Final thoughts......

In finalizing my paper and presentation, I've come to a realization about science, rhetoric and visualizations/new media. Throughout the course, we have studied and learned about scholars who made it their life's work to understand and generate new knowledge and new ways to transfer that knowledge. Without the tools of new media, they relied largely on their own voices and the handwritten word. The delivery of information, even when steeped in controversy, kept the conversation going. There was a longing for 'truth' as well as clarity and the lines between science and philosophy were blurred. But, as science and technology have evolved to provide our society with more answers about how we are all connected, have we become more disconnected from the information? Can we apply rhetorical strategies to scientific communication to re-create the splendor and drama of the great classical rhetoricians and philosophers we have been studying?

In my paper, I discuss how how the subjects of science and cooking are related, while the tools and techniques used to deliver information and stories about the two are very different. Recipes, stories, photographs of food are often a beginning. A picture of freshly baked bread may create a desire to a) buy bread, b) eat a piece of bread, c) bake bread, d) look up a recipe for bread, e) socialize, just to name a few. In contrast, during our course, there was an opportunity to view the 'blood' moon and stories about why this particular scientific phenomena occurred occupied the news for no more than 24 hours. These discussions about the moon, were not a beginning, but rather an end. I suspect that knowing that the moon might glow deep orange or red was 'cool', but it did not evoke an overall sense of 'wanting to know more' for most people. There was no story that accompanied the 'blood' moon, just scientific facts about why the phenomena was happening.

I imagine that the rhetoricians we have been studying might have the subjects of bread and the moon reversed. I can envision scholars breaking bread together, but not really thinking too much about how the bread was made or even the recipes used to make it. Bread was a necessity, but not a story. But a red moon.....now that would have certainly evoked lengthy discussions about religion, philosophy and science. I can even picture crowds gathering to hear the rhetoricians deliver the information and create a kind of 'call to action'. The scientific phenomena of the 'blood' moon would be a beginning and the bread would be just bread.

Science, scientific discoveries and scientific phenomena, have lost their mystique and narrative qualities when presented to a general audience, but I believe we can change this by adapting various rhetorical strategies such as arrangement to help an audience feel like they are part of the scientific conversation, not just an audience of the information.

Eloquence and False Rhetoric

DavidR has posted of number of interesting questions on his blog related to Quintilian. In one of his first questions, he asks us to consider if a good speaker = a good person. Later in his post, he specifically asks about false rhetoric. I have comments on both of these issues.

I don't believe that good speaking or eloquent speaking means it is being generated by a good person. I should first acknowledge that I haven't really defined 'good' (but who really can), so what I am referring to is perhaps the good intentions of the speaker. What are the motivations for delivering the message. Again, I feel a bit judgmental in pretending to know what someone's intent actually is, so let me give an example.  Pseudoscience-a classic example of false rhetoric. In general, the message delivered by pseudoscientists is quite eloquent. Yet, it is not really 'scientific', so by virtue of the claims being labeled as scientific, the rhetoric of the message is falso. If the message is eloquent, is the messenger good? I prefer to think of this in the opposite way-if the message is poorly delivered, does that make the speaker bad? I think that the message and the speakers goodness can not be equated in such a way.

Justifying Artifacts for Rhetorical Analysis......

In preparing my term paper, I had to revisit a question that I have encountered previously in my studies in TCR. How to justify the number and types of artifacts that are used for rhetorical analysis? We have read important, singular works by rhetoricians, philosophers and other scholars. Great detail was devoted to analyzing what the author's intent may have been. But in transferring classical rhetorical strategies to contemporary examples, what constitutes a valid artifact? In my paper, for example, I explore the different 'arrangement' or scientific information presented to an audience of students (via a textbook) and an audience of the general public (via a TEDtalk). To justify my use of the specific artifacts, I quoted the number of views for the TEDtalk and a publisher's ranking of the textbook. Is this valid? What are your thoughts? What strategies have you all used to justify the importance or value in a particular artifact or set of artifacts?

Office/Work Space

If asked whether my workspace is more Platonic or Aristotelian, I would reply that it is perhaps a bit of both. I certainly identify with Aristotle and his no-nonsense, common sense approach to the world and our understanding of it. Additionally, in many ways, at least to me, much of what Plato says is hard to follow. But, both philosophers are after knowledge and truth, albeit, their own definition or understanding of what that truth might be. The lesson is that there is no one right answer. Because of my scientific background, this 'philosophy' of mine sometimes surprises people. Now, for some things, for which there are scientific facts, I DO believe that there is one answer. But our relative understanding about how that information fits with other scientific facts is really an interpretation. We are piecing together pieces of a puzzle. What I do in my office space is try to situate knowledge facts within evolving knowledge theories. As a science communicator, I attempt to do this for myself as well as for a variety of audiences. My space is then methodical and systematic (i.e.-Aristotelian) in design, but much more free spirited (i.e.-Platonic) in practice.

