Rhetorical Analysis

The journal that I read articles from was the PLoS Biology. After reading Linton et al.'s article, I noticed multiple conventions they list as specific to the sciences. For instance, many times the articles would start out with an abstract that provided an overview of the research and the conclusions found, then in the substance of the article would follow with materials/methods, results, a discussion and conclusion. Also, there were never direct quotes from people, but things were still cited. Many times in science writing, the specific language isn't important, but the ideas are what matters. The authors of the articles would find information from other sources and then put it into their own words. There was never any mention of other particular people or research like there would be in articles relating to the humanities. If there ever was a mention, then it related more to past research rather than to specific individuals. Instead of trying to disregard or completely change views, the goal is to add on to previous experiments and from the accumulation of all the results comes new theories.

It makes sense to me that articles for people in the sciences focus less on language and more on the actual data in the paper because in many instances, people aren't as skilled in that field. That's not to say that they don't know how to write, but just that they don't see the choice of each and every word as the most important thing. The audience that the journal is directed toward is definitely towards people who understand how and why the articles are written, and know how to gather the information they need to find.

Microglia may contribute to learning and memory in the brain

Microglia are a type of cell found in the brain and spinal cord, and act as an immune defense in the central nervous system. They constantly scavenge the the nervous system for damaged neurons, plaques, and infectious agents. It is well-known about the important role microglia play in immune responses to brain injury, and how they become very active when the nervous system is threatened.
However, less is known about what microglia do when there is no threat present, so a study was done to further explore the roles of microglia under non-pathological conditions. The researchers used electron microscopy and other techniques to observe the interaction between inactive microglia and synaptic elements in the visual cortex of mice, and how microglia behaved in response to limited light exposure. They found that there were surprising changes in microglial behavior during alterations in visual experience, which could mean that microglia may participate in the modification or elimination of synaptic structures, and therefore may actively contribute to learning and memory in the healthy brain.

The upside of slackers

The article I read this week is about an experiment done by researchers that looks at yeast populations and whether or not so-called slackers benefit the rest. Classic theory holds that cheating comes at the expense of society as a whole, making populations composed entirely of co-operators the most fit. I thought this was pretty interesting, as we've already discussed group dynamics and what type of people exist in groups, and this article strives to solve the biological basis of group work. In yeast, co-operators are ones that secrete an enzyme called invertase that converts sucrose into glucose. The cheats, or slackers, are strains of yeast that do not secrete invertase, thus enjoying the benefits of glucose without incurring the costs of production.
Researchers found that under certain conditions, slackers actually benefited the population, and that a mix of co-operators and slackers was the combination the yielded the most production.
So-called co-operators and cheats are common in societies from microorganisms to people, and game theory is used to inform economic and social policy. But people are far more complex than yeast and even this microorganism may be too complex to be neatly divided into co-operators and cheats. We all have different strengths and a slacker in one context may be a contributing member of society in another.

Science Blog

My major is biological sciences, so I decided to look at articles from the journal PLoS Biology. Biology is a pretty broad subject with lots of more specific disciplines within it, and this journal has articles from pretty much anything you're interested in. Hopefully this way I will be able to look a wide range of research instead of being restricted to just ecology or cell biology, for example. Also, by looking at this particular journal rather than a more specified one, I have a greater chance of finding articles that are not super difficult to summarize for people that are not in the same subject, or even for me because sometimes they can be pretty hard to grasp. Over the past semesters I've taken a wide array of biology courses, so I like that when I look at the different articles from this journal that I can recognize things I've learned in class before. I'm constantly changing my mind about which area I want to focus on in the future, and maybe by reading all the different articles I can from a better idea about which area I like the most and what type of research I would like to be involved in.

Genre

So I know our assignment for Tuesday was to read the article about genre, and has been basically reassigned for Thursday, but I still find it hard to read. I skimmed it once, then reread, and have looked at it again but some of the language just makes no sense to me. It's hard for me to grasp things like this, because I see it as so abstract. I feel like because it's not concrete at all that I can't apply it to situations that make sense to me. It's all well and good to discuss what genre or rhetoric is, but if I can't repeat it in my own words where others can understand me, then I don't think I've really learned anything. I'm going to look at it again, and hopefully with the discussion tomorrow some of my questions will be answered.

