Discussion Post #1

  In Jeanne Fahnestock's essay 'Accommodating Science', she discusses how popular science outlets take creative liberties with scientific studies published in academic journals in order to present the findings to a less scientifically literate public audience while simultaneously creating interesting journalistic pieces. Fahnestock highlights several examples of how simply changing the language or hedging uncertainties can lead to hypotheses being presented as fact.
  Interestingly, this essay was published in July of 1986, long before the explosion of the internet, social media outlets, and the rapid dissemination of information.
  The phenomenon described by Fahnestock in 1986 has grown in ways she couldn't have possibly envisioned. With the proliferation of websites like Wired, as well as popular science magazines, television shows like 'Mythbusters', and an endless parade of sci/ tech blogs, science has become part of public consciousness, perhaps more than ever before.
  In today's world, a scientific article can be published, cherry picked for sensational findings, rocketed through social platforms like Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook, and then discussed on Good Morning America as fact before  any chance of repudiation.
  As we discussed in class, it is clear that reporting on scientific discoveries need to be more carefully done, with less rampant sensationalization. But how does society combat the social media aspect?
How can 'citizen journalists' be held responsible for generating sensational headlines that multiply and spread across social media platforms, and are then taken as fact by a lay audience?

Short Assignment # 1

In Richard Harris’ article, “’Uncertain’ Science: Judith Curry’s Take on Climate Change”

Intertextuality is exemplified by fusing together what one could think of as commonly known public discourse, scientific fact, and individual opinion.

The exigency, of the Grant-Davies variety, is the climate change debate. This debate is on going and often vitriolic, with anxious scientists and environmentalists on one side of the aisle, and a mixture of capitalists, conservatives, and advocates of personal and corporate freedom on the other.

Many people think that climate change is a critical matter. ‘Climate Change’, as an individual issue, is often a matter of debate between candidates and sometimes a platform for political parties.

In Richard Harris’ article, scientist Judith Curry expresses her uncertainty that action needs to be taken, as she believes that without knowing what possible natural factors might occur in the next few centuries, it is impossible to take lasting action against climate change.

I believe that Curry is utilizing D’Angelo’s intertextual technique of adaption, as she agrees with the findings of other scientists findings regarding the impact of humans on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, but draws a different conclusion from these findings and uses that conclusion to further her point