Douglas James Ashwell Rhetorical Analysis

Clay Shirky who wrote Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable (1993) argues that society doesn’t need newspapers society needs journalism to save society. Shirky supports this argument by giving a historical background to the problems newspapers face and how the problems have developed over time and the solutions society has came up with. The blogger concludes that in order for journalism to go farther new models must be created in place of past molds. Shirky directs this blog toward the current and future generations in attempt to motivate new models and methods of journalism.

Adams’ son is on his second voyage to France with his father. In her letter, Adams is writing from home to her son addressing his known reluctance of the trip. Adams endeavors to give reasons and her opinion on why traveling on important.

“The Truth Wears Off” is an article written by Jonah Lehrer. This article discusses the issues raised by a phenomenon called the decline effect and how it impacts scientific research. On September 23rd, 2014, we had a group discussion in class about this article and our group felt a strong credibility issue with the author because he had no citations used in his article. Also, according to NYU journalism professor Charles Seife, Jonah Lehrer recycled some of his own material for the New Yorker posts and had fabricated quotes in one of his books (Moos). This credibility issue from the author is a problem for me as a reader because I am not sure if the issues raised in this article are factual. The members in my group discussion include Lisa Wallner, Lisa Spreitz, Dusty Gill, Allan Robinson and myself. An author's credibility is crucial because the level of credibility in an author could change how a reader interprets an article.

As in any other domain, science seems to have endured a history of creating theories, proving those theories wrong, and creating new ones from that. This evolution of ideas and ways of thinking do not discredit science’s validity, but instead prove that we have grown and learned over time, through advancements in technology and greater understandings of why we are asking particular questions about the world (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). The underlying untrustworthy aspect regarding science is not in the scientific results themselves, but the discussion and human conclusions drawn from such findings.

In the present day, society depends on Science greatly; it supplies jobs, provides technology capable of saving lives, and furthers our society in many positive ways. However, society often misses the negative aspects of Science. Vonnegut identifies many problems with the general perspective on Science in Cat's Cradle,

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.

The reporters in the article “Reporting the News” deal with the preparation and generating of ideas for reporting the news. Reporters also investigate evidence they have to present to the general public.

Strong critiques of value-neutral models have been developed exposing their contradictions, mythologies, and dead ends to show how the supposedly neutral conduct of science is rooted in history and entangled with cultural and political dimensions (e.g., Eisenhart and Howe, 1992). Historians have revealed the contextual and situated “connectivity of science” as a human endeavor of practical import (e.g., Danziger, 1990, 1997), including the reciprocal relationships, co-constitutions, and bindings among evidence, methodology, normative assumptions, political interests, instrumentalities, variables, and models of reality (cf. Burman, 1994, 1997; Rutherford, Vaughn-Blount, and Ball, 2010). These works illustrate how science is about descriptive

The reason for doing this is the news reporter’s exigence, or reason for writing the article is to just provide the public with a story and explain the most important details to try to get the public interested in their stories. The news reporter also has a deeper exigence beyond just writing a story, the news reporter gets paid accordingly to how popular their reports are, therefore in reality, news reporters write to get paid, rather than to make a difference in the scientific community. The article goes on to say that the research “may help improve understanding” , in this news report stating that it may help, just provides the reader with the thought that the writer doesn’t clearly know the findings just what they have read on the issue, whereas the scientific report intelligibly states the facts because the news reporter is in a discourse community of just writing and reporting, no scientifically based knowledge is needed in their field, so reporters don’t need to know much about what they are reporting on, as long as they know the most important details.

There are 3 dimensions to understanding science’s dominant position in society. It’s important to recognize science’s position within knowledge and legitimacy to help me explore further into the representation of female scientists in film. Looking at the arguments of Bell “Scientists can identify with each other, and can help to police the boundaries of science by dismissing some people as pseudo-scientists, cranks or quacks” (Bell, 2006, p.21).

The New York Times article entitled “3 Who Studied Unusual States of Matter Win Nobel Prize in Physics” epitomizes top-down news sources by directly referencing the who’s, what’s, where’s, why’s, and how’s of journalism. After the introduction, the article is broken down into six parts separated by sub-headings. The first sub-heading is entitled, “Why did they win.” This heading utilizes one of the important

To elaborate, scientific communication can first begin with the help of a public information officer, or simply as a science writer. A big responsibility of this type of work includes being able to demonstrate that the science writer or public information officer is able to write science as engaging and easily comprehensible as possible for the public. By doing so, this helps the readers understand more when it comes to scientific and health related topics. Although times have changed throughout the years and printed articles are not as efficient to use when publicizing

Currently, there are many individuals and organizations whose goal is to communicate scientific knowledge to the public through different forms of media. However, there are advantages and negative consequences that are present with almost every different form of media. In this essay, the communication of scientific knowledge will be examined through a Deutsche Welle (DW) documentary called Myths and facts about diabetes by Hanna Pütz and a TED Talk called The surprisingly charming science of your gut by Giulia Enders.

Endorsement is used everywhere from the recognition of a product to the recognition of a person. Inseparable with endorsement is the science lying behind. For decades, science has been the unbiased criteria of being. In a way, science has grown into such a fetish that we hardly remember the human’s role in creating it. However, conducted and interpreted by socially biased human beings, science, far from liberating people from dominance and hierarchy through “value-free truth,” reinforces the current power structure and legitimates domination of both nature and people. On one hand, science is used as a social control by the people in power; on the other hand, every individual is subject to the society, affected by and contributing to

We see notable risks in a pure laissez-faire “let them work it out for themselves” approach. Large amounts of money, resources, and effort are being committed (by government agencies, by academic departments, by publishers, by professional societies, and by individual researchers) to the development, maintenance, and promotion of various forms of communications technologies for use in global science. However, in the absence of a valid theory of how scholarly fields adopt and shape technology, scientists and policy-makers are left only with context-free models, and hence resources may be committed to projects that are not self-sustainable, that wither, and that do not effectively improve the scientific communications system of the field. The consequences may not only be sub-optimal use of financial resources, but also wasted effort on the part of individual researchers, and even data languishing in marginal, decaying, and dead systems and formats. The purpose of this JASIS perspectives article is to deepen our understanding of the future of electronic communications in science. It is difficult to predict the longterm future, as too many contingencies can and will shape long-term outcomes to make meaningful predictions. One may casually predict that that many if not all research journals will issue electronic editions in the 21st century; however, more complex issues about the role of