Sex Drugs Disasters And The Extinction Of Dinosaurs Summary

In Jeanne Fahnestock’s (1998) article “Accommodating Science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts”, she observes the distortions that occur when attempting to accommodate scientific discourse for a popular audience. Fahnestock cautions that although accommodating has its place in conveying scientific discoveries to the public, it is vital to evaluate how accommodating methods affect the accuracy of interpreting such discoveries. Through assessing the shift in genre, the shift in information and classical stasis theory, Fahnestock examines how scientific writings are altered through the process of accommodating.

It wasn’t long before Gould’s precision became apparent, as he revisited most of his references in order to explain their significance. Although not all of the references were accessible to the general reader from the beginning, the eventual unfolding and connecting of key ideas were rewards for the diligent reader. It felt like an accomplishment to be able to fill my partner in on the details, as if Gould had given me permission to reap the benefits of his expertise.

Stephen Gould’s essay “Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs” completely agrees with Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb’s essay “Argument, Critical Thinking, and Rationality.” Gould’s essay deals with three theories for the extinction of the dinosaurs, two of which he argues are entirely invalid because they are not in accordance with the basic rules of argument laid out by Williams and Colomb in their essay. Gould also states that the third theory of dinosaur extinction, natural disaster, follows all the rules that Williams and Colomb espouse, and thus is a sound argument. Gould, Williams, and Colomb all state that the world has a problem with irrational arguments being shoved down people’s throats, and call for a

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.

The war on drugs was and is racist for several reasons. It was used to jail African Americans and hippies in the early 1970’s, keep more people of color in jail for, and to deport immigrants. In June 1971 President Nixon declared the war on drugs to jail those who would vote against him. Two small but loud groups, hippies and African Americans and hippies were against Nixon. At the time these two groups were stereotyped as heavy marijuana users. After Nixon, jail sentences were then lengthened for possession of marijuana to unreasonable and illogical lengths. Then during the 1990’s, when Bill Clinton was president, the number of policemen was dramatically raised. The number was raised so much that there was not enough money for sufficient training

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. While speculation is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. In From “Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of Dinosaurs,” Stephen Jay Gould discusses and evaluates the difference between science and speculation. Gould also examines three possible theories that could be accredited to the dinosaur’s extinction which are: sex, drugs and disasters. Gould believes that the theory of disasters is the most adequate out of the two other theories. This is because Gould believes that the theory of disasters generates tests, which makes a scientist

People who are swayed by consumption typically are not conscious about their decisions and show low levels of self-clarity. Believing that products are the answer to their identity and invest their values on buying happiness. Unfortunately, that’s most likely not the case. “You, happier? No.

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,

The extinction of the dinosaurs, absolutely a thrilling topic. In Steven Gould’s persuasive article he goes into great detail to describe the nature of science and it’s profound nature to help us in the pursuit of knowledge when used correctly. He then begins to describe three scenarios in which could’ve led to the extinction of the dinosaurs in which two while seemingly plausible at first glance are in actuality simply speculation. Thus, just like a good hypothesis using evidence to support his critiques and support of the hypotheses. Which is why I agree with Gould’s statement on how out of the three hypotheses, the extinction of the dinosaurs

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

Altogether Gould’s argument was rather masterfully formed. The constant Juxtaposition of inferential science as well as the radical effects of bias in science created a strong theme that resonated throughout the text. This constant theme also made it easier to communicate to his somewhat general audience, as they’re are not members of the scientific community, and left little room for interpretation. Gould created a very effective, examining flaws in science from both a methodical and moral perspective and looking at just how much these flaws affect the results, as well as providing strong examples of each of these things. Not to mention using Broca as a constant example, which allows for an easy for follow argument given examples often

Taylor is a research associate in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol. To make an impact in the scientific community, a scientist must publish their research in academic journals, specifically journals for certain areas of science. Taylor has published many papers about the structure of dinosaurs’ bodies and the evolution of dinosaurs in both open access journals and academic journals (“Michael P Taylor”). This shows that Taylor himself had to experience the process of publishing papers, both in academic journals and open access journals, and going through other academic journals to create ideas for new scientific discoveries. Therefore, he understands both the research side and the side of the ordinary citizens who want to read scientific papers. This impacts the audience by making them understand that Taylor is a credible person to be writing an article on this topic, strengthening his argument.

Today’s Modern Science is perceived as a reliable source that could be the leading factor to figuring out what surrounds us, and how it’s created. But there has been much skepticism to this on going factor that science has become a field of non reliant objects that can not be tested nor observed. Theories are being created everyday, but the proof behind them are not showing any form of physical evidence and are commonly accepted into our society. This illogical reasoning has lead to a society that answers questions through inductive reasoning from looking at a broad spectrum of what if’s, and accepting it as true. If the science community is unwilling to fix the high reliance of theories to be answered facts, than we as society will

Other phrases throughout the first four pages use words like "nightmare", "destroy", "haunt", and "anguish" to attract readers to how seriously society takes awareness of science. These phrases get readers to feel the urgency of the views against science in society. The dark phrasing successfully shows that society has taken a responsible view against incorrect scientific application.

Imagine yourself blindly stumbling through the maze-like undergrowth of a prehistoric jungle. Just as break through the leaves into the light, a massive figure materializes before your eyes. You watch in horror as this creature rises to be the height of a two-story building and only one thought goes through your mind: dinosaur. However, something seems off about this T-rex; instead of rows of reptile-like scales, in their place are brightly colored feathers. How could this image be so different? Scientific knowledge is limited by technology and the observations it produces. As technology evolves, so do previous scientific observations. One of the most notable examples of this evolution of scientific observation are the dinosaurs. Since their discovery in the 1800’s, dinosaurs have helped make the prehistoric era one of the most popular periods of Earth’s history, for science and society alike. However, while new scientific observations challenge the previously held beliefs on “dinosaurs,” society and the media continue to base their interpretations of prehistoric creatures on the initial observations made centuries ago. Despite the scientific processes that went into producing the image of the dinosaur, there is no doubt that speculation and fantasy contributed to the results. Even though we know that the concept of the dinosaur isn’t an accurate depiction of the physical and social characteristics of prehistoric creatures, it shouldn’t be discarded as another piece of