Thursday, September 25, 2003
Caperton's Causal Argument
Gaston Caperton uses causal argument in his article “High turnout makes SAT data deceptive” (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0903/25sat.html) to argue that “it is inappropriate to compare Georgia’s SAT scores, which are based on 56,000 seniors and 66 percent of high school graduates, with those of many states where only a few hundred take the SAT”. He uses the single difference method to make his argument. He takes two similar circumstances and finds the one difference between them. In the case of this article the similar circumstances are average SAT scores in states in the US. Georgia is ranked 50th for SAT scores. North Dakota, Mississippi and Iowa all have high SAT scores. The single difference is that in North Dakota, Mississippi and Iowa “Fewer than 6 percent of high school graduates complete the SAT”. In the states where only a small percentage take the SAT, the percentage that do take it “have much stronger academic backgrounds and apply to much more selective colleges”.
Caperton’s method of comparison is very effective for this argument. He establishes that not only Georgia, but many of the states with high percentages of graduates taking the SATs have lower scores than states with low percentages of graduates taking the SATs. He uses many specific examples in his article and presents statistics on each of them. He is also a very credible source for making this argument. Caperton is the “president of The College Board, sponsor of the SAT”. The College Board created the data on SAT scores in US states. Gaston’s effective use of the single difference method and his ethos make for a very strong argument against SAT data as a means of ranking a state's educational program.
Caperton’s method of comparison is very effective for this argument. He establishes that not only Georgia, but many of the states with high percentages of graduates taking the SATs have lower scores than states with low percentages of graduates taking the SATs. He uses many specific examples in his article and presents statistics on each of them. He is also a very credible source for making this argument. Caperton is the “president of The College Board, sponsor of the SAT”. The College Board created the data on SAT scores in US states. Gaston’s effective use of the single difference method and his ethos make for a very strong argument against SAT data as a means of ranking a state's educational program.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Storytelling as A Form of Argument
In Riverbend’s blog entry “Terrorists…” (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) she talks about raids done by the United States military against Iraqi homes. Riverbend is an Iraqi woman living in Baghdad. She uses her blog to discuss “war, politics and occupation”. Since the end of the war the United States military has been ordered to randomly raid houses of Iraqi citizens in search of illegal weapons. Riverbend believes this is wrong. She mentions when “… raids go horribly wrong … [and] Family members are shot, others are detained and often women and children are left behind wailing”.
The style of argument that Riverbend uses in her blog is very effective in proving her point. She tells stories but never directly states her beliefs on a subject. The stories are very personal and very moving. The main rhetorical appeal that Riverbend uses in her blog is pathos. Her blog is very emotional. All of her stories are about her life and she obviously cares about what she is writing. After reading an article in her blog it is difficult not to share her emotions. She manages to make the reader feel a part of her world. They feel sorry for her situation and want to connect with her. It is very difficult to argue against her blog. All of her points are made through stories, and the reader is supposed to realize what she believes by reading her blog and coming to that same belief. After reading her blog on the raids I felt that raids were wrong too.
Riverbend argues by telling stories. Stories are an excellent way to argue. If it is a good story then it is difficult for the reader to stop reading it. She will want to know what happens in the story and will therefore read until it is finished. In other situations the same reader might quit reading an argument because she disagreed with it’s main point or because she was not interested in the subject.
The style of argument that Riverbend uses in her blog is very effective in proving her point. She tells stories but never directly states her beliefs on a subject. The stories are very personal and very moving. The main rhetorical appeal that Riverbend uses in her blog is pathos. Her blog is very emotional. All of her stories are about her life and she obviously cares about what she is writing. After reading an article in her blog it is difficult not to share her emotions. She manages to make the reader feel a part of her world. They feel sorry for her situation and want to connect with her. It is very difficult to argue against her blog. All of her points are made through stories, and the reader is supposed to realize what she believes by reading her blog and coming to that same belief. After reading her blog on the raids I felt that raids were wrong too.
