2 Page Rough Draft: Sagan

In “Why We Need to Understand Science,” Carl Sagan, a renowned scientist, tries to convince the reader that science is beneficial for the American population through ethos, pathos, and logos.

Carl Sagan is a well-known, reputable scientist. His reputation carries authority into articles such as “Why We Need to Understand Science.” Sagan was an award winning scientist and professor at Cornell University (citation). He earned a PhD in astronomy and astrophysics (citation). One of his greatest contributions to the world was being able to popularize science and increase awareness about the benefits of science (citation). He was awarded the Public Welfare Medal as a result (citation). He fully believed that scientists should work to spread knowledge to the public (citation).

Carl Sagan establishes ethos early on in his article. For readers who did not know who Carl Sagan was, Sagan made it clear that he was a reliable source. In the beginning anecdote, he identifies himself as “that science guy” (Sagan 11), someone to be recognized by name. The character in the anecdote, Mr. Buckley, was excited to discuss what he believed to be science with Carl Sagan. He solidifies his importance by stating that he was attending a “conference of scientists and TV broadcasters” (Sagan 11). If his importance was not evident enough for the reader, he gives the reader a barrage of rhetorical questions displaying his in-depth knowledge and enthusiasm about science. “Did he know about the molecular building blocks of life…?” (Sagan 12).

Further supporting his ethos, Carl Sagan presents himself as knowledgeable and fair. Although Mr. Buckley had no knowledge of modern science, Sagan states that Mr. Buckley was “well-spoken, intelligent, [and] curious” (Sagan 12). He does not condemn Mr. Buckley for his lack of knowledge, but directs the blame towards modern society. “He wanted to know about science. It’s just that all the science got filtered out before it reached him” (Sagan 12). Through this, Sagan reveals that he is not an anger-driven man, but someone who looks at the bigger picture. The reader does not feel condemned for being so scientifically-illiterate, if this is the case.

Later on in the article, Carl Sagan identifies the flaws in the American education system; he does not blame the intelligence of American children. “American kids don’t do enough schoolwork….But most American kids aren’t stupid” (Sagan 15). This particle statement supports the thought that Sagan is fair and nonjudgmental. A judgmental voice would dissuade the reader from listening and cause the reader to feel bitter. Not only does the reader continue to trust Sagan, the reader also feels a sense of pride, revealing Sagan’s appeal to pathos. The audience of Sagan’s article is the general American public, most likely with sons, daughters, or grandchildren still in school. Acknowledging the intelligence of American children makes Sagan a more likeable character.

Carl Sagan’s use of pathos targets mainly the reader’s feelings of American pride and superiority. [How Sagan uses logos to appeal to pathos as well]

The structure of the article appeals to the reader’s sense of logos. The article is clearly organized with subtitles dictating what the next few paragraphs will be about. Sagan gives a very clear and logical outline.

 

Assignment 1 Rough draft 1

Science plays an extremely important role in our society, it has become more relevant to every aspect of people’s daily life. However we don’t actually understand s lot of the technology that we use every day. In the article “why we need to understand science”, written by carl Sagan, he suggest that the public need to “deepen their understand of science” (Sagan, 14). He points out that how important science is to our society, and shows the pubic how the United States is left behind in science. The most essential part of the essay is what we can do to help this situation. This article is was published on a popular magazine called parade magazine, which indicate that Sagan ‘s intended audience is the majority of the public. He uses concrete statistics, empathy with the audience and provoking worries into people to convince his audience that science is important to our society , we need to popularize science.

Sagan uses a whole paragraph of statistics to show the audience how far America is behind on science. He states that “only two out thirteen nations did worse than the U.S in chemistry” (Sagan, 14).The thirteen countries include countries from different continents. Not only western countries, also eastern countries. Not only in chemistry, Sagan also include statistics that shows America is also behind in other science subject ,such as mathematic. That makes the statistic more well- rounded, with more dimensions. He also states that “ two- third of the American say they are good at math, but only a quarter of the Korean say they are good at math”(Sagan,14). Which makes and powerful comparison to the statistic that he uses in the same paragraph that suggest that Americans is far behind in math from other countries . It also suggest that America isn’t aware of the serious disadvantages they have in science, and that they are under the impression that they are good at it. However this article is written in 1989, and what is the situation nowadays in school?

