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.

Class Video - 'Arrangement'

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qu34l0yhdkx4cad/FaussetArrangementVideoReduced.pptx

Chemistry meets Socrates. A homework problem for the ages.

Well, I couldn't wait to share this with my 5364 colleagues. In perusing the end-of-chapter problems for the General Chemistry textbook used in my lecture course, I came across the following acid-base problem:

The actual chemistry problem (calculate the pH of a 0.500 M solution of coniine) takes only a few lines, but the description of a 'real-world' scenario of this substance occupies three paragraphs and includes a picture! Yes, the death of Socrates is in my General Chemistry textbook. I was sure to include snippets of other end-of-chapter problems so that you could see that no other warranted the same amount of space on the page. I think it exemplifies my blog title in many ways. Aristotle (Rhetoric) and Lavoisier (Chemistry).

I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.

p.s.-yes, of course we did this problem in class along with the corresponding narrative:)

On Love, Truth and Falsehood......

In Phaedrus, love is power. So powerful, in fact, that it dictates future relationships based on past relationships. It clouds judgment and decision-making. Perhaps to the point that the lover cannot be trusted. Essentially, nonlovers have control of their feelings, lovers do not. I think this is used as an example by Plato because love is such a strong emotion. The discourse by Lysias to support these claims references examples that Socrates does not refute, but rather calls repetitive. "It seemed to me, Phaedrus, unless you disagree, that he [Lysias] said the same thing two or three times, as if he did not find it easy to say many things about one subject, or perhaps he did not care about such a detail; and he appeared to be in youthful fashion to be exhibiting his ability to say the same thing in two different ways and in both ways excellently." (p. 143). Phaedrus, on the other hand, believes that Lysias has not omitted any points. Love may be the focus of the discourse, because discussions about love can be highly rhetorical and Phaedrus seems just as excited about the discourse as he does about the subject.

Regarding true and false rhetoric, I was immediately reminded of the passage on page 52 of The Rhetorical Tradition. "....because whenever a statement is made, if the event has taken place in the way indicated by the statement, the statement is true; but if the event has not taken place in the way indicated, the same statement is false". What? Isn't that obvious? I think there was so much free time back then, that words were sometimes used just to entertain. I have to think that in order to understand what sounds like nonsense. But, I can also appreciate the fact that these philosophers and rhetoricians were trying to understand and create new knowledge. It's easy for me to be critical with an 'armchair quarterback' perspective. Much of our knowledge and perspective now is added to existing knowledge. It was not that way during this classical rhetorical time.

In terms of true and false 'rhetoric' specifically, I view that as more about how the rhetoric is being used. Namely for the good of the masses, or the benefit of a few. Situating this in my field of science, I can think of examples of scientific concepts being communicated to the public, versus scientific jargon being used to manipulate the views of the audience to sell a product or promote an idea. This so-called 'pseudoscience' is an example of false rhetoric. The arguments may have some validity, but they are connected in ways that invalidate the argument as a whole.

Sophists and Sophistry.....

For ancient Greece, sophistry was an important way to transfer information and ideas. As a practice it reminds me a bit of 'The Society of the Spectacle' that we studied in Visual Rhetoric. Namely, the information being transferred is unclear due to the spectacle made of the delivery. Sophistry seems to capture this kind of spectacle and stretch the truth to the point of deceit. That is not to say that it is without good intention, namely 'truth seeking'. But it seems to have been ripe with propoganda. Sophists, though, are thought more of as bearers of wisdom. In some sense, teachers are perceived to play this role. But, the teachers are the messengers and maybe this isn't the same as the bearer of wisdom. Namely, it is not necessarily the 'truth' that they have sought, just the 'truth' that they have learned. I feel like I am talking in circles here, just like some of the figures we have already studied. But what it has shown me is that there IS purity in trying to figure things out and maybe, just maybe, there isn't always a single right answer. Maybe that is even a good thing because it keeps us wanting to know more. So that one single truth is that there is no one single truth.

It all makes me a bit uneasy and I am much more comfortable 'proving' things. But then Pythagoras kind of messed that up for me now. His universality of numbers, while true, has a big flaw. What is a number without a unit? It has no meaning. Having information about Pythagoras, Plato, Sophistry, Sophists and more presented in the graphic novel was a very helpful way for me to learn about these topics. I have had very limited experience with graphic novels, but am intrigued by their use of visuals to relay what can be extremely complex information. I think that there is a lot of value in presenting information this way and would classify it as an important tool of new media.

All of these topics play well into my idea(s) for a term paper. I am planning on focusing on audience and just as a number is meaningless without a unit, a message is meaningless without an audience. Furthermore, understanding the audience as well as the relevant tools of communication, helps to create a commonplace between the message, messenger and audience.

On Isocrates.....