I describe myself as either a) a scientist in an artist's body; or b) an artist in a scientist's body. This is precisely how I ended up in the TCR program.

On Castelvetro.....

I find myself once again, having to contextualize the readings within the era/time period of their writing.  Castelvetro seems critical of Aristotle, yet that criticism is based on very strict definitions of poetry and other writings. Does it make me view Aristotle in a different light? Not really. It seems that each philosopher/rhetorician is determined to separate themselves from the rest of the 'pack' and in so doing, there is a natural tendency to emphasize differences. I also tend to exercise great caution when confronted with an interpretation of what someone meant such as Castelvetro does with some of Aristotle's topics. Basically, it seems like Castelvetro likes to make 'mountains out of mole hills'. I'm going to be very interested to see where our conversation takes us Monday night.

Aristotle and Rhetoric

Michelle and I will be leading the discussion on Aristotle's Rhetoric Monday evening (3/10).  Below you will find a brief bio and summary outline of Rhetoric along with discussion questions. 

About Aristotle

Aristotle was born 384 B.C. When he was 17, he enrolled in Plato’s academy. In 334 B.C., he began tutoring Alexander the Great. Three years later, with Alexander’s permission, Aristotle opened his own Academy in Athens called the Lyceum. For the rest of his life, Aristotle worked as a teacher, researcher and writer of a variety of subjects including science, math, philosophy and politics at the Lyceum.

Summary of Rhetoric

Without being scholars of rhetoric, philosophy or Aristotle, we would summarize his Rhetoric as follows:

Book I- classifies and defines rhetoric, classifies three kinds of oratory and discusses the formation of special arguments for each kind

·        Classifies rhetoric as a counterpart/branch of dialectic, classifies both as arts

·        Defines rhetoric – “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”

·        Classifies three kinds of oratory

o   political (deliberative) - aims to determine the best course of future action

o   ceremonial (epideictic)  - aims to assign praise or blame to issues presently at hand

·        Discusses special arguments for political/deliberative speech

o   defines “five matters on which all men deliberate and which all political speakers make speeches” – Ways and Means, Peace and War, National Defence, Imports and Exports/Food Supply, and Legislation

o   Discusses happiness and its “constituent parts” as he explains that happiness is the common aim among all men that “determines what they choose and what they avoid”

o   Discusses Goodness and Utility – “the political or deliberative orator’s aim is utility…utility is a good thing”

o   Categorizes forms of government – Democracy (aiming to preserve freedom), Oligarchy (aiming to preserve wealth), Aristocracy (aiming to maintain education and national institutions),  and Monarchy (in limited or unlimited forms, aiming to protect the monarch or tyrant)

·        Discusses special arguments for the epideictic/ceremonial speech

o    Discusses Virtue/Vice, Nobleness/Baseness since they are the object of praise and blames – also discusses that these can be used in the ethical appeal

·        Discusses special arguments for the forensic speech

o   Defines wrong-doing, the aims of those who do it, pleasure sought by doing it, the state of mind of wrongdoers, and the kinds of people who are wronged

o   Discusses just and unjust actions

o   Discusses written ordinances and unwritten rules of communities as well as universal law/law of nature

o   Discusses how to use inartistic proofs (contracts, tortures, and oaths)

Book II- discusses ethical and pathetic appeals, analyzes emotions, provides common topics, explains enthymemes and examples and how to detect and use them

·        Discusses ethical and pathetic appeals, and the emotions the speaker must invoke in the audience either towards himself or towards the message

o   Ethos is invoked when the audience determines that the speaker has good sense, good moral character, and goodwill

·        Extensive discussion of emotions – systematic, scientific (psychological) discussion of several emotions  in terms of state of mind in which the emotion is felt, who the people are to whom the emotion is usually directed, and on what grounds the emotion is evoked

o   Discusses how persons of different ages and fortunes would be affected differently by pathetic appeals

·        Outlines common topics (topoi, commonplaces - complete list here:http://rhetoric.byu.edu/canons/invention/topics%20of%20invention/TOPICS.HTM)

·        Explains examples, enthymemes (and maxims) and explains how to generate examples and utilize maxims

·        Explains how to distinguish genuine and apparent enthymemes and how to refute them

Book III- addresses appropriate style and proper arrangement

·        Style of expression

o   Discusses only prose – separates rhetoric and poetic

o   Defines good style – clear and appropriate - language and tone

o   Discusses metaphors at length

·         Proper order of the speech

o   Essential parts – the statement of the case, then the argument

o   Specific parts may be appropriately added in different kinds of speech – discusses forensic speech specifically

o   Limits the parts of a speech to introduction, statement, argument (including refutation and/or comparison as needed), and epilogue

Aristotle and his work aligns well with physical science and the scientific method which includes observing and analyzing. Aristotle’s method includes presenting experiences and common beliefs about those experiences followed by rigorous analysis of both. Knowledge of rhetoric is gained by studying and codifying rhetorical practices in contexts. In this way, unlike Plato, Aristotle assumes that our sensory experiences are true representations of the world.

