The article by Fahnstock was an interesting read and
for most of this post I’m going to focus on it.
To begin with, I enjoyed the discussion about the types of speech:
* forensic (1)
* deliberative (2)
* epideictic (3)
1) I loved where it discussed how research reports are a type of forensics. I thought it was an interesting perspective and one that totally makes sense because its purpose was for the reader to understand how to interpret/make inferences about the data.
3) Then I thought it was interesting when it moved into epideictic. The whole idea of changing forensic paragraphs into ones that focus on grabbing the audience’s through excitement instead of relying data got me to think about how I could apply it to the things that we read and write.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next, I thought the discussion of deontological and teleological were interesting as well. There was discussion about how some platforms such as National Geographic use deontological which is to attach meaning to a discovery so that the intended reader can understand. It also discussed teleological which is when something has value, it leads to further benefits.
The teleological reminded me of the news briefs we had to write in this class. For example in my news brief I said that cats tend to eat more during the winter. Why does that matter? Well, in order for the reader to pay attention to it, I had to be able to connect it to something else such as the cat’s weight and food consumption. When the primary reader, which is most likely a cat owner (at least that was my target audience), learns when cats eat more during the winter, they may find the benefit in buying more cat food for their beloved feline. (And I guess in doing this, I’m also doing deontological because I’m attaching meaning to a discovery so a reader can understand it). Not only did my news brief remind me of teleological but so did the Specter article because the reader could probably find meaning in learning about how viruses like the bird flu (and coughebolacough) are spread because to them their lives and the lives of their family matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Similar to teleological and deontological, I also liked the discussion of how we change the information depending on our audience in order to grab their attention. Firstly, this change reminded me of my news brief because I did not include the full details about how the experiment’s procedure should go, but mainly included the procedure and the results instead. Plus, for both my news brief and my profile I chose to paraphrase the scientific information in a way so as to minimize the scientific jargon so the people unfamiliar with it could better understand. As a side note, I think this is interesting: During my profile interview when my former instructor would talk about dependent variable, conditions and inferential statistics, I knew what he meant. I thought it was cool how I could serve as translator from one audience to another because not only am I starting to understand the language of the Writing Studies field, but I’m beginning to understand the language of the Psychology field as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At one point it also discussed how some articles/platforms remove words such as “probably” and “maybe” from scientific information when writing articles to make it popular in our everyday society. It got me to wondering: Do we create the notion of certainty and facts through its representation in articles even though science recognizes that they are only making tentative claims? Is this because we constantly read/hear of “certainty” and “facts” through the media and articles for example? Because of that constant exposure, we’re more susceptible to believe in “truth” that isn’t necessarily true. Because of how it’s worded in our culture/society, we begin to believe that truth actually exists when it reality that truth is what has been derived by culture all along. In other words, we learn to think and feel a certain way based on how and what we’re exposed to in society.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One last take away from everything: When I was reading Weinberg and Specter, I could not help but think that both readings are directed at an audience who has some knowledge of science (i.e the basics), but isn’t fully versed into a specific scientific world/field such as physics or the CDC. One of the things that I noticed was how on page 231, Weinberg said, “There are strongly interacting quarks, which make up the protons and neutrons inside atomic nuclei as well as most of the new particles discovered in the 1950s and 1950s.” That sentence seemed to suggest to me that we (the reader) should have some sort of background in science. It’s almost as if they know that we’re people who like science/are interested in it and therefore we must know some things in this field. (Or they just assume we’re all well versed beings – I guess that’s a possibility too)
To begin with, I enjoyed the discussion about the types of speech:
* forensic (1)
* deliberative (2)
* epideictic (3)
1) I loved where it discussed how research reports are a type of forensics. I thought it was an interesting perspective and one that totally makes sense because its purpose was for the reader to understand how to interpret/make inferences about the data.
3) Then I thought it was interesting when it moved into epideictic. The whole idea of changing forensic paragraphs into ones that focus on grabbing the audience’s through excitement instead of relying data got me to think about how I could apply it to the things that we read and write.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next, I thought the discussion of deontological and teleological were interesting as well. There was discussion about how some platforms such as National Geographic use deontological which is to attach meaning to a discovery so that the intended reader can understand. It also discussed teleological which is when something has value, it leads to further benefits.
The teleological reminded me of the news briefs we had to write in this class. For example in my news brief I said that cats tend to eat more during the winter. Why does that matter? Well, in order for the reader to pay attention to it, I had to be able to connect it to something else such as the cat’s weight and food consumption. When the primary reader, which is most likely a cat owner (at least that was my target audience), learns when cats eat more during the winter, they may find the benefit in buying more cat food for their beloved feline. (And I guess in doing this, I’m also doing deontological because I’m attaching meaning to a discovery so a reader can understand it). Not only did my news brief remind me of teleological but so did the Specter article because the reader could probably find meaning in learning about how viruses like the bird flu (and coughebolacough) are spread because to them their lives and the lives of their family matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Similar to teleological and deontological, I also liked the discussion of how we change the information depending on our audience in order to grab their attention. Firstly, this change reminded me of my news brief because I did not include the full details about how the experiment’s procedure should go, but mainly included the procedure and the results instead. Plus, for both my news brief and my profile I chose to paraphrase the scientific information in a way so as to minimize the scientific jargon so the people unfamiliar with it could better understand. As a side note, I think this is interesting: During my profile interview when my former instructor would talk about dependent variable, conditions and inferential statistics, I knew what he meant. I thought it was cool how I could serve as translator from one audience to another because not only am I starting to understand the language of the Writing Studies field, but I’m beginning to understand the language of the Psychology field as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At one point it also discussed how some articles/platforms remove words such as “probably” and “maybe” from scientific information when writing articles to make it popular in our everyday society. It got me to wondering: Do we create the notion of certainty and facts through its representation in articles even though science recognizes that they are only making tentative claims? Is this because we constantly read/hear of “certainty” and “facts” through the media and articles for example? Because of that constant exposure, we’re more susceptible to believe in “truth” that isn’t necessarily true. Because of how it’s worded in our culture/society, we begin to believe that truth actually exists when it reality that truth is what has been derived by culture all along. In other words, we learn to think and feel a certain way based on how and what we’re exposed to in society.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One last take away from everything: When I was reading Weinberg and Specter, I could not help but think that both readings are directed at an audience who has some knowledge of science (i.e the basics), but isn’t fully versed into a specific scientific world/field such as physics or the CDC. One of the things that I noticed was how on page 231, Weinberg said, “There are strongly interacting quarks, which make up the protons and neutrons inside atomic nuclei as well as most of the new particles discovered in the 1950s and 1950s.” That sentence seemed to suggest to me that we (the reader) should have some sort of background in science. It’s almost as if they know that we’re people who like science/are interested in it and therefore we must know some things in this field. (Or they just assume we’re all well versed beings – I guess that’s a possibility too)
No comments:
Post a Comment