Category: ENG 110 Blog (Page 1 of 2)

Chapter 7: So What? Who Cares?

This chapter is all about answering these questions. We start with why these question are important in the very first place. Reader cannot always answer these question on their own. With this in mind, the writer will have to answer these questions and make it clear to the reader why whatever is being talked about matters. Transfer into the questions themselves. Who cares is about who should care and so what is why it matters. These are important to actually get/keep a reader engaged. There are some templates for answering both of these questions within one’s writing. Wrapping up is a disclaimer. You do not need to explain why something matters for everything.

I read this because I tend to struggle with the why’s of these essay. This is typically because I do not see why whatever it is I am writing is important or why I should care about the topic. With this in mind, I thought I would give this chapter a read.

So what happens next? Well I am disregarding the advice of the book. Not all they way, but I am concluding with “we should not care about this.” My grounds are that there are people who care when they really should not. When it comes to life, tell stories or don’t. It really doesn’t matter and no one should care if someone does it one way or the other.

Revision Strategy Plan

#1-Goal: Make paper not terrible [Hilarious, I know]
Sub-Goals: Expand on ideas I already have and play with different communication modes.

#2-The Plan
1. Draft paragraph I wanted to add
2. Review all paragraphs
4. Move paragraphs here, there, and everywhere until it works
5. Introduce other modes of communication
6. Move those modes here, there, and everywhere
7. Have someone else read it to make sure my point is actually getting across and modes I used actually make sense
-If not, go back a few steps
8. Editing for sentence and word level error
9. Product

#3-Challenge
1. Motivation
2. The amount of time I have
3. I missed things that need to be fixed

#4-Over coming
1. Moral support [literally anything to help me write this]
2. If I am short on time, I’m just SOL
3. Literally anyone willing to read my paper but is also pretty good with English and grammar

Notes: If I have the ideas in place as well as everything written up, the other modes will not be a problem. I like using other modes in my work just because it makes an interesting paper.
This paper will come no where near where I would like it to be, and I have to accept that.

I would first like to address the title of Galen Strawson’s essay. I find myself agreeing with the title “I am not a Story.” We, as individuals, are not stories; we tell stories. Stories we tell about ourselves are not us. Those stories are only reflection, or evidence even, of who we are. Most, if not all, people like telling or listening to stories. Some stories have lessons, think about classic fairy-tales, and some stories are about learning more, think of conversation in terms of learning about someone or a lecture for information. These things can help us understand the world around us and understand ourselves. That is why we tell stories.

I find the idea of a life story kind of dumb. At least in the ways I have seen it presented. The whole rewriting aspect really throws me off. It kind of makes me thing about 1984 with the whole changing the past thing except it’s one the individual. I understand conceptually people are not typically changing how they knew an event happened, but I can’t help thinking that. Even so, the rewriting of a “life story” is a reflection of the changes a person has gone through since the last time it was rewritten.

One of the main points in Strawson’s essay was about having multiple selves. It is an interesting concept, but I can’t say I’m 100% on board. Although I’m not 100% off-board either. It would have to be something I think about while in the shower or something to make some interesting conclusions.

Annotations:

There weren’t many things that made me more attentive to Julie Beck’s article “Life’s Stories,” but there are some ideas I found interesting.  One of these ideas was the difference in story-telling and listening as we grow older.  Younger kids just follow the plot; their young, it is harder for them to comprehend things. Older people can actually follow changes in character i.e. character development. I find this to be absolutely true, but the time frame is odd to me. Saying an 18-year-old would not appreciate Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton is dishonest. I, as being 18 at the time writing, have not read this book. However, I do believe people my age could find it to be a fabulous book.

Another point is about “redemption stories” and how not everyone can live that way. I don’t believe this to be true. In a person’s life that may not achieve a much better situation, but they can definitely work towards even a slightly better situation. It would be harder to do compared to the more “privileged,” but I believe it can be done, at least to some degree.

One of last points I found particularly interesting was about “highly generative people” and narcissists and their modes of story-telling. I believe stories should be told in a mode between these two. Generative people tend to tell stories about people who have helped them and narcissists tend to tell stories about themselves. I think a mix of these two is best because it shows that we can all use help but on the other hand we have to do things on our own as well.

Annotations:

Do you see any patterns?
Not really. I suppose it is mostly contrast connectors, but there are some other transitional words/phrases. I do say trout a lot because I stuck with the same example.

Do you rely on certain devices more than others?
Apparently contrast connectors mostly.

Are there any passages that are hard to follow-and if so, can you make them easier to read by trying any of the other devices discussed in this chapter?
Highlighted in yellow is where there is a hard transition to an idea that isn’t related until a few sentences later. I don’t think it’s hard to follow necessarily, but it is a bit hard. I’m not sure if any of the listed devices from the chapter would help. However, it could probably use a tune-up.

Possible Thesis:

Science has greater importance in aquaculture than the arts do, but the arts have their place.

