TOW #6 Put a Little Science in Your Life (Brian Greene)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01greene.html?pagewanted=all

Brian Greene is a professor of physics at Columbia University, and one of the top researchers in quantum mechanics and String Theory. He is very dedicated to making these complex topics accessible through TED Talks, shows on NOVA, and several best-selling books. In this opinion piece, he considers the present importance of science, but the inability of schools to interest and engage students. He addresses people who are not generally interested in science, and explains why the way science is taught is ineffective, how it can be done better, and why it is important to think about in everyday life. He begins with anecdotal evidence of the significance of science: a soldier in Baghdad who was inspired by Greene's book on quantum physics because "it revealed a deeper reality of which we're all apart." This anecdote is particularly striking because it "might strike you as, well, odd" according to Greene. We generally pity soldiers and their situation, and are inspired when they find hope in something. This anecdote is one of many; Greene also describes his kids as proof that we are all born natural scientists. This applies to all parents and presents the logical argument that if kids have an inherent interest in science, something must change their opinion. Greene defines the "pedagogical approach" to science: that topics must be mastered chronologically. He then refutes this by saying this approach leads to the idea that "the verticality of science is unassailable." Having defined a problem and identified its faults, Greene then presents a solution, allowing students to view the "cutting-edge insights and discoveries" to foster their curiosity. This simple approach is well structured and appeals to logos for his audience. Greene also uses several comparisons in his essay, comparing science to curriculums in music and other liberal arts. These subjects are supposedly those preferred to science, so this comparison is very relevant. Lastly, Greene conveys his own passion by describing himself as a "practicing scientist" (a gross understatement) and using examples he can describe with genuine interests. For example, he describes stars as the result of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, "nuclear furnaces," and the makeup of only 4 percent of the enormous universe. I think the essay is very well done, because it appeals so well to his audience. He has logical organization and clearly demonstrates his credibility.


I am a huge fan of Dr. Greene. If you would like your mind blown, he has some incredible TED talks:

TOW #5 Join or Die (Ben Franklin)

This political cartoon is considered one of, if not the, most famous political cartoons in American history. It was presented by Ben Franklin in the Pennsylvania Gazette on May 9th, 1754. Ben Franklin was one of America's founding fathers, a polymath who was deeply involved in American politics. This political cartoon was released just before the Albany Congress, the first attempt at American unity before the French and Indian War. Representatives from seven colonies congregated to decided on a united defense against Indians and the French. Ben Franklin was a powerful proponent of intercolonial relations, and used this cartoon to convince colonists that unification was necessary. The cartoon appeals to ethos simply because it was published by one of the leading minds in American society in one of the most popular newspapers in the colonies. It may be considered propaganda, as it relies very heavily on an appeal to pathos. Specifically, it targets a universal fear of death. It narrows the choices of colonists to options, automatically creating an ultimatum for any reader. The idea of death is terrifying, especially to those who face danger from the French, Indians, disease, hunger, and several other pressures of the 18th century. Why a snake? Franklin may be alluding to the Bible, saying that the US is a snake that could serve as the downfall of France (and later England), just as the Devil did to Eve in the Bible. It may mean something completely different, however, as there was a common myth in colonial America concerning a snake. A snake, chopped into segments, was believed to have the ability to revive itself its body parts were all connected together. This then proposes a logical argument and metaphor, that America can join together and be revived, or its many individual parts will perish. Because this cartoon has become so famous, and has been used in several situations where a united America is needed, I think it is clearly effective. It relies heavily on pathos, but I do not think it is quite propaganda, given the intentions and intelligence of its creator. It provides logic very concisely, and therefore fulfills the purpose of a political cartoon.

