Francie Diep Their Prosthetics Summary

In order to successfully publish an academic article, an individual must be familiar with the expected style and content in their discourse community. A type of community is composed of people who have the same objective, speak the same language, and have the same principles. In other words, they would have to know commonly used jargon, ethics, and attitudes toward different issues in the community. The discourse community that I am interested in joining is the psychology discourse community. In this field, the main objective of psychologists is to “to study and explain human and animal behavior, both normal and abnormal, in terms of a variety of underlying variables” (UCLA). Even after learning about the purpose of this discourse community,

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

To be a part of a discourse community, one must be credible, possess factual knowledge and draw on the values of its members to be accepted into the community. At the same time, a person must learn typical ways people in that community communicate and argue. They share a certain genre—type of writing. Members of discourse communities provide information and feedback that are imperative in order for that discourse community to grow. In the following paper, I will discuss three discourse communities and a genre that they typically use: people who read Nutritional Facts religiously, college students, and industrial organizational psychologists.

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.

Members of "societies" and "historical cultures" participate in vast and not altogether coherent superstructures which invite them to channel doubts through prevailing discourse practices. In the democratic tradition, we can categorize these channels as the personal, the technical and the public spheres. "Sphere" denotes branches of activity–the grounds upon which arguments are built and the authorities to which arguers appeal. (p.2)

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

Closing, the writer is successful in making his opinion and perspective towards scientific research through the use of logos, pathos, and ethos. The overall analysis brought me to the conclusion that the John M. Barry portray scientific research as the chief ingredient to putting together answers and information. Yet still, doesn’t deny the complexity of scientific research and that’s its not straightforward as a scientist wishes it could be. Nevertheless, the benefits scientific research has brought along we see them everyday because of our overall advancement as a world. Didn’t I say knowledge is our most powerful weapon? Well observe, for it has destroyed the slow and premature society humans once used to live in and created a beautiful, diverse, and intelligent culture

Life is like a massive highway that have infinite routes anyone can choose take to reach some type of designated goal. Those various routes lead to distinct exits, where one can discover a group or groups that share similarities dealing with viewpoints, beliefs, or understanding towards a particular goal. These groups can be identified as discourse communities. According to, “The Concept of Discourse Community,” in the textbook, Writing About Writing, John Swales stressed that in order to be classified as a discourse community the group has to have all six defining characteristics. Swales emphasized, “A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals, mechanisms of intercommunication among its members, uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback, utilities and hence processes one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims, acquires specific lexis, and has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse expertise” (Swales, 221-222). Keeping this key detail in mind, there is numerous type of discourse out there.

The Center for Neuroscience (CN) is a complex, large community that sparked my interest to do an ethnographic endeavor. This group provides benefits to our society by conducting modern neurobiology research and coaching future neurobiologists. The purpose of this ethnographic study is to have a better understanding of how this discourse community functions as an entity. My study will focus on the methods that the CN uses to communicate. As a member of the CN, I want to take a step back and explore, from the perspective of an outsider, the rhetoric mechanisms that make their goals achievable.

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

Scientists were able to unearth information that was still not yet mentioned in their traditional sources by using popularization on science (Paul, 2004). In addition, the general audience is not one whereby they merely receive information and blindly accept what they read (Fahnestock, 1998). We, humans, who are always bustling with curiosity, would go on to discuss about these scientific topics even if we are not scientists. This is why forums exists, acting as a medium for people to voice their opinions, clear their doubts and have heated discussions on topics of interest. Also, in this day and age whereby the Internet is easily accessible, we are but just a click away from many scientific sources that can help in further expanding our knowledge if we wanted to know more.

The growing need to maintain consistency and create unity was fulfilled by genre analysis suggested by Swales’ (1990) CARS model. There are many situations where communication is poor leading to a lack of understanding, particularly in academic settings. Prior research conducted on Research Articles known as a means of interaction in academic world places emphasis on its different parts, namely Abstract (Al-Khasawneh, 2017; Marefat & Mohammadzadeh, 2013; Samraj, 2005; Tseng, 2011), Introduction (Cortes, 2013; Jalilifar, 2010; Mahzari & Maftoon, 2007), Result (Lim, 2010; Shahriari, 2017; Williams, 1999), and Discussion (Holmes, 1997; Le & Harrington, 2015). The focus has been on the introduction section, with little attention given to the degree

In my project I will explore how biotechnology as a tool of body manipulation and enhancement can redefine the contemporary notion of the human and life in a more ethical and aesthetical way. My argument will address ways in which art that engages with biotechnology as its medium, can give a more tangible because ethically and aesthetically combined understanding of life and the human body. I will focus on selected case studies that work with biotechnology to study ways in which art, can reveal the power of biotechnology to act and produce meaning. This allows me to research how biotechnology can reconstruct and reshape the notion of matter as active and capable of producing meaning.

The topic that Weber treated at that time is as topical as ever, and has hardly lost any of its explosiveness, as the scientific enterprise is still in a state of upheaval – with numerous developments and tendencies. His questions today are so topical as at that time, that this work can also be researched without any problems approximately 100 years later. He follows the discussion about the future of science and the central question of how science is designed as a profession and how it is to be understood, as the academic environment has already begun to change. As an example, Weber cites the

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.