He also tries to convince his audience by empathizing with them. At the beginning of the essay, he tells a personal story of a taxi driver who is the representation of the public and uses this example to point out the problem the public has with science. He doesn’t judge the taxi driver and points his finger to the lack of access. he empathizing with the audience who found themselves in the satiation as the taxi driver, and he tells them is not because there is intellectual differences that cause it. By empathizing with them, he shows the audience respect and understanding. Moreover, he is more likely to make them accept his ideas. In another paragraph, Sagan acknowledge that “science is a double edge sword”, and he understand the reason why the public might be afraid of science. He is trying to convince the audience that he is seeing science from the public’s eyes, not as a scientist. He is seeing science from his audience’s view. By doing so, he shows the he is impartial and he understand the misunderstanding view of science which the public might have. He empathizes with the public, relates to the public. He wants to give his reader the impression that he is not biased, he is not judgmental. That makes his audience want to listen to his opinion, and more likely to be convinced.

I notice he also uses a lot of questions. For instance, he ask the audience questions like” how can we decided national policy if we don’t the underlying issues?”(sagan,13). By making his audience asking themselves these questions, His audience is actually thinking about the next step, what can we do about the situation.

He uses many persuasive techniques. By introducing statistic, empathizing with his audience, and making the audience think independently, he tries to convince his audience that we need to popularizing science, and how we are going to do it. the most important part is not why , is how. There are more room left on the topic of how we can popularizing science.

Assignment #1 Rough Draft

In today’s society, science affects our life in all aspects. Popularizing science also means raising a nation’s prosperity. Carl Sagan, a famous American astronomer, astrophysicist, writer and author of many science books and articles, has greatly contributed to science popularity. In his article,“Why We Need to Understand Science” first published in 1989 in Parade Magazine, he explains the importance of understanding of science and provides some solutions to improve science literary. His audience is likely to every Americans, including educators and students in college or University , government officials , and even ordinary people who lack science knowledge. His purpose is to advocate people to take action in popularizing science . In order to persuade his audience, he employs ethos, pathos and logos to convey his idea.

Sagan begins his article with an anecdote about Mr,Buckley who was interested in pseudoscience but knew nothing about science. This technique immediately establishes the article as personal and captures the reader’s attention. In his descriptions about Mr,Buckley, “well-spoken,intelligent, curious” person, and “wanted to know about science”, “ all the science got filtered out before it reached him” do not show any derisive and accusatory tone to judge Mr,Buckley, but the author looks for the reason which is  society did not tell him understanding of real science. These descriptions easily appeal to pathos to readers and make them to relate to personal experience. They also lead into the fact he wants to point out, ”94 percent of Americans are “scientifically illiterate”(Sagan12). Now, readers know what problem Americans need to face.

After capturing the reader’s interest with the introductory anecdote,Sagan continues telling  the importance of science to readers by appealing to pathos. He not only emphasizes that science is “ a prescription for disaster” (12) and has an important impact in a lot of areas which have good consequences.,but also considers the audience’s feeling.They are afraid and nervous about  the ruin the science brings. This contrast between disadvantages and advantages of science helps readers think deeply and realize that science needs more thinking .

 

In order to point out the urgent situation Americans stands, he employs logical comparison and statistics to show that Americans are very far behind of other countries in all aspects of mathematics and science. For example,“ In tests of average 17-year olds in many world regions,the United States ranked dead last in algebra, On identical tests, the U,S. Kinds averaged 43 percent and their Japanese counterparts 78 percent. ”（14） The numbers make a evident difference between them, and help readers realize that solving this problem is urgent. In addition, he not only analyzes the reason of failure, also provides solutions. He appeals to the readers’ emotion by employing erotesis . For example, he asks “Why in all America is there no TV drama that has as its hero someone devoted to figuring out how the universe works? ”（17） In this asking question, he  implies the answer. The instinctive reply is that we should use TV as an effective way to popularize science accurately. The erotesis is not only to emphasize his solutions, but also inspire readers to take action .

Sagan Rough Draft

Carl Sagan was a renowned astrophysicist, astronomer, and the host for the former television show “Cosmos.” He also was the author of many articles and even a novel. He believed that it is critical for everyone to understand science for the betterment of oneself and for a country that relies heavily on science and technological advancements. He insists that if science is brought to popular culture not only will people understand it, but also they would take interest in it and want to learn it.

