Essay on Science in Society

Under the research of J. Michael Bishop, Science is being defended and explored for positive and negative out comes in the past years, to form an argument against the critics who believe science is no longer the answer. Throughout the article I discovered quality examples that support claims of ethos, pathos, and logos. Logos being the most reoccurring from of argument that Bishop chose, in my opinion reveals a stronger argument rather than one that has an argument revolved around pathos.

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.

Attention Getting Device: John Barry, in his writing, The Great Influenza, he states, “To be a scientist requires not only intelligence and curiosity, but passion, patience, creativity, self-sufficiency, and courage. It is not the courage to venture into the unknown. It is the courage to accept — indeed, embrace — uncertainty” (Barry 2). During all eras of time, scientists have endured enormous amounts of adversity. Scientists have had to maintain a wide variety of skills in several different areas to assist them in different circumstances that they endure. Scientists must have persistence, due to their main activity being trial and error. This means that once they have failed, they most certainly have to be willing to try it again. A scientist also must posses acceptance, as there will be times when they receive results that are not their predictions. Scientist must obtain acceptance to come to terms with the results found in their laboratory. In John Barry’s The Great Influenza, he utilizes metonymy and rhetorical questioning to characterize scientific research.

Brilliant author, John M. Barry, once proclaimed, “Uncertainty makes one tentative if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles… It is the courage to accept—indeed, embrace—uncertainty” (Barry 3-5 & 9-10). These quotes can be traced back to John M. Barry’s passage of “The Great Influenza,” where he writes an account about the 1918 flu epidemic that struck the world. In his account, he goes into further explanation about the rigors and fulfillment of being a scientist, and simultaneously, discusses the tedious process of their research. Ultimately, society is educated that the life of a scientist should not be absolute, but it should consist of persistence and courage. In John M. Barry’s “The Great Influenza,” the author employs innovative metaphors and unique rhetorical questions to portray scientific research.

John M. Barry, the author of The Great Influenza, writes about scientists and the obstacles they face. He claims that scientists are explorers in the wilderness that is science. There is no charted path to go down and no one to follow. Scientists will always be uncertain, however scientists should possess certain characteristics to overcome the doubt. He appeals to our emotions to explain the necessary characteristics a scientist has to posses. John M. Barry uses anaphoras, motifs, and pathos in his definition of what scientists do.

Many people of 20th century though, turned for truth in the logic of science. It had made many things simpler for them and had offered them a better standard of living. Even so, as Cat’s Cradle demonstrates, their is both a good and evil side to science. When it is used with careless negligence, the results of manipulating nature can be formidable. It is a tool, and must be used with respect for others. Because of this, there is ultimately a limit to the truth many people search for in this field; although we can advance through science and exploration, it doesn’t take into account human ethics and morals. It therefore doesn’t offer meaning, and it doesn’t offer happiness. One must search for those realizations from

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,

Much credit should belong to scientists for making important technological and medical discoveries in the world. In Bishop,'sEnemies of Promise," well known scientists point out views regarding their belief in science. Representative George E. Brown, Jr., who has been trained as a physicist admits that "his faith in science has been shaken." He feels that as our knowledge of science increases, so do the occurrence of social problems. Brown, Jr. Feels that the progression of science should lead to diminishing social problems rather than an increase.(238) The real question is, is science to blame, or are the humans creating science to blame? Critics such as Brown and Lamm "blame science for what are actually the failures of individuals to use the knowledge that science has provided." Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, is a good example of a myth about a scientist who took science to an extreme.

As the story progresses, Caswell’s view on science becomes clearer and readers can determine for themselves where the line should be drawn to keep society safe.

For years people have executed experiments and tried to understand the unknown; scientists have tried to outdo each other every day. However, there comes a point where science should be cut off, a point where people are using science for their own personal benefit and it turns dangerous. “Frankenstein”, an epic poem written by Mary Shelley in 1817, shows that creating life should be where science stops. It is evident through “Frankenstein” that science should only be used for crucial knowledge, not self wonder; people let their imagination carry them away, they create things that they do not know how to control, and it has horrendous outcomes. Once people get fixed on an idea, they become obsessed and stop at nothing to accomplish their goal.

The world is not a cultivating place for scientists. Victor Frankenstein in Frankenstein; or a Modern Prometheus and Will Rodman, from Rise of the Planet of the Apes, are met with constant opposition to their studies and goals. The current state of scientific research is embodied in both these works. Both protagonists are restricted creatively and shunned by their peers. And if a scientist does not succeed or make a new and benefiting discovery, they are shunned even more and judged by society.

Scientists face controversy going beyond the boundaries. One scientist in particular, John Craig Venter and his colleagues created a bacterial genome entirely from synthetic DNA. The public wasn’t so happy about this but Venter stated that it could capture and remove excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or generate an alternative fuel source. Venter is unpopular to the scientific community because of the controversy for putting the human genome into a race. He went too far stating that he deserved a Nobel Prize. Being a scientist should not be about the rewards, learning should be the reward. Science goes too far when scientists like Venter push boundaries just to get noticed.

“Part of science is to be taken as significant and expressible within E, and the rest as non-significant and falling outside E. The E portion is subject to attributions of truth and falsehood, belief and evidence, whereas the non-E portion is not. Yet the fictionalist cannot spurn the latter wholly, since he is prepared to admit its functional ‘legitimacy’ and, hence, its interest for the scientist. At most, he can deny it to be either true or false.” (Scheffler 185).

Scientific advancements are, as any advancement, inherently ahead of their time, and those who herald such progress are often seen as immoral or even evil by their respective societies. These individuals have morals that do not conform to the ethics of society because their values are based on beliefs that are deemed wrong by the majority. This is to say that no one willingly does something that is immoral; rather one finds such controversial activity to be justified either by means of a contrasting belief, or an overwhelming desire that supersedes one’s morality. This motif is present

Alan Francis Chalmers is an associate professor who works extensive in the history and philosophy of science (physical). Alan Chalmers has taught at the University of Sydney since 1971, first in the School of Philosophy, and from 1987 at the Unit for the History and Philosophy of Science. He attained a B.Sc. in physics at the University of Bristol, and his M.Sc. in physics from the University of Manchester. His Ph.D. on the electromagnetic theory of J.C. Maxwell was granted by the University of London. He was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Humanities in 1997. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the Flinders Philosophy Department since 1999.