TOW #4: How the Market Can Rein in Tuition Costs (Dave Girouard)

Dave Girouard has many years of experience in business and economics, serving as President of Google Enterprise and currently running the crowd-funding business Upstart. With such experience with money, Girouard takes a look at the rising tuition of many colleges, and explains the "pay it forward theory" as a better alternative to standard tuition, where alumni pay a percent of their salaries to their alma mater for several years or decades. Tuition costs have increased to 500% of what they were in 1985 (Notte). This trend has popularized student loans, of which $1.2 trillion defaults. To combat this, Oregon state universities have changed their tuition policies, so that students pay 3% of their tuition for the first 20 years after they graduate. Girouard defends this policy and tries to convince the general public (and perhaps future college students) that this method needs some improvement, but can be a much more practical approach to paying for college. Girouard begins by establishing the context of his argument, explaining how high current tuitions are how prevalent student loan debt is. He then describes the "Pay It Forward, Pay It Back" method that Oregon State has employed and its credibility via the influential people (two senators) who support the plan. This serves to bias the audience by appealing to ethos before Girouard even introduces his thesis. He argues that the program needs some tweaking, but first concedes to the benefits of the plan: it's always affordable and high-earners will do more to support their school. He then proposes a rhetorical question that is not necessarily effective, but introduces his opinion in style. The rest of the essay is an appeal to logos, beginning with a comparison of present methods and "paying it forward." For example, he explains that students today must pick high-earning majors because they will create jobs that can pay off the lones. By taking a small percentage of a salary, students in the future will have no encouragement to pursue those high-earning majors. Girouard concludes his essay with several rhetorical questions, each of which describe his proposed modifications to the "pay it forward plan." Overall, I think the essay was well-argued and accomplished his purpose. Girouard's use of concession and logic do prove his point, and the use of rhetorical questions was interesting. He used economic jargon that I could not really follow, so I think he should have considered a more general audience.



Article
Citation

A Walk in the Woods Rhetorical Analysis

A hysterical story conveys Bill Bryson's strong opinions on American wilderness preservation.

In the early 1980s, Bill Bryson, a passionate, comedic, and best-selling author, decided to hike the 2,100 mile Appalachian Trail with minimal previous experience. He had felt the desire to be a true outdoorsman, and decided that the rumored "AT" would provide a true once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Departing with an old friend, Katz, Bryson traversed the eastern U.S. on foot, and then wrote A Walk in the Woods to describe his experiences. He writes for a broad audience, but he does seem to directly appeal to environmentally conscious readers. Because his book is not simply an entertaining story about his travels, Bryson's purpose is to educate his readers on the dire state of conservation in America. He does this primarily with statistics, establishing his credibility. When talking about the U.S. Forest Service's logging ventures, he states "Of the Forest Service's 150 million acres of loggable land, about two-thirds is held in store for the future. The remaining one-third – 49 million acres, roughly the size of Ohio – is available for logging" (47). This statement uses facts provided by the Forest Service themselves, and are irrefutable. He then goes on to make the logical argument that logging "brings out huge, reckless washoffs that gully the soil," (47) and ends with an appeal to pathos using words with strong connotations: "This isn't science. It's rape" (47). Bryson filters through a large amount of information in these sections of his book, which are placed periodically throughout his narrative. They typically relate to what he is experiencing, displaying logical organization and allowing him to use anecdotes. As part of his description of the U.S. Forest Service's weak service, he describes their pitiful maps of the Appalachian Trail. Just after this, he finds himself in a blizzard, consulting his map to no avail. I think that Bryson's use of rhetoric is very successful. His narrative conveys the beauty of his experience, and his logical arguments regarding conservation concisely convey that there is much work to be done to preserve the Appalachian Trail.

I have a sneaking suspicion he will find one of these, and I can't wait.

TOW #2 (Chevy Superbowl Commercial)

