Welcome to your brand new blog at Edublogs.
To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.
There’s stacks of great supporting material too! Take time to view our some helpful introductory videos, read through our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.
If you’ve got 4 minutes and 55 seconds, we’ve also put together a video introduction that you might like:
You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.
And finally, if you like Edublogs but want to be able to simply create, administer, control and manage hundreds of student and teacher blogs at your school or college, check out Edublogs Campus… it’s like Edublogs in a box, all for you.
Thanks again for signing up with Edublogs!
Einstien’s response to Phyllis Wright’s question was rhetorically rather effective. He appealed to his audience right from the start by admitting how he tried to answer her question as simple as he could, knowing she was a young girl, on the subject her question inquired. Einstien’s context and purpose obviously were to try and give an unbiased opinion on whether or not scientists pray. Personally I think Einstien gets a little off topic and rambles on about how scientists have their own faith, never really saying whether or not scientists believe in religion or prayer. I believe he did this by taking into consideration his audience, trying not to put a biased thought into the little girls head possibly ruin having faith for her. Because in no way does Einstien really answer her question. Leaving the girl with her faith still intact. Einstien appeals to pathos by implying scientists just dont know if there is a higher being or not, that they sort of have their own version of a faith, but its not necessarily religion. He then appeals to logos by saying scientists just plain do not know things, that their actual knowledge is so imperfect and fragmentary, which is why they have kind of their own faith in the laws of nature. Finally, Eistien appeals to ethos at the end coming right out and saying that science has “a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” By this I am not completely sure if he is talking about someone who is naive enough to believe in religion, or are naive by having a lack of scientific knowledge. Where Einstien’s answer is a little off topic, it appeals to all aspects of rhetoric.
