Resnik Groupthink

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 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.

Throughout the history of the United States, groupthink has cluttered the country with questionable decisions by some of the most honorable leaders in history. Although high-level leaders show the most outstanding and shocking altercations of groupthink, this event can show up at a much lower level like a small group. Probably the most notable and recent culmination of groupthink, being the Iraqi War, provided the country with an onset of fear for an imminent threat regarding weapons of mass destruction within the Middle East. According to Weeks (2010), “One of the committee’s firm conclusions was that the Congress had

What is scientific research without competent scientists? John M. Barry’s The Great Influenza, characterizes scientific research as a commendable venture. Barry uses rhetorical strategies such as repetition, compelling diction, and vivid imagery. These tactics aid the reader’s comprehension of the author’s purpose. The purpose is to convince readers that scientists require certain traits to overcome the challenges of scientific research. The passage in reference suggests that John M. Barry holds scientists in high regard.

In the excerpt from “The Great Influenza”, John M. Barry describes the world of uncertainty and how it creates weakness and fearfulness in the minds of scientist. Barry compares this to the world of certainty which is what scientist use lean on and it gives them strength to find their goals. He describes scientific research as something that is done methodically and how it requires more than just intelligence and curiosity, but courage to pursue the unknown. Barry uses figurative language, quotes and diction to convey his idea and belief on how he characterizes scientific research. Barry used a quote from a French physiologist Claude Bernard who talks about scientific research.

Science plays an integral role in the development and findings of many great things that we can benefit from. Integrity along with a specific set of moral standards must always be followed in order to ensure the end result enables a healthy environment for all whom wish to benefit from such studies. Integrity must always play and be the most essential key role in scientific research. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1831) and Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) one is able to conclude that integrity must be maintained while conducting scientific research as a lack of can result in the creation of monsters.

One of the greatest dangers to scientific studies is the "confirmation bias". When a researcher is trying to collect documents and publications for what is studying or analyzing, it is very likely that only see, or just to notice what "it suits" for what he wants to prove. Moreover, even almost unconsciously, it is liable to see more quickly connections with other publications that seem to corroborate their investigations. Unfortunately, this "confirmation bias" affects not only scientific studies. It concerns us all. In today's article, I intend to show by example how to detect this phenomenon and some techniques to try to avoid it.

This is only reinforced by Cassuto’s work, as it discusses at length the “publish or perish” (Cassuto, 228) nature of scientific research. In an environment where highly visible success—the type of success that Schön embodied before his fraudulence was revealed—is needed in order to sustain a career, it seems that the system which dictates success should have nearly impassable safeguards against fraudulent achievement of that success. However, despite all that is both fiscally and less tangibly—chiefly by way of reputation and public trust—at stake, that may not be the case.

The Committee for Concerned Scientists are “dedicated to protecting the human rights and scientific freedoms of their colleagues around the world”. More specifically, they promote academic freedom, freedom of exchange, research, association, and emigration, human rights and to have countries fulfil their agreed obligations with regard to human rights of scientists. (Committee for Concerned Scientists, “About Us”, http://concernedscientists.org/learn-more-about-us/ ) They support their mission by utilizing the media, government relations and professional recognition, and also seek to improve morale though personal contact.

In Stuart Firestein’s manuscript, Ignorance: How It Drives Science, he argues that ignorance is unquestionable characteristic of scientific success. He delineates ignorance not as blatant idiocy, but rather as “a communal gap in knowledge” and even postulates that it fosters the greatest research in science, because it is comprised of the dynamic energy required in the journey for scientific innovation (Firestein 7, 15). Moreover, he articulates that ignorance in academia can exhibit itself in various ways, including “the incentive of possibility”, and most importantly, exploration driven by the unknown; it asks scientists to choose “a particular place of darkness” to investigate (Firestein 62). In contrast to his strong trust in these “dark

When people read science articles, it’s assumed that all the data calculated comes from the publishers themselves, but that’s not the case anymore. Many people are beginning to become more involved in a plethora of projects near their neighborhoods, and by doing so are giving scientist more data that can hopefully create change and have an effect on their ongoing projects. In 1990, in a Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, this act was given a name (Haven, Henderson 1). Citizens Science, the idea that “all walks of life [could] participate in the scientific process and help advance knowledge in a wide range of scientific disciplines” is one of the many definitions for this and is clearly influencing many projects in different

Well, this is all simply because we ‘believe’ in the research that we have done and we trust our-self

Within the last century scientific discovery has been growing at an exponential rate. Evolution, genetics, physics, and chemistry have all greatly affected the way people view the universe and human role in it. Furthermore, the application of scientific discoveries has physically changed society. For example, humans went from being flightless to eighty years later having transportation in super sonic jets available. Rapid scientific change has caused many issues surrounding morality and science to arise. The idea behind the skepticism is that just because something can be done doesnt mean it should be. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and cloning have all fallen under fire due to this concept. People worry that

‘The Ultimate protection against research error and bias is supposed to come from the way scientists constantly test and retest each others results’ – To What extent would you agree with this claim in the natural and human sciences.

It is common to believe that when reporting scientific studies the mass media is accurate in reporting what the research presents in a condensed format while still maintaining accurate information. However the two articles that will be presented will show that although it does present information found in the research there are certain aspects that are changed. As Keith Grant Davie stated before each rhetorical situation is shaped by its four constituents and the two articles below will verify his findings which lead into why there are differences between the academic discourse and the more popular discourse. Therefore by examining a research paper on the discovery of new planets and its accommodating article from CNN we found how the