Synthesised GP Blog

Blog Comment for: Science & Technology, good or bad?

A very well done opening that leads the reader into your discussion smoothly! The English is frankly stupendous with great variations in sentence structure that made me believe I was reading off TIME magazine. Language apart, the argument is also very well-balanced though I have some reservations in that point; it is a little too equalized for your stand of concurring that science and technology has done more good than bad.

The second paragraph had great rhetoric that works because it is easy to follow from those factors that S&T has indeed increased our quality of life and of course maximized our time. Certainly, no one would deny those points.

The third came with facts that supported your point of advancements which convinces us that S&T developments brought about many benefits. Not left just as examples, the evidences brought up were evaluated and linked back to the question of benefiting. This clears any doubt the reader might have of the discovery or invention which conferred higher degrees of persuasiveness.

A balancing attempt was made in the fifth paragraph, listing a few scandals that revolved the scientific world in the recent decade. Undeniably, S&T did bring in some bad which you dutifully recognized which is good but it turned the tables on you since the scandals did a great deal of negative impact on people. The degree was not measured in anyway hence the balance had done a disfavor to your well-built argument. I feel a good way to pull the argument back from being skewed against the stand is to introduce the growing of concern in ethics of research (particularly in S&T). You could reason that as much as these negative developments hurt the integrity of developments in S&T, it highlighted to people the importance of having a governing authority to control what goes on in laboratories. Presumably, without the development in S&T, these issues would not have generated necessity and Man’s morality would not have gained extra attention and grew in sophistication. This weaves the argument to a nice close that even thought some bad had been generated from S&T, the bad had yielded some good.

This could be a better balance for it had considered a much deeper meaning compared to measuring the degree of good and bad simply by the frequency. Frequency, it appears, does not imply the magnitude of harm or benefit a particular matter initiated.

Original Blog Post: http://candy-me.blogspot.com/2006/04/do-you-think-science-and-technology.html

posted by synthesis @ 12:20 AM