Riverbend argues by telling stories. Stories are an excellent way to argue. If it is a good story then it is difficult for the reader to stop reading it. She will want to know what happens in the story and will therefore read until it is finished. In other situations the same reader might quit reading an argument because she disagreed with it’s main point or because she was not interested in the subject.
Monday, September 08, 2003
The Changing Tides of Literature
In Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Storyteller” he argues that the art of storytelling is in decline. In his opening paragraph he states that the storyteller “…has already become something remote from us and something that is getting even more distant” (Benjamin 83) and that “… the art of storytelling is coming to an end” (83). This issue concerns him greatly. He believes that the loss of storytelling has caused the world of literature to decline as well. As storytelling is declining “…the communicability of experience is decreasing” (86). With the invention of the printing press communication has changed greatly, and the novel has risen as storytelling has declined. Benjamin regards greatly the importance of oral tradition and the novel “…neither comes from oral tradition nor goes into it” (87). The novelist “…isolate[s] himself” (87).
While I agree that the art of storytelling has declined since Benjamin’s time and that the novel is a more solitary form of literature, I disagree with him about the decline of literature as a whole. The advances in the technology of communication have not caused a decline in literature. If anything they have made literature better. Mass communication has caused more people to have access to literature than ever before. This has caused more people to become educated and have the ability to write their own literature. As storytelling declines, new forms of literature and communication rise. Benjamin discusses the rise of the novel. He has qualms with the novel because it is not an oral tradition. The writing of a novel is a solitary task, and the novel will remain, for the most part, unchanged throughout time. But many novels can be regarded as works of art. Works of art should remain the way the artist created them. Altering a novel by James Joyce would be just as unimaginable as altering a Picasso. The other forms of literature and communication that have risen in the past century include the cinema, television and the internet. All of these have contributed in good ways and bad. Each one has caused many people to read less traditional literature. Movies and television have caused literacy to decline. But they have many positive aspects as well. Many movies are just as artful as books. Television, along with radio, is a new and advanced form of storytelling. It may not have the same style as Benjamin’s storytelling, but it reaches a wider audience and is still very focused on the oral side of literature. The internet brings us the ability to communicate with people all over the world and to voice our opinion in the most public of all settings. It has made the world a much smaller place and communication has become instantaneous.
Benjamin was correct in saying that traditional storytelling has declined and that technology is changing the world of literature. But the world of literature has not become any worse since his time. It has changed in good ways and bad. Literature will never decline because of technology. It will change definitely, and many forms will be lost, but new forms will always come along with just as much importance to the world as the old forms.
While I agree that the art of storytelling has declined since Benjamin’s time and that the novel is a more solitary form of literature, I disagree with him about the decline of literature as a whole. The advances in the technology of communication have not caused a decline in literature. If anything they have made literature better. Mass communication has caused more people to have access to literature than ever before. This has caused more people to become educated and have the ability to write their own literature. As storytelling declines, new forms of literature and communication rise. Benjamin discusses the rise of the novel. He has qualms with the novel because it is not an oral tradition. The writing of a novel is a solitary task, and the novel will remain, for the most part, unchanged throughout time. But many novels can be regarded as works of art. Works of art should remain the way the artist created them. Altering a novel by James Joyce would be just as unimaginable as altering a Picasso. The other forms of literature and communication that have risen in the past century include the cinema, television and the internet. All of these have contributed in good ways and bad. Each one has caused many people to read less traditional literature. Movies and television have caused literacy to decline. But they have many positive aspects as well. Many movies are just as artful as books. Television, along with radio, is a new and advanced form of storytelling. It may not have the same style as Benjamin’s storytelling, but it reaches a wider audience and is still very focused on the oral side of literature. The internet brings us the ability to communicate with people all over the world and to voice our opinion in the most public of all settings. It has made the world a much smaller place and communication has become instantaneous.
