Question:
The following appeared in a science magazine:
“The “Space Race” of the 1960’s between the USA and Russia was very expensive but it yielded a tremendous number of technological advances. These advances have provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. The benefits have more than paid for the effort and money spent during the Space Race and therefore the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
My response:
The Cold War between the USA and Russia saw the two countries vying to be ahead of each other in every aspect. This in turn have provided the world with a huge number of technological advances. But what have been the impact of these advances? Are they sufficient enough to justify spending a lot more on further outer space missions? To answer these questions, we need to take a closer look at how such technological advancements have affected our very own world.
The argument suggests that space research and exploration has provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. The fallacy of this statement is that it does not provide information on what the actual benefits are. Can we say that passing on a few by-products like lycra to the common man has indeed provided humanitarian benefits? Have these programs provided more returns than expenses? How did the common man benefit when Sir Neil Armstrong set his foot on the moon? Unless and until these facts are brought out and analysed, the argument remains seriously flawed.
Another point to be noted about the cold war period is that many of the technological advances have been used more for military advancements than for civilian purposes. Rocket propulsion, satellites, GPS navigation, communication systems etc. have all found their way into military applications. This in fact had the world at the verge of a catastrophic war for a couple of decades. The fact that majority of such advances have been used more for non-civilian activities contradicts the emphasis on the humanitarian benefits of the Space Race.
Finally, what are we aiming to achieve through the manned Mars landing? Would it solve the problems that the world faces today? Would it help eradication poverty and disease in African countries? Would it alleviate global warming and other environmental issues? Questions such as this definitely takes away the limelight from a Mars landing. We have to stop and think about what is happening in our very earth before we set our eyes on other planets. Would it be more prudent to divulge such a budget for the upliftment of the people of the world and for the fight against climatic changes? Most people would agree that it is definitely more prudent to do so than to let the money flow into outer space.
Hence, it can be seen that there are so many questions that one needs to answer before we can actually take a decision on making more allowances for the Mars landing mission. The tax payers money should not be thrown into space when he himself has more pressing issues here. Unless we can point out direct benefits from the mission, the argument that government should make further allowances remains flawed.
The following appeared in a science magazine:
“The “Space Race” of the 1960’s between the USA and Russia was very expensive but it yielded a tremendous number of technological advances. These advances have provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. The benefits have more than paid for the effort and money spent during the Space Race and therefore the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
My response:
The Cold War between the USA and Russia saw the two countries vying to be ahead of each other in every aspect. This in turn have provided the world with a huge number of technological advances. But what have been the impact of these advances? Are they sufficient enough to justify spending a lot more on further outer space missions? To answer these questions, we need to take a closer look at how such technological advancements have affected our very own world.
The argument suggests that space research and exploration has provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. The fallacy of this statement is that it does not provide information on what the actual benefits are. Can we say that passing on a few by-products like lycra to the common man has indeed provided humanitarian benefits? Have these programs provided more returns than expenses? How did the common man benefit when Sir Neil Armstrong set his foot on the moon? Unless and until these facts are brought out and analysed, the argument remains seriously flawed.
Another point to be noted about the cold war period is that many of the technological advances have been used more for military advancements than for civilian purposes. Rocket propulsion, satellites, GPS navigation, communication systems etc. have all found their way into military applications. This in fact had the world at the verge of a catastrophic war for a couple of decades. The fact that majority of such advances have been used more for non-civilian activities contradicts the emphasis on the humanitarian benefits of the Space Race.
Finally, what are we aiming to achieve through the manned Mars landing? Would it solve the problems that the world faces today? Would it help eradication poverty and disease in African countries? Would it alleviate global warming and other environmental issues? Questions such as this definitely takes away the limelight from a Mars landing. We have to stop and think about what is happening in our very earth before we set our eyes on other planets. Would it be more prudent to divulge such a budget for the upliftment of the people of the world and for the fight against climatic changes? Most people would agree that it is definitely more prudent to do so than to let the money flow into outer space.
Hence, it can be seen that there are so many questions that one needs to answer before we can actually take a decision on making more allowances for the Mars landing mission. The tax payers money should not be thrown into space when he himself has more pressing issues here. Unless we can point out direct benefits from the mission, the argument that government should make further allowances remains flawed.