Sagan begins his argument by sharing a personal experience he encountered with a man named William Buckley who’s enthusiasm for pseudoscience was discouraged by Sagan’s simple and mundane explanations. He uses this experience to show that people lack the knowledge of “real” science and since 94% of Americans are scientifically illiterate, they may never know how fascinating and exciting real science can be. Students in the United States are lacking significantly when it comes to science and mathematics on a national scale.

Sagan devotes an entire paragraph in his article to statistics giving evidence of how behind the United States is compared to countries such as Japan, Korea, and British Columbia. Even the United States’ top students did not come close to level of these other countries. The most interesting statistic was that two-thirds of American students believed they were good at math, while only 8% of Korean students believed they were good at math. This shows the difference in attitude between the two nations.

Sagan’s purpose is to inform readers about the severe degree of scientific illiteracy in the United States. Sagan wants the reader to take the initiative to become more informed about modern science. He also wants to the reader to take initiative to bring science to popular culture and to encourage an individual’s interests in the sciences by providing them with opportunities to explore their interests through laboratory experience and science enrichment programs.

The audience I believe Sagan’s intended audience was not only readers of Parade Magazine, but teachers, principles, professors, scientists, government officials in charge of education, and any person that has any interest in science. These are all people in power that can help bridge the gap in the sciences by starting with the youth. Also, government officials can bring about changes in the education system to public schools enhance their science programs.

Sagan opened my eyes to the importance of understanding science and how critical it is for the future of the United States and myself. The jump from an average American high school to a university like Stony Brook is a big one and I believe if science was brought to popular culture then the United States could bridge the gap between itself and other first world countries.

*add citations

*add pathos reference

Rhetorical Analysis Rough Draft- Carl Sagan

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

How Far Behind Has America Fallen?

Carl Sagan, an astronomer and astrophysicist, and a well-known scientist left his mark on society. His research and publications of numerous articles and books, his work on Viking, a mission to plant Mars in the 1970’s, his work in academia at Cornell University, and being a host of the television series “Cosmos,” has made Sagan an idolized figure in the world of science[1]. In his article “Why We Need to Understand Science,” published in Parade magazine, Sagan explains to Americans how far behind they have fallen in the field of science and technology and persuades them to take action to catch up to the rest of the world.

            Sagan begins his essay with an anecdote that demonstrates the average Americans knowledge in regards to science. The character William Buckley acts as this person. Buckley attempts to “discuss UFOs, “channeling”, crystals, and astrology.” Sagan explains that there is little evidence about these topics, but they seem to be the “facet of [Buckley’s] inner light.” By using Mr. Buckley, a relatable character who in appearance seems intelligent, as a representation of the average American, Sagan finds a common ground to make his article relatable to the reader without offending. This persuading technique allows Sagan to explain that Americans really do not know that much about science, but about a pseudoscience which they have believed to be correct. Just like Mr. Buckley, most Americans, in fact 94%, are “scientifically illiterate”(Sagan 12).

            After using Mr. Buckley to illustrate America’s lack of knowledge in science and technology and catching the readers’ attention through a relatable character, Sagan continues his essay with “A prescription for disaster,” explaining the slippery slope that America is heading down. He states that as America becomes more advanced technologically and scientifically as a society, the amount of knowledge about the fields remains the same, leaving many ignorant about not only science and technology, but much more important issues. In this age, there are many new issues arising throughout the planet that could affect the fact of the world. Between global warming, ozone depletion, toxic and radioactive wastes, and acid rain, Earth’s atmosphere is changing rapidly. However, as important as these issues may seem, many are unaware of these problems, which is “dangerous and stupid” (Sagan 12-13). This appeal to pathos hits the pride of an American hard, creating a feeling of embarrassment, and encouraging him or her to take action.

Sagan suggests that Americans’ lack of education could be due to the stereotypical view of scientists, which has gradually created distrust in the field of science all together. Many Americans lack trust for scientists, which correlate with what they choose to believe about science. Americans know that “science and technology are not just cornucopias pouring good deeds out into the world.” Science has invented nuclear weapons, “thalidomide, CFCs, Agent Orange, nerve gas, and industries so powerful they can ruin the climate of the planet.” The negative inventions have created the image of the mad scientist within our world. Americans do not view scientists as people who can be trusted, but view them as “Dr. Frankenstein” or “Dr. Strangelove.” This feeling of skepticism and mistrust for scientists has distorted the general public’s view of science itself. Although, discoveries in science have created things that are malevolent, there have also been many beneficial advancements science has brought society. “Advances in medicine and agriculture have saved more lives than have been lost in all the wars in history” (Sagan 12-13). This fact alone illustrates all the good that can come from science and if America can create future generations who are skilled in the field, the possibilities are endless.

