Why Science Matters By Gina Mccarthy Summary

This source features a report by Jill U. Adams on the dangers, and current regulations of air pollution and climate change. Holding a Ph.D. in pharmacology from Emory University, the author primarily writes a health column for the Washington Post. She has also been featured in the magazines Audubon, Scientific American and Science. Because this article covers climate change, there is an inherent liberal bias. However, this bias coincides with irrefutable scientific data proving the existence of climate change. The audience for this article is anyone effected by air pollution and climate change; just about everyone. This source upholds my speculation that human beings have a significant effect on the climate. Before reading this article, I wasn’t aware that 55 million people a year died from air pollution. I found this source on CQ Researcher while searching for ‘pollution.’

Sometimes careless science publishing can weaken the public’s confidence in science and the government. The Media is enormously powerful and leading and will influence people’s opinions on everything. There are plenty of stories in the media that will change the public’s perception of science or even make them see a new perception. Sometimes these stories are just written to scare the public into believing a certain thing just so they can sell their stories.

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.

In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.

Within the article titled “The Mistrust of Science” by Atul Gawande, the article is a written document of an address at the California Institute of Technology and describes the connection of science to every single human on Earth. This is done because the presenter defines science as “a systematic way of thinking” since science allows humans to contemplate beyond the information being given to them at any time, such as the questions may follow of how, when, where, why, and how? The presenter states the opinion that, no matter what major you are declared as or the type of occupation you hold, science is embedded into the way you are living, despite you not having any knowledge of certain science topics.

This is an efficient strategy. It makes her audience want to get involved and preserve the natural resources the environment has to offer. In her essay she describes the devastating effects chemicals have on the environment with such conviction; it might make the reader feel obligated to make changes in his or her own life to help the natural world. Rachel Carson uses an assertive tone to get her point across. She has a one-sided argument and is very aggressive to those who oppose her point of view. She is very effective at stating her opinion to her audience.

Beyond the emotional appeal to American greatness in solving technical problems, he presents compellingly logical and ethical arguments. He starts by calling out anyone who would ignore the threat of climate change, a blunt shot at many Republicans in Congress (26:11). The president adopts a nonchalant approach, essentially mocking anyone who isn't on board with climate science. "Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely," Obama says. With tremendous confidence that his logical and ethical arguments cannot be countered, he attempts to win the day by overcoming any emotional

However, Gore does not just present the problem. He issues the challenge for the scientific community to seek ways to solve the problem, but he points out that these measures must be taken now. The problem is so severe that actions must be immediate in order to be effective. Comparing today’s environmental problems to the wartime challenges faced by the World War Two generation, Gore urges today’s citizens and scientists to rise to the occasion and be willing to sacrifice, if necessary, to solve the problems that society has created.

There’s an issue where the underlying science remains a political football, and scientists are regularly challenged and called out personally. Where energy needs and short-term economic growth are set against our children’s health and future. Where the consequences of bad, short-sighted decisions may be borne primarily by a small subset of under-served and undeserving persons. And where the very descriptive terms in the debate are radioactive, words spun as epithets.

These last two election cycles have demonstrated the importance of climate change in relation to politics and the american people. What is unfortunate is that what seems to be a very crucial and real problem in our human survival, according to scientists, is being debated by people who do not have the scientific credentials to even discuss the science behind the reality of climate change. Those behind the skeptics, have funded a successful campaign against the reality of the facts and have introduce doubt into the sciences.

In this editorial, Live Science writer Kelly Dickerson found in a study that people who pulled out cell phones throughout a discussion found the conversation less rewarding. She claims that the compulsion to check our cell phones and the essential to stay tied into the straight network system can make people withdraw from their current activities, and it can produce anger between them and their family and friends. Cell phones are not only taking away the time alone to damage our associations with others, but we have similarly lost the incapability with people without watching at our phones and being present with another person.

There have been plenty of disputes regarding the infamous topic global warming, despite the fact that there is a unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. A history professor at UCSD, Naomi Oreskes, discusses this in her article, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. She begins her investigation by researching credible experts and environmental organizations, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, and several others. By utilizing these various sources as evidence it strengthens her argument about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. In this case, Oreskes audience consists of

In Joane Nagel’s chapter Gender and Climate Change Science, Nagel examines the effect of male domination on the development of scientific knowledge, specifically in climate science. She uses the feminist critique to argue that the history of science seemingly reflects the history of men. Furthermore, she states how while in the 20th-century women had started to become scientists, it was rare. Among them was Rachel Carson who published Silent Spring, an awareness novel about the dangers of widespread use of chemicals and pesticides. She was unjustly questioned for her unmarried status and gender, as well as her legitimacy as a scientist. Nagel remarks that this was a result of Carson being a female. Moreover, Nagel also points out the gender disparities in the medical and pharmaceutical sciences that propose gender can matter in the department of

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

Feminist interaction with the philosophy of science, and in particular a feminist interpretation of epistemology, concerns the extent to which bias influences and shapes knowledge within the scientific community, and means to rectify this. There are three main distinctions of feminist philosophy of science - feminist empiricism, standpoint theory, and postmodernism. I am to be comparing and contrasting two of the three, specifically feminist standpoint theory and empiricism. I shall argue that standpoint theory and empiricism are both legitimate methods for feminist epistemology, yet standpoint theory is a more applicable and plausible method for the analysis of science in particular. I will first explain the main tenets of the feminist philosophy of science, going on to then explain reasons why standpoint theory and postmodernism are legitimate tools of analysis in their own right, and then evaluate their legitimacy.