Sex Drugs By Stephen Jay Gould Ethos Pathos Logos

In Stephen Jay Gould's article Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of Dinosaurs, Gould describes good science as "a fruitful mode in query, not a list of enticing conclusions," and explains what does and does not make good science. The article is very heavy on logos as he analyzes three separate hypotheses for the extinction of dinosaurs, and explains why or why not they are "fruitful.” He does this in order to portray the state of popular science, and show how scientists are more focused on attention grabbing guesses, than beneficial inquiries. Gould’s tone shifts throughout the piece, shifting from praise to disappointment, in order to express how he feels about each hypothesis, and how the reader should also view them. In Sex, Drugs,

He utilizes logos in order to give validity to his conclusions on each of the three hypotheses. Since this is an scientific article it was necessary, and is why this rhetorical device is the center of his paper. When discussing both the overdose and testicular frying hypotheses, Gould explains that while they are both possible hypotheses, their Achilles heel is that "it is difficult to advance any arguments against this hypothesis.” This means it is untestable and unusable, otherwise useless. He then explains that the meteor hypothesis is "fruitful science because it generates tests, and provides us with things to do and extends outward.” Gould utilizes logos in order to show how and why testable hypotheses are what makes good science. In doing this, he directly achieved his purpose. Aside from being at times satirical or even condescending, Gould’s use of any other rhetorical devices is minimal at best. This not only keeps his article very straightforward, but highlights his satirical moments and portrays the article as being fueled by knowledge and conclusive evidence. Gould’s near exclusive use of logos makes it the center of gravity for his article, and provides validity to his conclusions of what does and does not make fruitful

For example, at the start of the article Gould’s tone is simply scientific and neutral, as he is laying the foundation for the rest of his argument. It stays this way up until he begins talking about the overdose hypothesis, where is sharp shift occurs and he states “since flowering imaginations can apply at almost any hot idea to the extinction of dinosaurs, Siegel found a way.” He takes on a condescending and critical tone, almost to the point of being disappointed as he is talking about the overdose hypothesis. This helps to achieve the author’s purpose because the reader identifies the hypothesis as an “sad attention grabbing guess,” and not fruitful science. The contrast is not noticed until Gould begins talking about the meteor hypothesis, and his tone almost immediately switches to praise, showing the reader that it's good science. This is important because it makes it more accessible to the general audience and easier to read, by making an easy to see distinction on which he believes is fruitful science. The use of tonal shifts is effective because it allows the focus to stay on logos, yet still emphasizes Gould’s views, adding personality to the scientific