What Science Can Do :: Science Scientific Papers

What Science Can DoI argue that we the public of the United States of America, do not confirm an exaggerated view of what science tooshie do. To support this claim I have comp ard and contrasted two articles Enemies of Promise and The Hazards of Science. Both articles cover the topic of scientific research. Both authors are accredited scientists in their own right, and are nice examples to cite for my thesis which I believe very strongly in. Although, I disagree with virtually of the conclusions made in the articles, I neverless hold both authors in very high regard. Professor of microbiology and Nobel Prize winner, J. Michael Bishop continually makes the arguing in his article, Enemies of Promise, that the public has exaggerated and unrealistic expectations as to what science can do Just as physician-author Lewis Thomas asks in his article, The Hazards of Science, are in that location some things in science we should not be learning approximately? (238). These men both have r elevant opinions about science today. I can not say that they agree with each other because their articles are structured differently. Bishop makes arguments for science while stating its limitations and Thomas highlights some of sciences achievements while disbelieving how far science should go. In discussing the topic of science, albeit from different frameworks, they touch upon some of the same topics. Bishop alleges that, Science, is not the exclusive source of fellowship about human existence. (256). Then sites Thomas as saying that science is the best sort to learn how the world works. As Bishop cites Thomas to make his point, they both seemingly agree with this statement. However, Thomas questions the lengths that science should go to while Bishop does not. Lewis Thomas asks the primaeval question, are in that location some kinds of information leading to some sorts of knowledge that human beings are really better off not having? Is there a limit to scientific inquiry not set by what is knowable but by what we ought to be knowing? Should we stop piteous of learning about some things, for fear of what we, or someone, will do with the knowledge? (237). The author then wait ons his own questions No, but he qualifies his answer by stating that it is an intuitive response that he is incapable of reasoning through. I too believe that we should not place limitations on science, while admitting that it is as well as an intuitive response.