Sagan takes an extra step to convince his reader how far behind America has fallen through the use of statistical data comparing the United States to other countries throughout the world. The section, entitled “How bad is it?” develops on Sagan’s argument attempting to persuade Americans to take action and gain knowledge about science.  This section acts as evidence that as a nation, we have really fallen behind. Sagan also changes tone in this section. In previous sections, he is friendly and persuasive, an attempt to relate to the reader to ensure they listen when he changes to an urgent tone, emphasizing the need for change (Sagan 14).

            In his article, Sagan explains to Americans how far they have fallen and persuades them to take action to educate themselves for the greater good of America. He believes the need to popularize science to rid Americans of the ignorance and lack of understanding about science and technology has never been more prevalent. A basic understanding of science can enable people to differentiate from what was real and what was artificial in the world, and through education, the pseudoscience that most Americans believe to be true will eventually be replaced by knowledge of basic science.

---

[1]http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Z01FzDkprgUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=carl+sagan+biography&ots=8QO1MTSNWc&sig=5S9h1xEhgJ9mzl87OeQjIDmWlGc#v=onepage&q=carl%20sagan%20biography&f=false

Rhetorical Analysis Rough Draft——Carl Sagan

The essay “Why We Need to Understand Science” was first published in 1989 in Parade Magazine by Carl Sagan (1934-1996) to argue for the importance of science to the security and prosperity of the United States. Carl Sagan was a renowned astronomer and astrophysicist but he is probably best known as the host of the popular television series, “Cosmos,” and as a writer who worked to bring science into the popular culture of the late twentieth century. When the essay was first published, it is trying to access all the readers of the Parade Magazine. For more specific, the audience will be those american who feel perfectly fine about our education at current situation. Also to those in authority of education, Sagan provides them with solutions to solving the problem on many aspect. So the purpose of this essay is to let American know about the current situation and stop feeling good about ourselves. He is trying to show that American are far behind in education in comparison to other regions of the world by showing to statistic data. On the other hand, he is trying to make science became somehow interesting to make people start to like it and solving the problems by eliminating the negative emotion of science study. That is what Sagan trying to achieve through the essay. However, how does Sagan achieve all above by just a few words and sentences? The reason is he used so many rhetorical writing skill to persuade his audience. He mainly used Appeals, which includes logos, ethos and pathos.

First of all, I would like to talk about the logos he used in essay. The logos usually refer to the objective evidence. There are so many logos in the essay. For example, in the paragraph of “How bad is it? Very bad,” all the statistics appear in the paragraph of Scientific level between kids or adults in America and other regions of the world is the examples of logos. “Less than half of all Americas know that the earth moves around the sun and takes a year to do it—a fact established a few centuries ago.” This provides us the information that the lack of the knowledge among the Americans even that is really basic and established long time ago. Here, the use of logos can make us feel how far we are behind now and start to feel bad about us, or in other world, feel urgent about the situation. “In the test of average 17-year-olds in many world regions, the United States ranked dead last in algebra,” the use of logos here is trying to show audience how bad we are now by showing comparison between United States and the rest of the regions of the world. “Of the U.S. kids, 22 percent say they dislike school; only 8 percent of the Koreans do,” this shows us that our kids not just lose in the test, but also the attitudes toward study. That somehow explain why we lose all the test. Finally, “Yet two-thirds of the Americans, but only a quarter of the Koreans, say they are “good at mathematics.” The logos use here tell us we are not just lose but also feel good about ourselves which is the worst thing yet. What is more, Sagan did not just show us how bad we are now, he also tell us why we are becoming so bad by logos. “During the Great Depression, teachers enjoyed job security, good salaries, respectability and are treated as admired profession, which causes some of them have little or no training in their subjects—sometims themselves unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience. Those who do have the training often get higher-paying jobs elsewhere.” All above tells one of the reason why American are flunking. Also, Sagan says American kids do not do enough school work. The average high school student spends 3.5 hours a week on homework. The total time devoted to studies, in and out of the classroom, is about 20 hours a week. Japanese fifth-graders average 33 hours a week. This logos also explain why American are flunking. Sagan also provide us with solution by logos. By the illustration of the newspaper, magazine and television, Sagan asks a question, why cannot we have the science column in newspaper and magazine, why cannot we have some science TV dramas for people to watch. All the objective truth are used here to show us our situation, the reason and the solutions.

