“Science is not a body of facts. Science is a state of mind” (Angier 490). Both essays, “The Canon” by Natalie Angier and “Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse” by Thomas W. Martin, discuss that science is not a set of facts to be learned, but is best practiced through actions. These two articles approach the topic differently by using different rhetorical modes and styles. Even though the article’s main points have similarities, the essays contain many differences through their rhetorical modes, approaches, and writing styles. In “The Canon”, written by Natalie Angier, a variety of interesting stories are used to prove that science is not something that can be learned but is a mindset. Angier confirms this by using examples from
…show more content…
The essay was published by Angier in 2007 (Comley et al. 489) and so was the essay written by Martin. Since the essays were published at the same time, the same amount of evidence had been discovered to support their assertions. Even though the essays have similar contexts in relation to time, Angier’s essay is an excerpt from the book she wrote, Canon (Comley et al. 489), while Martin’s essay is a stand-alone essay (Comley et al. 501). The different formats between the essays create different tones, but both essays still convey their point to the audience. Because the essays are based on the scientific evidence from 2007, their contexts are similar, even though they were written in contrasting …show more content…
While Angier continuously shows her interest in science through her descriptions of the topic, Martin is not as animated. By calling science “a dynamic process of discovery” (Angier 490) and a “humbling activity” (Angier 491), Angier’s attitude towards science is uplifting and cheerful, which reveals her joy in studying and discussing the topic. In opposition, Martin uses a more factual tone to describe his topic, making his article not nearly as personal as Angier’s essay. Readers are captivated by reading an article when the author is passionate about the topic. Because of the stark contrast in the authors’ writing styles, the essays have differing
The essay was published by Angier in 2007 (Comley et al. 489) and so was the essay written by Martin. Since the essays were published at the same time, the same amount of evidence had been discovered to support their assertions. Even though the essays have similar contexts in relation to time, Angier’s essay is an excerpt from the book she wrote, Canon (Comley et al. 489), while Martin’s essay is a stand-alone essay (Comley et al. 501). The different formats between the essays create different tones, but both essays still convey their point to the audience. Because the essays are based on the scientific evidence from 2007, their contexts are similar, even though they were written in contrasting …show more content…
While Angier continuously shows her interest in science through her descriptions of the topic, Martin is not as animated. By calling science “a dynamic process of discovery” (Angier 490) and a “humbling activity” (Angier 491), Angier’s attitude towards science is uplifting and cheerful, which reveals her joy in studying and discussing the topic. In opposition, Martin uses a more factual tone to describe his topic, making his article not nearly as personal as Angier’s essay. Readers are captivated by reading an article when the author is passionate about the topic. Because of the stark contrast in the authors’ writing styles, the essays have differing