Benjamin was correct in saying that traditional storytelling has declined and that technology is changing the world of literature. But the world of literature has not become any worse since his time. It has changed in good ways and bad. Literature will never decline because of technology. It will change definitely, and many forms will be lost, but new forms will always come along with just as much importance to the world as the old forms.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
The Ethics of Blogging
In Rachel Blood’s weblog entry entitled “Weblog Ethics” (http://www.rebeccablood.net/handbook/excerpts/weblog_ethics.html) she argues that “The weblog’s greatest strength--its uncensored, unmediated, uncontrolled voice--is also it’s greatest weakness”. Her proposed solution to this dilemma is a set of “six rules that… form a basis of ethical behavior for online publishers of all kinds”. The six rules are as follows:
1. Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true.
2. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.
3. Publicly correct any misinformation.
4. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.
5. Disclose any conflict of interest.
6. Note questionable and biased sources.
These are the responsibilities that she believes online publishers have toward their readers.
For the most part I agree with what Ms. Blood says in her blog post. If you are not certain of information you should not post it as fact. I agree with this statement in all aspects of communication, not just weblogs. The only problem with this rule is its near impossibility to enforce. There will always be people who publish as fact that which isn’t true. Whether intentionally or unintentionally it will happen, and weblogs are unedited, so many of these wrong facts will go unnoticed. I also agree that all material referenced in a blog should be linked. This is common practice in other types of publication, and the failure to do so can result in legal action against the publisher. In addition to this, every publisher deserves credit for his work. Failing to link to references does not give the original publisher full credit for what he or she has published. Her third rule encompasses all misinformation, but there is a lot of misinformation that could be corrected without noting the correction. Typos are generally recognized by the reader and corrected automatically, thus pointing them out seems more trouble than it is worth. All serious errors should be corrected in the style she suggests, but for minor errors it should be left to the judgment of the publisher.
Ms. Blood’s ethics code for blogging is generally very reasonable, but some of the details of her rules need more work or more clarification. The world of blogging would be improved dramatically if this system could be enacted, but it is impossible to enforce. They are not so much rules as they are guidelines. Some people will follow these guidelines religiously, but there will always be people who choose not to follow them. When some people do not follow the guidelines it becomes very difficult for the reader to ascertain if the blog they are reading is respectable or not. The reputation of a blogger is developed over time with continuous postings and regular readers. This will always be true even with Ms. Blood’s ethical code for blogging.
1. Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true.
2. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.
3. Publicly correct any misinformation.
4. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.
5. Disclose any conflict of interest.
6. Note questionable and biased sources.
These are the responsibilities that she believes online publishers have toward their readers.
For the most part I agree with what Ms. Blood says in her blog post. If you are not certain of information you should not post it as fact. I agree with this statement in all aspects of communication, not just weblogs. The only problem with this rule is its near impossibility to enforce. There will always be people who publish as fact that which isn’t true. Whether intentionally or unintentionally it will happen, and weblogs are unedited, so many of these wrong facts will go unnoticed. I also agree that all material referenced in a blog should be linked. This is common practice in other types of publication, and the failure to do so can result in legal action against the publisher. In addition to this, every publisher deserves credit for his work. Failing to link to references does not give the original publisher full credit for what he or she has published. Her third rule encompasses all misinformation, but there is a lot of misinformation that could be corrected without noting the correction. Typos are generally recognized by the reader and corrected automatically, thus pointing them out seems more trouble than it is worth. All serious errors should be corrected in the style she suggests, but for minor errors it should be left to the judgment of the publisher.
Ms. Blood’s ethics code for blogging is generally very reasonable, but some of the details of her rules need more work or more clarification. The world of blogging would be improved dramatically if this system could be enacted, but it is impossible to enforce. They are not so much rules as they are guidelines. Some people will follow these guidelines religiously, but there will always be people who choose not to follow them. When some people do not follow the guidelines it becomes very difficult for the reader to ascertain if the blog they are reading is respectable or not. The reputation of a blogger is developed over time with continuous postings and regular readers. This will always be true even with Ms. Blood’s ethical code for blogging.