Second, I would like to talk about the ethos. Ethos are usually define as the “character” that is used to describe the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community, nation, or ideology.(wikipedia). Carl Sagan, as a writer who worked to bring science into the popular culture of the late twentieth century, a renowned astronomer and astrophysicist, also the author of numerous articles and books, has authority to make people believe what he says need to be considered carefully. At the start, he writes “on my way to a conference of scientists and TV broadcasters” also make people feel like he is the authority. Then, in the paragraph of “How bad is it”, Sagan provides the source of all the statistics that come from, the newspaper, which make us believe he is not say what he want, but the truth. During the paragraph of giving solutions, he says he is lucky enough to teach a class in kindergarten or the first grade. Kids in kindergarten are more curious, intellectually vigorous, ask provocative and insightful questions, and exhibit great enthusiasm for science than those in the hight school. The character of teacher make him more authority here, which makes his conclusion that high school students are more worried about “dumb” questions are concerned too much about the “fact” more believable.

Finally, I want to talk about pathos. Pathos refers to the represents an appeal to the audience’s emotions. Look through the whole essay, it makes audience feel really urgent to read. The reason why he writes in this way is Sagan want readers to take much care about the issue, it is not a small problems but a big emergency. For instance, “But most American kids are not stupid,” “What is wrong with admitting that you do not know?” Those are typically examples of urgent intonation.

After finish reading the essay, I m perfectly agree with the points Sagan says. It is a serious problems that American are facing. The problems he gives, the evidence he uses to support his claim and the reasons he gives make me believe the problems really exist and need to be treat significantly. What is more, I think it is not just an american issue, but also a global issue. The only way to make progress is to feel urgent. Once we feel good about ourselves, we are done.

American Horror Story: Marketing Imperative

 

 

 

Despite the efforts of the astrophysicist and advocate for Science publicity, Carl Sagan, the society of the United States has taken a dive off the deep end into pseudoscience in not just occasional discussions regarding the unknown of outer space, but rather resonating constantly in front of the public eye on a daily basis. The transition from the previous stage to the latter has been directly related to the efforts of hundreds of companies edging-on consumers with the “benefits” of their products like waving a bone in front of a dog – yet with no evidence to support such attractions. The usual assumption of the scenario would be that a group of elite salesmen, who are working on a giant plan to rip off the public (in layman’s terms) would be behind the grand scheme of things. Yet, ironically, not just one particular group of business men and woman have been successful with deterring consumers from buying rival products. Instead, people from a range of occupations try to use ethos or the credibility of their position to gain the public’s trust in hopes that they will adhere to relatively unusual concepts or products. In a similar manner, William Weed uses this method as well as a mixture of sarcasm, humor, analogies, and most importantly researched evidence to address the lack of faith the American people should have if they continue to play “benefactor” to the government, and furthermore, industrialized occupations.

 

The nation has become an easy prey for the pseudo-scientific world that is plaguing our lives. Though the majority of claims from advertisers are seen as the daily dose of science that everyone needs as they go on with their day, they are actually filled with either lies, or irrelevant statements in regards to the actual benefits of the product. Companies have a “marketing imperative” which encourages them to twist information this way and that to make the product seem most appealing to the customer as they try to improve sales. Using the FDA’s disclaimers made this entirely possible as even a team of college drop- outs could successfully sell a product as long as they had the disclaimer somewhere in their ad. Luckily, the distinguished author Weed gives his audience a means to escape the endless sea of pseudo-waves through his article 106 Claims and a Truck Full of Bologna.

 

106 claims… was presented in “Popular Science,” a particular magazine that usually attracts those who are intrigued by keeping up with those who hold important positions in the scientific world. From the general audience who subscribe to the magazine, it is safe to assume that Weed had directed his objections toward the specific partition of America that would be concerned about these findings. With the declared notion that “Advertisers probably feed more science to Americans than anyone else,” Weed uses his article to attain a method which allows the public to realize the ignorance of their position in society, and furthermore, the danger it poses to their lives and their pockets. To appeal to the audience’s position in this unfortunate scenario, Weed simulated the interactions that his readers might go through as they continue with their daily routine –numb to the abuse from industries as they wreak havoc on society. The implication that he himself is being bombarded with claim after claim as the hours pass by becomes rather logical when considering the ways in which Weed pursues the explanations of each claim and its matching counterclaim. The structure of the article, similar to a journal, allows him to emphasize how many things that, if questioned, would constitute as another claim to pseudoscience on a daily basis. Yet, instead of leaving it up to the reader to form some interpretation of the information provided, he takes time after every fifth or sixth point that he has summed up from the 106 found to further reveal what is actually being hidden from the public eye.

