Essay about The Sokal Hoax

He explains why UCTs are as popular as they are in modern society, and why people should nevertheless disregard and approach them with caution. What Keeley refers to as “virtues” are the reason for the popularity of UCTs. He gives the virtue of explanatory reach as the first and main reason for UCTs popularity, which is the account of all knowledge including errant data. This is in stark contrast to the received theory, which is imperfect by nature. This quality of UCTs is particularly attractive because it appeals to human rationality by allowing for no loopholes. Keely argues that errant data alone is not significant enough, and that a theory should never fit all of the data. This leads into one of the main points, concerning falsifiability and skepticism. Unfalsifiability is acceptable when the item or person under investigation is not actively trying to escape from the investigator. Keeley contends that the problem is not the innate unfalsifiability, but rather the increasing amount of skepticism required. Keely seeks a hole in the concept of conspiracy theories that accounts for a person’s innate sense that belief in a particular conspiracy theory is not justified. In the case of the natural sciences, falsifiability is acceptable because of the rigorous protocols in place, and therefore, we are warranted in believing scientific claims.

Fahnestock investigates how original science writing is primarily devoted to presenting facts and assumes the audience has relevant background knowledge and understands the significance. Conversely, accommodated writings shift the genre to become epideictic and thus neglect addressing facts, instead focus on emphasizing the importance of a discovery. One reason Fahnestock provides for the shift in genre is in order for an audience to realize the significance of a discovery accommodators must ensure the audience is able to accept a fact and align it according with existing beliefs. To ensure they are successful, Fahnestock argues that accommodators rely on

In his book The Great Influenza, author John M. Barry writes about his opinion on the characteristics of scientists and their research. He believes that science is full of uncertainty and scientists must be able to deal comfortably with the unknown, as well as the fact that scientists must be creative and accept that their own beliefs can be easily broken by their own research. He accomplishes this by utilizing rhetorical strategies such as allusions, references to relatable examples, and a “matter of fact”, harsh tone.

Early in the month of January 1936, a young sixth grader named Phyllis sent a letter to Albert Einstein. She asked if scientists pray, and if so, who they pray to. When he received the letter, Einstein wrote back days later with a logical and trustworthy response. Because of Einstein’s response, there have been controversy over relating issues. With rhetorically effective phrases and sentences, Albert Einstein answered the young girl’s letter.

I support the idea that scientists’ theories cannot be completely objective, because scientist are people and everyone has opinions and biases not matter what they say. An example of this in the article would be how Blumenbach’s teacher, Linnaeus had his basic four classifications for humans in which had characterized them by their color, humor, and posture. His biased views really

It is science after all it cannot just be an idea, he must produce multiple studies at different locations by different credible scientists before she has a fighting chance of being found valid.

Since the 17th century, the scientific method has served as a memorable procedure for its ability to characterize aspects of natural science. Its reliance on sense and reason allowed it to become the backbone of research for scientists, meant to make the unknown into something better understood and explored. Even still, this tried and true method cannot be deemed completely concrete. In his passage from The Great Influenza, John M. Barry utilizes various rhetorical devices in his process of characterizing scientific research, to demonstrate the similarities between scientists and the early pioneers.

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

Wells’ articles… is whether ordinary people should be allowed to know the facts and should discuss their implications” (Woolf 498). This excerpt is a prime example of the division between science and religion that was occurring throughout the time period within this book was written. Many people began to support Wells in his beliefs of scientific principles such as Darwinism. However, there were those who strongly dejected it and even became hostile that those scientific ideas were available to the public. The reason the ideas were so easily accessible were because of literary interpretation in controversial books such as The Island of Dr. Moreau.

“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.”

Kaku appeals to science fanatics and technology enthusiasts by making connections with his audience. He connects with our logos, or logical side, by telling us step-by-step how each of the discussed fictional technology can become real. Next, he appeals to our ethos, or ethics side, by beginning each of his chapters with quotes from well known scientists to get our attention. He also appeals to ethos by being credible and using actual scientists from modern times, interviewing them to gain insight on how some of the processes work (16, 23). Lastly, he appeals to the pathos, or emotional side, of his audience, beginning his book by establishing a personal connection between his childhood, and love of watching Star Trek, making readers gain his trust since that is a familiar subject for most (1).

The first comment I found interesting is when Hoffer says, “success and failure are unavoidably related in our minds with the state of things around us” (Hoffer 6). This really got me thinking about how people will say that their success or failure is just the result of what has happened in their own lives rather than saying it was their individual effort. It is interesting that someone who fails at something is more likely to blame it on the circumstances rather than themselves, but someone who is succeeding will have the opposite in mind and believe that they have been blessed. It is also fascinating to see how this idea relates to people wanting people to join a mass movement due to the different views on their current positions.

Another scientific discovery that the media of the times misinterpreted was the cure for scurvy. James Lind first published his cure for scurvy in 1753; yet, It wasn't until 1795, 42 years later, that the British Admiralty accepted Lind’s recommendation. From the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, William McBride depicts in his article “‘Normal’ Medical Science and British Treatment of the Sea Scurvy” the grave loss the British Royal Navy suffered. Because of that denial of Lind’s theory, the British suffered “serious consequence[s] of scurvy typified by the experience of the British Royal Navy during the war-torn eighteenth century, in which scurvy killed more British navy seamen than enemy action” (McBride 159). McBride

After the great disappointment, the journal Nature investigated in depth its system of review and publication of articles. They found some inconsistencies in their system, which the worst consequence could be the loss of confidence in science by the citizens. Furthermore, the RIKEN centre also became the target of criticism, which focused on the lack of ethics and the decline of the institution in recent years.

Dyson's also convinces readers society is successful in stopping science by using words that show he is reputable as a writer. Dyson writes about a wide variety of events and novels and describes things with a wide range of scientific words. Dyson does this to show that he is a reliable source. He uses terms like Citizens Committee, Public Health Authorities, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and many more convincingly complicated words to showing his