and public to become more aware of these problems and do something about them. President Obama invited Bill Nye to visit the Everglades National park with him on Earth Day April 22nd, 2015. President Obama and Bill Nye discussed how to make Science more successful in schools. Bill Nye believes that children either learn to have a love of

However, Dianne draws two different point of views in two groups or how she called it two camps. The first camp suggests that there is only one true religion, and it is unified in nature: religious, scientific, and historical truths, and those tell us about how things actually are. The second stands for you can believe in whatever you want as well as me, and everything will be ok while we do not discuss over it. In addition to that, Oliver affirms that these two camps do not hold the complexity presented by truth-claims. Also, she uses a metaphor of a telescope by P. Knitter, a noted religion scholar to facilitate us understand the issues surrounding religious truth, which are good and bad news; good news is that we see through the telescope, and bad ones is that we cannot see everything through that, in other words truth claims always manifest different point of views of people. The author in the chapter posted on Blackboard refers that generally truth-claims are associated with the beliefs of a religious

Ethos, credibility of a source, is essential to the construction of an argument. During the film, several professors, activists, and scholars

Colin Furze, British plumber, turned inventor, is so well known for his videos demonstrating his crazy inventions that he’s a regular on Science Channel’s Outrageous Acts of Science. He’s created everything from a pulse-jet powered bicycle to a ten hp motorized baby stroller. His latest creation, however, may be his magnum opus: With a little help from Ford Motors, Furze has managed to build a real, functioning Homemade Hoverbike.

The most interesting part of this week’s text is the correspondence theory which is all about claims. We are brought up to believe and accept things that we never even thought of finding out if it’s really true.

Dr. Neil dGrasse Tyson does not believe that UFOs exist because there is no evidence that supports the idea. Throughout his discussion, Dr. Tyson used a variety of rhetorical appeals to convey his message. Kairos is in effect when the timing is right to evoke a certain response from one's audience, usually the desired response is a call of action. This appeal also takes into account where the location is, when the speech is delivered, and why the topic needs to be addressed. The location of the event seemed to be in an auditorium, which is great because the message is being heard by a lot of people. The speech was delivered within the last ten years because the speaker has an Iphone. In the past ten years there seems to be a strong presence

are unclean. He takes a seat with him at all times to keep from sitting on soiled ground. He travels to Israel. He attends Jewish religious festivals. He talks to evangelicals and visits a creationism museum. And even though he doesn 't believe in creationism, he doesn 't mock it either. He talks about how intelligent the scientists there are. He 's truly open in a way very

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

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.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

The subject of this paper has at least five names. Documentary Hypothesis and JEDP Theory are the most common. In this paper, this scholarly position will always be referred to as Documentary Hypothesis with a few exceptions.