 

The informal diction utilized to present his objections also set the tone for a casual conversation between writer and reader-where one could make snide comments about the information in a blunt manner and not feel judged for having the same thoughts as those expressed in the article. In a sense, this enables the audience a taste of freedom in comparison to the constant dread of chains that appear when the media pressures one to conclude a certain attitude about a particular food ingredient, service, or source of advice. A sub-partition of this method happened to also include the avid use of sarcasm plainly seen in various parts of the text. For example, the first claim that proposes the benefits of consuming the general mills cereal, “Cheerios,” seems to use the possibility of the product decreasing risks of heart disease in a large number of its attracted fan base. This statement could be grouped as suspicious because it was stated during a press release, as opposed to actually allowing the public to see the results concluded from the study where it declared that cholesterol would lower by only four percent. Therefore, Weed’s sarcasm doesn’t necessarily regard the product but rather the motives behind general mills as a company. Even after computing the numbers if every American followed the recommended advice from the company, it would be difficult to persist with the idea of this animated “bee” character who sincerely cares about the consumer’s health when they are raking in a gross product from the 204 billion of bowls of cereal being eaten. Hence, one of Weed’s classifications (“Fair enough. Good for sales.”) could not be more true as “Cheerios” has been proven to be healthy – healthy for the corporation producing it.

 

Throughout other claims that are relevant to the health benefits received from products, the FDA, or food and drug administration, have played a leading part in the amount of trickery endured. Due to the regulations of having to place a truthful statement on items being sold, those declarations proposed could indeed follow such a guideline, and yet not be relevant to the product at all(a.k.a. the business loop hole). To tie in his humor with this surprising idea, Weed mentions the ole’ famous “gluten-free yeast” that is seen commonly in grocery stores. Using a product that is so widely purchased as an example would eventually gage a reaction from his readers that seems fit for probably the majority of claims that they’ve played witness to. As the country began embarking on a “gluten- free high”, the background of popularity for this product hit the ceiling. One has to keep in mind the “kairos,” or setting, of this situation and its effects as products with the label who identified themselves as “gluten-free” sold quickly to a large number of families. As a business who has an imperative to increase sales by any means necessary, it is understandable why they would see it fit to make sure their products saw the same growth in sales as the competition. What most families failed to realize is that the fact that yeast was gluten free had nothing to do with the healthful benefits of yeast as an ingredient. In the words of the author, “yeast and gluten are as unrelated as a cow and an orange,” and he could not be more right considering yeast is a fungus. This is simply another way in which businesses have abused publicity to take advantage of the lack of actual science the public knows.

 

In other scenarios, Weed references claims that describe the services which also use partial deception in its appeal to the public. A major example of this is demonstrated through the claim regarding the online dating site, “eHarmony.” Existing as a very widely known resource for people who hope to find their “one true love,” the site has gained quite a bit of credibility due to the number of relationships that have come to be as a result of the staff’s match – making abilities. Why then did Weed choose this specific claim out of the many? One word: unlikelihood. He wanted to portray that even in the most unlikely places, pseudoscience has become the root of progress for businesses. To prove his counterclaim, the reliable resource of a Stony Brook social psychology professor was admitted to the crime scene to analyze how exact eHarmony’s “love – algorithm” was, if they truly had match-making down to a science. The results entailed that this algorithm only based a couple’s chemistry on topics that guaranteed compatibility, but most likely would not lead to a lasting marriage for the two love birds.