Wikipedia Debate

Last week in class, we watched a video of a debate between the founder of wikipedia Jimmy Wales and a wikipedia opponent, who was writer Andrew Keen. I thought they both brought up valid points, but in the end I tended to side more with Jimmy Wales.
I do not think that the internet is bringing about the demise of the intellectual, as Andrew Keen believes. The reason I sided against him more is that it seemed most of his arguments had clear holes that Jimmy Wales had perfectly rational explanations for. One such argument was that wikipedia does not limit how long the articles are, and therefore people who read it can't tell which subject is more important. With print encyclopedias, the more important subjects are longer compared to less significant subjects. Keen said that without this discrimination, people will not be able to tell the difference and will not know what is significant. I don't think this is true, and Wales brought up a good point when he said that the only reason encyclopedia writers actually did this was because they had to use paper so there was limited space. I thought it was interesting when Wales said that wikipedia is the realization of all encyclopedia writers-- to have the ability to cover all subjects equally and factually. Of course there are mistakes on wikipedia, as there are in any encyclopedia, and it is necessary to read the information critically, but I think wikipedia is a great service. I use it all the time, and don't really know what I would do without it.

Working in Groups

After reading the article about the different types of people that are in groups, I can definitely say that I've encountered a couple of them. I think some of the categories may be a little extreme from what I have seen, but they definitely seem similar. There's definitely been the person who means well, but that really doesn't know what they are doing and the rest of the group has to end up rewriting that person's part. And of course, there always seems to be a slacker who doesn't do anything, but is still able to take some credit.
If I were to categorize myself, I'm not really sure that I would fit into one of the categories. I'm definitely not a slacker, but I don't think I'm the other extreme which is the dominant leader. I tend not to be an aggressive person by nature, so it isn't my first instinct to take the lead in a group right off the bat. However, if no one else seems to be doing anything and nothing is getting done, then I usually step up. It's kind of like when a teacher asks a question in class, and no one answers, I will raise my hand just break the awkward silence and keep the conversation going. I won't immediately assume the leadership role, but I'll jump in if necessary. I think it should be interesting to start a new group project, and so far it seems like it won't be too bad.

Blog 4: Instructions continued

After writing my introduction, I found that even though I think it's not good to have ones that are too long, I was still writing more than I thought I would. I believe most of the information is necessary, and sets the tone for the instructions that are to follow. After writing the actual instructions, I hope that they are as clear to others as they are to me, but I can only find that out by having other people read them. Because I wrote instructions for a recipe aimed at college students, I aimed to make them pretty simple and not too time-consuming. I thought the best format was to use bullets for the ingredients so that they are easy to see and read, and numbers designating which order the instructions should be followed. There is not a ton of steps, so I tried to make the breaks between each one logical. Hopefully they're clear enough that even the unexperienced cooks can make chicken noodle soup!

Blog 3: Instructions

I'm glad we're actually starting to do something that isn't so abstract to me. Learning about rhetoric was somewhat interesting, but I feel like learning how to write instructions in an appropriate and effective way is something that I can really use later in life. I didn't want to do instructions about anything technical, because to be honest I'm not all that great at that kind of thing, so I probably wouldn't write the best of instructions. Instead I decided to write instructions about food, aka a recipe. I got the idea to do homemade chicken noodle soup because its really not that hard to make, and to me it tastes a lot better when you make it yourself rather than out of the can. Also, with sickness hitting a lot of students around campus (including me), one of my favorite things to eat is soup. I think there may even be evidence that chicken noodle soup actually helps colds.
Anyway, we talked a lot about introductions in class. Introductions are definitely an important part of instructions, as they let the reader know what will follow. I think some of the introductions we read in class were a bit on the long side, even though the information they contained was necessary. As a reader, I know that sometimes when I just glance at something that has a dense amount of text, I get a little distracted and don't want to read the entire thing. Therefore, I think for an introduction to be effective it can't be discouraging, but just contain the necessities-- to put the reader in the correct frame of mind for the following instructions.