Superbowl XLVI took place on February 5th, 2012 during which a Chevy commercial debuted depicting the rumored apocalypse of December 21st, 2012. In the advertisement, the only survivors are revealed to be those who drive Chevy trucks. It is intended to be humorous, referencing several popular descriptions of the end of the world. The commercial is intended to entertain the Superbowl's 111.3 million viewers (The Guardian), while simultaneously promoting Chevy-made automobiles as reliable and long lasting. This is in an effort to continue the "Chevy Runs Deep" campaign, to show the long-lasting positive effects of owning a vehicle made by one of the most successful car manufacturers in the world. The commercial begins with views of a destroyed city, as well as a close-up on a newspaper describing the Mayan Apocalypse. These two shots quickly establish the context of the advertisement. The music that plays in the background sounds sad, but is not frightening or tense, so does not cause the viewer alarm. The subject of the commercial is made evident when a Chevy truck pulls out of a pile of rocks, which logically leads viewers to the conclusion that Chevy trucks can withstand disaster. The music then shifts to lyrics of "Looks like we made it!" and the camera shows the live driver and dog (a common duo in disaster films). The commercial appeals to humor as the car drives through areas of total chaos, depicting many different predictions of the apocalypse, ranging from giant robots to volcanoes to alien spacecraft. By using such imagery, the commercial establishes how tough a Chevy vehicle is designed to be. The protagonist then drives into a circle of survivors, all standing in front of their parked Chevy trucks, each of which represented a different generation or model. The viewer quickly makes the assumption that in order to survive the depicted apocalypse, one has to be driving a truck. The men all wear flannel or denim, some have beards, and all are cloaked in dirt. This makes another association for the audience, making the desirable stereotype that men who drive trucks are rugged and manly. The best use of rhetoric comes when the protagonist asks where his friend Dave is. It is explained that Dave did not survive, because he did not drive the "longest lasting, most dependable truck on the road," which is assumed to be a Chevy. This is confirmed when it is revealed that he drove a Ford. This acknowledges the competition between Chevy and Ford, but then makes it clear, at least in the context of the commercial, that owning a Chevy is the better option. I think the commercial does fulfill its purpose. It is very humorous, and brings the reader to several conclusions (all relating to how dependable a Chevrolet tuck is), whether they are aware of it or not.

Good to know Twinkies survive, too.

TOW #1 (Obama's Syria Speech)

On September 10th, President Barack Obama delivered a speech concerning the impending crisis in Syria, during which he explained the current situation, his personal stance on the issue, and how the United States may respond. Obama is the current president of the United States, and therefore acts as the Commander-in-Chief for all military affairs. He was moved to address the American public after the authoritarian Syrian government released sarin gas (a lethal chemical) in several villages containing alleged government resistance. The attack killed over 100,000 individuals, and, according to Obama, requires immediate global attention.  Therefore, his purpose is to justify his initial intent of military action, planned to prevent future chemical warfare with the United States, for the American public. In order to do so, Barack Obama delivered the entire speech in his typical calm, slow style. The speech was easily understood and well-divided for audience reflection. He made use of an appalled, but authoritative tone when describing the Syrian massacre. This utilization of pathos was evident throughout the speech, as he consistently emphasized that the victims included children. There will be far more victims if the US does not intervene, according to Obama, because other dictators and tyrants "will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them." His proposed thought experiment effectively calls upon the fear of foreign terrorism, helping to justify American reaction. Obama does address his opposition, citing letters written to him that questions his intentions in involvement in Syria. His speech was then organized as a series of questions and his responses, an effective technique to give the impression that he is speaking directly to each member of his audience. However, there are serious flaws with Obama's approach. The first is that he often contradicts himself. He states that an American strike is "in the national security interests of the United States", but then later says he made his decision "in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security." Also, Obama consistently referred to the American assault as a "targeted military strike," and never outline what it this entailed (which is understandable, because of its confidentiality) or how much of an impact it would have on American citizens or the military budget. Because of this vague nature and Obama's uncertainty, I do not think he effectively justified American military action in Syria.

IRB Introduction #1

For the next four weeks, I will be reading A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson. It was recommended to me as by Mr. Yost and my parents. This apparently hysterical travel memoir describes Bryson's trek along the Appalachian Trail. He explains the bountiful natural setting as well as his own silly adventures. Having little to no experience hiking, with a lacking physique to boot, Bryson and his old friend Stephen Katz attempt to travel from Georgia to Maine in one season. They encounter many eccentric characters along the way, as well as beautiful vistas. Bryson reportedly aims to entertain his reader, but also tries to justify and promote conservation efforts for one of Americas natural wonders. I an enthusiast regarding the natural world, though my nonfiction approach is typically in the form of encyclopedias. I rarely read travel reports, but this book is apparently a phenomenal place to begin. A Walk in the Woods is a narrative, so I hope to explore the use of rhetoric in that form of writing. It will be interesting to see how Bryson incorporates opinions on conservation and travel logistics with imagery and humor.