 

As the article progressed, Weed made it quite clear that despite the task at hand, the general public would be subject to these messages every few minutes, despite the lack of validity seen throughout each proposal as well as the public’s unwillingness to listen (leads to subliminal messaging).  With the structure as well as a determination to persuade his readers to listen and understand more deeply, it seems as though he takes the place of the various industrial corporations by sharing what should be shared about their products, such as the risks and concerns one should have. A prime example of this occurred when Weed had mentioned a claim referring to alcohol and the possibility of how beneficial it could be. To gain the reader’s trust, he described a study performed with 90,000 male physician participants who helped confirm the hypothesis that drinking one glass a day could in fact aid people with prolonging their lives. With perfect timing in his grasp, Weed had provided himself with leeway to mention the side effects of overdosing on this recommended occasional pick-me-up as the reader most likely held weight to his words. He, or she, may also be emotionally effected by the statement he made within this explanation as the topic of repercussions emerged. It seems that Weed actually pertained to the “pathos” aspect of his writing as a large number of readers could have known someone close to them who have been affected by this incomplete information that is being provided by many members of the FDA.

 

Web MD on the other hand contributes both sides, like Weed, to the discussion on alcohol consumption, yet it has found its own way of abusing the trust of many anonymous patients. As a result of the controversy over when to begin screening for breast cancer, for example, quite a few doctors disagree with the final claim that people should start around the age of 40 ( depending on family records) as a precaution for one’s health. Instead, they recommend the idea of postponing till about a decade later for such tests. To further research these discrepancies between professional doctors in hopes to find some logic behind this decision seems almost pointless when it is evident in the profits doctors make from this. Considering a certain amount is due according to the co-pay, plus the amount charged for however many screenings one may have, it would be detrimental to their own pay if such a claim was not declared for all of society to hear. Similar to the “Cheerios” situation, this is more convenient for the workers than for the patients themselves.

 

Although declaring all the ways we’ve been tricked by the false advertising, Weed doesn’t leave his readers with a problem that they couldn’t possibly fix. He instead makes a point of how they could benefit from having an attitude similar to one that was used as an example in his article. “Oddly, the Imus joke about the Chinese astronaut embodied the sort of attitude Americans could profit from in a world of promiscuous science claims. His “How do we know?” is a demand for fundamental evidence.” This is a particular section which allows Weed to depict how the public should respond to the supposedly scientifically -proven claims that are seen by the hundreds every day by pedestrians and web –browsers. The wording in the first sentence seems to direct the attitude of the reader as they have already pre-ascribed notions of what “promiscuous” can mean in the eyes of the media.  When found in a thesaurus, its’ synonyms can alternate from “loose” to “immoral” -something one would usually like to avoid in fear of embarrassment as well as defending ones morality. Thus, to relate the facts that companies are declaring to this word would instantly shift the tone of the essay to show not only how false these claims could be, but also how much we should avoid listening to them.  Though seen as unusual, Weed encourages the questioning emphasized in this reference. It’s a display of how simple it could be to avoid being the victim of such atrocities as the “3-inches longer” pitch, or the possibility of coconut oil(which is filled with saturated fat) being healthy for you.

 

“I don’t want to believe, I just want to know”

Today in the market when any product been labeled as “organic “, “all nature” or “good for human health”, normally they always came out with higher price than others. But, how those expert s to defined those words or they are just use those for the business marking. The article “Weed” by William Speed was published at the “Popular Science,” a science magazine which carried the general concept of interpreting science for a broad audience. In the article the author Mr. Speed is by using his daily life narrative style to breaking out the issue, how our life has been surround by the “pseudoscientific,” but most people still unconscious and believe those claims indeed. From my past reading and experiences I am totally agree with his argument. In the article Speed point out there are only one-third of Americans can adequately explain what it means to study something scientifically , in the other word those two-third of Americans may easily prey to the pseudoscientific . However, most Americans do not think taking “science” daily is a necessity.

 

This morning one of my friends was handing me a “5 hour energy,” since this item is so popular today. I never have any similar energy drink like this before so I refused to try it. However, I became so curious about why this product so popular today and how it worked. I jumped to the internet to do some research about this product. In the website it is hard to find those evidences and science report how those ingredients will effect our body functions. 

http://www.5hourenergy.com/index.asp

 

Around 6:30 pm, I was helping my mother clean up the dinning table for the dinner. I found a small box of “Sensa,” I saw the add on TV before but really curious about how it work on losing weight since the only way I believe on weight lost is through health diet “nature diet” and exercise.

http://www.sensa.com/

At the 12:30 am almost close the sleeping tme I walked across the living room, a “NONO”hair remover add was showing on the TV. It catched my attention, I went to their website but there was very few information that I can get how this machion will effect our skin health. And, with no research report  I adout how it can be a good  and safe product for us.