Blog 2: Rhetorical Situation

In the last class, the conversation was still focused on rhetoric, except the author of the reading had slightly different views of rhetoric than Aristotle. He stated that in order for something to be considered rhetoric, it had to be in response to a situation. This makes sense to me, since most of what I consider to be rhetoric is based off of something that has happened, like a politician giving a speech or a lawyer's words to a jury. The situation comes first, and then rhetoric follows. It is up to the author to decide however, if a particular situation requires a response, and to act in an appropriate way by responding to what the audience needs/wants to hear. If they do not address what they should, then they have missed their chance or handled the situation badly. To me, even though I'm neither a politician or a lawyer, I can still see this in my everyday life. If I get in a fight with one of my friends, it's common for me to only think of the right thing to say after the fight is already over. I continue to dwell on it, but the real point is that I missed my opportunity and didn't handle the rhetorical situation in a correct way. I know the author states that in order for it be considered rhetoric, there first has to be a situation, and in most instances I think that's correct. However, he brings up an example that a eulogy is only rhetoric if the person has died, and if eulogies are created without an audience for them, then they aren't considered rhetoric. I don't think this is necessarily true, and that it can't be so simple as to say that rhetoric only follows a situation. It's definitely true in some instances, but the rule cannot be considered absolute.
We also looked at a presidential speech made by Barack Obama at a Ramadan dinner at the White House. A word that was seen throughout the rhetoric article was exigence, which basically is a condition that needs to be addressed. All the situations that rhetoric follows are exigences, and like I said before, it's up to the author to determine what exactly the exigence(s) are. In his speech, he discussed Muslim Americans in response to hosting a Ramadan dinner. The dinner was an exigence, but there was also another one. Throughout the speech, there was a defensive tone and constant references back to the the founding fathers and the constitution, reminding the audience that freedom of religion and freedom period is what makes America what it is. This was in response to the controversy surrounding the construction of a mosque in ground zero, something many were against. By saying that ever since America's inception religious freedom has been a fact, he responded to those who were critical of the building. It wasn't he who made the decision, but the men who founded our country. He didn't necessarily have to respond to the controversy, but the situation presented itself and through his rhetoric, he addressed the exigences that were there.

First Attempt: A brief introduction and a few thoughts about rhetoric

This is my first time blogging, so admittedly I'm a little uncomfortable and probably wouldn't write a blog if it wasn't required. But nonetheless, I think it could be a fun and different way of getting my thoughts and opinions out there, and I'm looking forward to see how it progresses throughout the semester. To get some basics out of the way, my name is Aaron and I'm a senior biology major. I've loved being at Clemson and I'm still having a tough time accepting the fact that I'll be graduating this year. I seem to be all over the place in deciding what I want to do after college, but the two major options seem to be graduate school, or working for a year or so then going to graduate school. Either way, there will definitely be more school. I could go on, but I just wanted to write a brief introduction and get some of those details out of the way so that I can start writing about what this blog is really about--  technical writing and my thoughts on the subjects we discuss in class.
If someone had asked me what rhetoric was before we talked about it class, I honestly wouldn't have known what to say. It's not as if I've never heard of the word, but to be able to define it would have been quite difficult for me. After reading some articles about it now though, I believe that it not only is the art of persuasion, but the effective use of language and other symbols to express something. It certainly can be harmful, but if used when speaking to an audience that has the ability to think critically, then rhetoric can actually lead to truth, rather than to distract from it. Although some may say rhetoric is seen in every aspect of speech, I don't think it necessarily is. Rhetoric is used to persuade, even though the persuasion may not be of the conventional kind. Because of that, when something is irrefutable fact, I don't think it is rhetoric. Like we discussed in class, in order for it to be rhetoric, the situation has to be contingent on something. There has to be multiple sides of an issue, where neither one is necessarily correct, but that arguments can be made in order to convince. Lawyers always seem to get bad reputations, and this is probably because it is their job to use rhetoric to convince everyone they are correct, but I think instead of rhetoric giving lawyers a bad reputation, lawyers give rhetoric a bad reputation. If used in an ethical way, "rhetoric" doesn't have to be an insult.