Bogost argues that the public has misunderstood the actual meaning of science by providing the Facebook page “I f*cking love science” as a piece of evidence. I think this reason is irrelevant to sub conclusion 5 (as shown above). Since Bogost commits an inductive fallacy here, which is a hasty generalization. The latter is providing a very small sample (ONE Facebook page), which is obviously not representative, and draws a conclusion upon it to a large scale. So hHis scope and commitment was broad and rather bold as he quostatesd, “Most people don’t love science”.” This in turn weakens his reasoning. He attempted to back up his position by citing an authority’s (John Skylar) opinion but still that does not justify his generalized claim on the entire population. And cChoosing John Skylar could be a biased option from Bogost; why ndoesn't he chooses someone else for example? Or wWhy not give more than one expert opinion? Bogost also committed a false dichotomy when he assumesd that if people love photography they must not love science, which is totally unreasonable. Why not love both photography and science. ? This shows that Bogost has no sufficient evidence to back up his claim and explains that he just used his own biased opinion to cdevelome up with such a statement. But I agree with him for the sake of argument that rhetorical science makes science look easy, simple, and fun. For sScience couldan be difficult, rigorous, and dull.
I agree with himBogost on the basis of common knowledge on the point where he refers to some authors who abuse science by using its name for profit and authority appeal purposes. It is not quite unusual to see some writers or even TV commercials using science as a bait to catch their prey. For example, advertisement actors used to appear on cigarettes commercials as if they were real doctors and dentists and they recommended smoking to the public. This is definitely a logical fallacy but it was a reality on 1949. This might be a bit different from Bogost's example but I think the idea of misusing science is still the same. This reason is relevant to his sub conclusion 5.
H however, he addressed an essential point that the observation of the material world has no correlation whatsoever with science. This would be unacceptable reason (premise) on the basis that it is easily refutable. Observation of material world is a steppingstone for hypothesizes and logical predictions that lead us to scientific discoveries. Alhazen discovered the theory of light reflection toin our eyes and then concludesd how our vision functions. Built on that discovery the camera was invented. Is not that science? Masters of their craft like Cchefs have strong understanding of chemistry and biology of food. How that is not a food science? For me it seems like a contradiction to mention the Cchefs example and then oppose the idea of relationship between science and observation.