http://www.my-no-no.com/

Pseudoscience in advertising

Many companies tend to use “science” as a marketing means to sell products. Even though they have a legal obligation to tell the truth, but they cunningly tell the lie by using scientific language. As William Weed said in the article “106 Science Claims and A Truckful Of Baloney”, “we are easy to prey to the pseudoscientific” because of education and the media.On our typical day, we often hear many science claims;however,very few of them have been approved true and a lot of them are totally false. To bust the pseudoscience needs to realize the actual scientific knowledge behind them. The readers of this article may be people who are easy to trust claims which sound scientific from radio,television,the Internet,and advertisers , instead of considering their actual health benefits , and questioning how they work . His claim is to tell people that do not blindly trust what the advertisers say even if they use scientific words or provide attractive benefits. In order to persuade his audience, he arranges the article by chronological order.At the beginning of each section ,he describes what the science claims he encounters.This special arrangment makes the article look like a diary which can reduce the distance with the readers. He also provides detailed evidence to decode the science claims and point out that if they are true. I agree with his claim. After reading, I realized that there are so many ads contain scientific statements that are unverified or incomplete.They are likely to mislead and hoodwink consumers. We should be aware of that and encourage to track the science evidence behind them; trust them after we really know how they work.

Examples:

1.  New Balance :Misleading. A New Balance sneaker claims that its toning shoes could increase calorie burn and muscle activation .In fact,  by testing, no statistically significant increase in either exercise response or muscle activation as a result of wearing toning shoes. Studies cited that the sneakers, which cost roughly $100  may lead to injury.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/new-balance-toning-shoe-settlement_n_1839537.html

2. Underwear:   :Misleading.  Advertisement for a popular brand of women’s underwear claims that its product contains ” Active Biocrystals”can help women melt fat and reshape the body by using infra red energy.However, the advertisement contains statements that are unverified. The terms used in the ad such as”BioPromise”,”Biocrystals”and “Far Infra Red Rays” have not been substantiated by scientific evidence yet.The only energy rays that would burn fat would pretty much kill people too ( at least destroy the skin on top.)

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/dr-says-fat-melting-undies-pseudo-science/story-fneuzle5-1226536875198

3.Spray : Misleading. French cosmetics company Clarins  claims that its spray “leaves an invisible, highly protective veil on the skin to protect its youthful radiance” ,but the company could not prove  how the product works.

Where Do We Get Our Science?

PART I:

Weeds’ structures his essay almost as if it’s a journal entry. From the moment he wakes up he begins to document all of the science he encounters throughout his day. Studies show that 90% of Americans are interested in science, however, the majority of Americans get their science from advertisements which is not a reliable source because advertisements do not portray accurate statements about science.

There are a few major claims made throughout this article. Some which include: “only one-third of Americans can adequately explain what it study something scientifically.” This means that only one-third of Americans can comprehend or even know about the scientific method and how the general idea about how scientists go about their research. This makes sense if the only science America is getting is from advertisements which main purpose is to sell a product and not teach Americans science. Another interesting claim Weed makes is “people in a grocery store assume the government is scrutinizing the claims products make, so if they’re on the label, they must be accurate and important….” Weeds makes it clear that labels in grocery stores promoting “natural” or “reduced fat” are a few words that allows Americans to jump to conclusions that the product is better for you.

I agree with Weeds’ argument, from the perspective of the average American that is out of schooling. Unless their profession is in the sciences, most Americans get their lack of concrete science from advertisements; which in actuality they are not getting any science at all. There is no resource in everyday media where Americans can be informed of real science. They would have to go out of their way read scientific journals.

PART II:

1. Fat Free Ranch: Scientists say that in order to make the most out of your salad, you should use fat-based dressing. Many Americans want less fat in their diet, therefore Americans will buy the Fat-Free Ranch, however, they will not know that it is not the best thing for them. http://gizmodo.com/5923627/eating-salad-with-fat-free-dressing-is-not-good-for-you-says-science
2. “Lose weight with Hydroxycut.” Hydroxycut was a popular supplement that was known to help someone lose weight fast. It wasn’t on the shelves long before it was recalled for causing hepatotoxicity and liver injury. http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v105/n7/abs/ajg20105a.html
3. “Less wrinkles in minutes!” Unfortunately, the Instant Face Lift Serum only lasts for about two hours. It also is known to cause depression in a large quantity of its users. Other serious symptoms included erectile dysfunction, cognitive decline, and other serious symptoms. http://bodyworx.com/dhea_info.html