"Isocrates rejected Plato's view of philosophy as the search for absolute truth, seeing it as more properly the study of how to address immediate practical problems. Rhetoric, then, in Isocrates' opinion, was a powerful tool for investigating such problems-where only probably, not certain, knowledge was available-and for moving people to action for the common good" (B&H 67). To me this translates into something like 'the truth is relative' and on this point I can agree with Isocrates. Truth is somewhat situational. Consider the statement 'It is sunny and warm today'. This is true, at this moment, in California. This is not true, at this moment, in many other parts of the country. It is statement of fact representing a truth. Pardon my elementary example, but I think that is why I found Gorgias so frustrating. It was difficult to always understand what facts were in dispute. The delivery seemed to be most important.

Regarding being perceived as the father of education, I think Isocrates describes organized learning quite eloquently when defending the study of math and science, "For while we are occupied with the subtlety and exactness of astronomy and geometry and are forced to apply our minds to difficult problems, and are, in addition, being habituated to speak and apply ourselves to what is said and shown to us, and not to let our wits go wool-gathering, we gain the power, after being exercised and sharpened on these disciplines, of grasping and learning more easily and more quickly those subjects which are of more importance and of greater value" (B&H 76). I interpret this to mean that learning, for the sake of learning, helps to exercise and train our minds to be able to learn more.

As an extension of Isocrates philosophy, I would add that in a world where there is a seemingly constant evolution of ideas and truths, it has become increasingly important to be able to contextualize and situate learned knowledge within practical applications of that knowledge. That is the new challenge of education.

On Gorgias....

My thoughts regarding Gorgias ‘On Nature’:

1) Gorgias claims makes no sense.

2) If Gorgias claims did make sense, I still wouldn’t understand them.

3 )If I did understand them, I would likely dispute them.

My thoughts regarding Gorgias ‘Encomium of Helen’:

1) Gorgias argues in favor of relieving Helen of personal responsibility.

2) Gorgias paints Helen as a victim of her situation, her surroundings, the deities and the written and spoken word.

3) Gorgias is an old-fashioned ‘spin doctor’.

I think conversations with Gorgias would have frustrated me, but speeches by him would have entertained me. The arguments he proposes to be logical are quite circular. In essence, in both of the works mentioned above, situations just ‘are’. There is no beginning, middle or end. There are few connections besides persuasive words. Of course, I struggle with this because I believe in atoms and physical science. In that way, EVERYTHING is connected and exists as part of a cycle that does have a beginning, middle and end. Yet Gorgias was an eloquent and engaging speaker that drew his audience in. “Gorgias excelled in ceremonial oratory” (p. 22). He offered more than just the words he said, he offered an experience.

I see this ceremonial aspect of Gorgias’ work as particularly relevant to my work and research interests. The part of the ‘message’ that has no words, takes on an important role in persuading an audience to think, feel or act a certain way. For me, this non-word part of the message is the image. The visualizations that accompany and decorate a message are just as important as the actual message. On this topic, Gorgias and I would likely have not only agreed, but engaged in lively conversation.

Useful Link for Rhetoric Definitions and Information

I found a great resource for information about classical (and renaissance) rhetoric. The name of the site is Silva Rhetoricae and the link is http://rhetoric.byu.edu/

The site is described as follows:

"This online rhetoric, provided by Dr. Gideon Burton of Brigham Young University, is a guide to the terms of classical and renaissance rhetoric. Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest (the big picture) of rhetoric because of the trees (the hundreds of Greek and Latin terms naming figures of speech, etc.) within rhetoric.

This site is intended to help beginners, as well as experts, make sense of rhetoric, both on the small scale (definitions and examples of specific terms) and on the large scale (the purposes of rhetoric, the patterns into which it has fallen historically as it has been taught and practiced for 2000+ years).

A forest is the metaphor for this site. Like a forest, rhetoric provides tremendous resources for many purposes. However, one can easily become lost in a large, complex habitat (whether it be one of wood or of wit). The organization of this central page and the hyperlinks within individual pages should provide a map, a discernible trail, to lay hold of the utility and beauty of this language discipline."

The 'trees' of the site include outlined information about various subjects within rhetoric and the 'flowers' are more specific rhetorical terms and figures along with their descriptions and/or definitions. I particularly like the rhetorical timeline that is provided on this website as it lists major authors and texts and the year the work was completed.

Aristotle's Rhetoric

I would like my class presentation to be on Aristotle's Rhetoric as discussed in The Rhetorical Tradition by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. On page 171, Aristotle's rhetorical theory is described as follows: "Scholars agree that the starting point is Aristotle's division of rhetoric into two major categories: "artistic" proofs, for which the rhetorician constructs the material (e.g., "My client is too good to have committed this crime"), and "inartistic" proofs, for which the rhetorician interprets existing evidence (e.g., "These three witnesses place my client elsewhere at the time the crime was committed"). Traditionally, Aristotle has been read as dividing artistic proofs into appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos." The authors go on to describe the "nonartistic proofs" as references appeals to physical evidence (p. 174). My science 'persona' would lean towards nonartistic proofs, yet, my rhetorical (and artistic) 'persona' would rely more on the artistic proofs. I look forward to uncovering the descriptions, definitions and strategies that Aristotle introduced in his Rhetoric work.