4/8 through 4/13 response Sci 361

My understanding of La tours liatures was that there was several ways in science to make a controversy. For instance theories are made by claims and claims come from past tense articles or proven history that has held together. The only way to prove something is true and fair is to realize the unstable- ness in science and take that to another level. A deeper level if you will. Also la tour talks about how to follow a controversy and what to do when you are following on; i.e. look at the key actors and remember who is saying what. It's difficult and more complex then what is thought out to be.

Also you have to realize that others are always going to question your claim and look at it as whether is it going to hold true. Keep in mind in the laboratory that others will use your claim to make NEW claims. You want your claim to be concert and downstream--to things that matter. It needs to hold together as confirmed ground work.

Which brings me to my initial question and the question of the public, to say I'm speaking for them is open in its self and would be an opened concern. However; La tours talks about how scientist become who the are or how claims become standard like the idea of Darwinism as an example. It has been shown that it's because these claims are popular, but what makes them popular to the science eye. it's that controversy are settled p.98 or people just settle for the initial claim when they have no more material to argue against the claim, and/or everyone who there auguring against can't be convinced. So the initial controversy that their auguring against the just go along with- hence the controversy settles. Scientist do battle with one another also with politics claims, they will write in third person so we can't phantom what is justified by their text which is what makes science popular and just.