“Anybody Out There?” Response Questions
Comprehension
1. What is Sacks’s answer to the question he poses in the title?
Sacks provided a few answers from several sources including his own opinion, but he summed them up all together and gave the answer: maybe. Evidence and theories shows that the production of life is incredibly delicate, lucky, unlikely, and rare. But to counter that argument, there is also the fact that there are billions of planets in a single galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the known universe, so the likeliness of life starting on another planet isn’t ruled out.
3. List and define some of the scientific evidence and scientific principles Sacks mentions in his essay.
In paragraph 5, Sacks goes over how Oxygen was formed, and how Oxygen isn’t a requirement for life, as organisms called “anaerobic organisms” thrived on Earth as some of the earliest life forms, post-dating the pre-genotes and other life. This is important, as there are many planets in our galaxy that we know of, that may be suitable for life, but don’t necessarily have an oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is a misconception to many, as many people would believe that “life” is similar to human life and life on Earth, which is primarily based around oxygen and O2, which it isn’t.
Rhetoric
3. What is Sacks’s
…show more content…
The thesis is that it is likely that there is sophisticated and evolved life out somewhere in the universe. He offers a ton of evidence and support regarding it, and sums it up in the end. It may be unlikely and rare to have evolved life, as it takes a great amount of luck, and an astonishing amount of time, but the amount of planets and galaxies out in the universe are mind-boggling, and that counters the rare and unlikeliness with
He believes people are successful because of their families and circumstances while growing up. I understand how he would have formed this conjecture, but I disagree with his
These rhetorical questions throughout the essay help establish the author on the audiences’ level, it helps establish his ethos not only as an educated scientist, but also as a
In this article, the author Lauren Tarshis illustrated why scientists predicted aliens probably exist. At first, there was a radio report describing scary scenes that alien devastate the earth, which result in thousands of Americans fled their homes. In fact, they missed the introduction of the radio report that it was a work of fiction and came from a famous science-fiction novel called The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. After this event, scientists began to explore whether aliens exist. They focused on the planets that have sufficient water, earth-sized and belong to "Goldilocks planets" (have suitable distance with stars) so that it can support life.
At any time, a scientist's research can be torn apart by a new finding or experiment. In line 21 Barry says that "uncertainty requires a confidence
Scientists take the unknown and make it known. The audience will better understand the scientific method if it seems logical. Including examples of Einstein, accepting scientific theories, and designing experiments show that the basis of Barry’s argument is factual. “Einstein refused to accept his own theory until his predictions were tested,” showing even the best of the best scientists study with uncertainty. Barry’s appeal to logos helps characterize the intellectual side of science.
The Onion uses satirical humor to poke fun at modern advertisements and the gullibility of Americans have by mocking the techniques used to sell consumer goods; it does this through its mocking publication of a product called MagnaSoles. This article uses quotes from customers that have bought MagnaSoles, subtle jokes and puns, and the over exaggeration of the sciences implemented by Magnasoles. The article is rampant with subtle hints, jokes, and puns that key the reader in that this article is a joke. With the use of "pseudoscientists" and "pseudoscience" used throughout the article, as well as the "scientific-sounding literature", this is an indicator that this is not real science talking. It also makes fun of the use of making a paper seem more credible through its constant
DIY - What Is Life? How can you determine whether something is alive, dead, or non-living? Whenever we speak of life, we must think in terms of cells.
The Women’s Brains essay was first published in Natural History in 1980 by Stephen Jay Gould, a geology and zoology professor at Harvard University. In this essay, Paul Broca, a respectable and influential professor of clinical surgery at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris, concluded from his research on brain sizes that women “could not equal them [men] in intelligence”. Despite the prevalent acceptance of this conclusion in the nineteenth century, Gould refused to concede and argued against Broca’s claim through a scientific filter, where historical information, quantitative numbers and experts’ opinions were used to present an objective and credible counterargument. The clever manipulation and usage of the evidences effectively substantiated
He describes what humans need to go through to find happiness. The thesis “We cannot expect anyone to help us live; we must discover how to do it by ourselves” (432). Csikszentmihalyi does a great job using examples throughout his work to back up his thesis. Like the situation when him and his students did the study at the factory. The majority of the workers working at the factor hated their job, except for Joe, he was an exception.
Last but not least, science is characterized by its incessant evolution in a way that a single new anomaly can easily falsify a strong scientific theory. In simple English, even experts know that there is no ultimate certainty to
“Scientist: 'We Didn't Create Life from Scratch'.” CNN, Cable News Network, 21 May 2010,
Scientists across various fields of studies with excellent academic achievements voice their unwavering belief in the theory of creation, and they depict multiple experiments and studies to solidify the validity of creationism. Evolution versus creationism is a battle that began long before today’s modern trials and protests, yet the same basic principles still exist. Creationism is as scientific as evolution, and evolution is as faith-based as
He aimed to disclose the drawbacks of following the experts blindly and to encourage people to pay attention to their own thoughts. Last but not least, based on my
He believed that individuals needed to be part of or integrated into a moral community and that if societies evolve too quickly, a situation in which he describes as anomie can occur, which is the breakdown of norms and values and the weakening of a community which results in disorder and
In general term He doesn 't think we should dismiss pseudo-science as utterly useless, uninteresting, or false. It 's just not science. Also the difference is not a matter of scientific theories always being true and pseudo-scientific theories always being false. The important difference seems to be in which approach gives better logical justification for knowledge claims. Medical sciences could be one example where the boundaries between science and pseudoscience are most confused.