Questions for Discussion:

1.     How does Aristotle’s definition of “good” differ from that of the other rhetors we have studied thus far?

2.     Bizzell and Herzberg state that “Aristotle reduced the concerns of rhetoric to a system that thereafter served as its touchstone.  To speak of classical rhetoric is thus to speak of Aristotle’s system and its elaboration by Cicero and Quintillian.”  Why was Aristotle’s system so influential?

3.     Would Aspasia have been as welcome in Aristotle’s circles as she was in those of Plato and Socrates?  Why or why not?

4.     How are Aristotle’s teachings relevant today?

On our presentations..........

MY PRESENTATION NOTES

I really appreciate the comments and critiques from my classmates about my presentation on Arrangement. Finding contemporary applications for Classical Rhetoric in the sciences continues to challenge and interest me. My research focus is in scientific storytelling and how those stories have utilized visualizations to develop plots, introduce characters and leave a lasting impression. But so many of the communication studies in science have been related to how scientists tell stories to other scientists and I think in contemporary society, the real challenge is how those scientific stories get told to the general public. 

The idea of 'arrangement' in many ways, reminds me of storytelling. There must be a beginning, middle and an end. In applying classical rhetoric to the scientific article, this translates into the Introduction, Results/Methods, and then Conclusion. When scientific information is relayed to the general public via mass media, the Results/Methods are often left out. Besides my HFCS example, another one that comes to mind is the report on a study that showed that drinking diet soda causes Diabetes. When I first heard this, as a scientist, I wondered what component of the diet soda actually caused Diabetes. The mass media (i.e.-news stations, general public websites) included just the Introduction and Conclusion. Introduction: There was a study done that followed people who drank diet soda and over time, this group had an increased incidence of Diabetes. Conclusion: Drinking diet soda causes Diabetes. Still curious, I pulled up the study to view the Results/Methods on my own. It turns out that the act of drinking diet soda as well as the components of the drink were not at the core of the increased incidence of Diabetes, it was in fact the behaviors that accompanied those individuals that were drinking diet soda which included eating more foods that contained sugar and fat and a resulting increased incidence of obesity. This is a very different, and extremely important, distinction in the conclusion.

The mass media may be motivated by a variety of reasons to make these leaps. But for me, as a science communicator, I think there is a way to keep the Results/Methods sections as part of the story to present a more complete arrangement of scientific data and results to the general public. And I believe that the way to do this is through audience appropriate visualizations. In the scientific article, this might mean graphs and tables that show comparisons. But for the general public, this might mean creating information graphics to help contextualize the data. Imagine, for example, a Venn diagram to represent the Results/Methods for the diet soda study. One circle could list factors that are associated with Diabetes (specifically Type II Diabetes) and one could list lifestyle behaviors that were linked to individuals in the diet soda study mentioned above. The overlap of the circles would then clearly show that the behaviors, at least in this study, were associated Diabetes. There may be many reasons why drinking diet soda should be avoided, but if someone stopped drinking diet soda, but continued to practice the other lifestyle behaviors, they would still have an increased possibility of developing Diabetes.

There are many other examples like this. From new medical treatments and breakthroughs to issues related to the environment or space studies, the general public is constantly being presented with new scientific information. In some cases, they are asked to make decisions or take action based on this information. I believe that there is a way to provide more complete scientific information to the general public that is engaging and enhances their understanding.  Namely, by including all elements of arrangement compartmentalized into information graphics.

CLASSMATES PRESENTATION NOTES

I learned something from each presentation we've seen so far. For example, Joy's eloquent discussion of Dr. Suess' political cartoons and the visual rhetoric associated with them struck a particular cord with me because of my direct interest in visual rhetoric. Font choices and 'negative space' can be critical in setting a tone or sending a message with the visualization. Mark's courage to be so bold in his presentation and choice of format was something to be admired for sure. I appreciated how Maryn created unexpected connections for the terministic screens and Hilary provided a very direct approach with contemporary examples we can likely all relate to. Angela demonstrated the depth of persuasion that is associated with regulatory filings and the direct connection of rhetorical approaches to a project she is currently working on. If I took a piece of each of these presentations to revise my own, I would include more visualizations and elaborate on how visualizations can be used to enhance the arrangement and presentation of scientific communication to the general public. I would jazz up my presentation with some music. I might incorporate a connection unrelated to science as well to show how arrangement can be applied to a variety of contemporary topics. I would consider including an example of scientific communication to the general public that directly affected a legislative decision. I look forward to learning from the rest of the class this coming week.