Possible Claim Sentences:

There is research science in aquaculture that art cannot touch.
What will keep aquacultured organisms alive: art or science? Scientific practice will be more helpful in raising these aquacultured organisms.
Art has its place in aquaculture.
Does art really need to be taught in schools for someone going into aquaculture? I do not see why that is necessary.

Spit-balling

Aquaculture is the cultivation of an organism or organisms in an aquatic environment. My type of aquaculture is simple fish-farming.  Science would prove to be very useful. Studies on how to culture some organism is going to aid me in how to aid that same organism on my own. However, there is no perfect guide on how to culture anything. Any aquaculture is going to need some improvising. This would involve creative use of available materials as well as creative and quick thinking. Fish farming isn’t research science, so it does not need to be as particular as research science. Fish farming is science in practice; it is meant to be practical. If your fish is growing and is healthy, keep doing what you are doing because it is working.

However, figuring out how that works falls into research science. Research science in aquaculture must follow the scientific method. Without the scientific method, we are subject to the whims of our minds and the mistakes it comes with.

Pinker v. Lehrer

Steven Pinker and Jonah Lehrer have differing views on the future of science. In “The Future of Science… Is Art?” Jonah Lehrer makes a case for the arts and sciences to come together so we might have an better understanding of reality. Earlier in his essay, Lehrer writes, “The more we know about reality… the more palpable its paradoxes become.” Science can be very confounding, and it would seem that Lehrer believes science cannot answer all questions we have about reality. This would make the assumption that those paradoxes cannot be resolved with further investigation. In “Science Is Not Your Enemy,” Steven Pinker writes to defend science from some of its attackers. In one part of his essay, Pinker writes, “Scientism does not mean that all current scientific hypotheses are true; most new ones are not, since the cycle of conjecture and refutation is the lifeblood of science.” Science is subject to error. This conjecture and refutation within science is our way to correct that error. It is quite possible that some of these paradoxes may very well be corrected because of a hypothesis or theory is not a good representation of reality. It would seem in the face of this issue, Lehrer would rather look somewhere that is not science while Pinker wants science to continue investigating and correcting itself.

Pinker and Illustration

In order to truly understand the reality, we need to have our short-comings as man accounted for. Steven Pinker takes up the defense of science in his essay, “Science Is Not Your Enemy.” In this essay, Pinker writes, “To understand the world, we must cultivate work-arounds for our cognitive limitations, including skepticism, open debate, formal precision, and empirical tests, often requiring feats of ingenuity.” If we don’t have skepticism, any story is true. If there is no open debate, skeptics can’t share why a story may be false. Formal precision and empirical tests are what root us to reality instead of whatever we fancy. These are important tools in discerning fact from fiction.  Let’s remove skeptism from science and bring it into politics. In 1988, George H W Bush made has declaration at the Republican National Convention: “Read my lips: no new taxes.” Imagine if someone at the time within the RNC said he didn’t believe Bush. He would be right as taxes were raised under his administration. Now it is dishonest to blame Bush for this tax increase. However if a little skeptism was applied, the idea that taxes being raised under Bush’s tenure was completely possible. If that idea was prevalent in the minds of American voters, it is quite possible that Bush would have lost to his opponent, Michael Dukakis. This is an example of how we like to go with what we like and not what is necessarily true. This is why we need something to account for our errors as man, or we may end up like disappointed republicans after Bush raised taxes.

Jonah Lehrer’s main argument, or arguments, is one of two things, or possibly both. The main idea is to insert art in to the sciences and sciences into the arts. This leads to the two possible main arguments. The first is that art can be used to model the theoretics of science. This would allow a more visual look at the theories as to come up with better questions or other ways forward on finding coming closer to the larger questions on reality. The second is that art is how science gets to the common man. This is, I believe, just the practical side of science.

I don’t necessarily disagree with these main points, but his whole essay is so boring and infuriating at the same time. Him arriving to some of these conclusions just took so long. It takes him a little over a page to get to his “thesis.” It’s like you already know where he’s going, but you have no idea when he’s going to get there because he takes so long. I also couldn’t help but think about the “god of the gaps” argument, except with art. Sometimes it just sounded like, “well science has created more questions than it has answered so let’s through some art in there.” That is actually how it seemed his ideas were presented. There were also two major problems I’ve found. One is the things that “feel” true. Just because some things experienced in say a novel feel true, does not mean it is actually true. Second is the subjectivity of art. Science is supposed to be objective. If we add the subjectivity of art into science, what is then truly true. I am alright with the use of art for generation of new ideas or the delivery to the public, but having a mix, I think, would be detrimental on what is actual true.

Reductionism: The idea of reducing ideas into more basic explanations
Epiphenomenon: a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside the primary phenomenon
Synapse: Structure that permits a neuron or nerve cell to transfer an electric charge to another neuron or nerve cell

I have no goals for my annotations. I just point out what I think. This also isn’t something I would annotate any more than I already did.

1. Yo-Yo Ma, a cellist and song-writer writes about the importance of art in education. Originally published on World-Post, a partnership between the liberal Huffington Post and the Berggruen Institute on Governance*.
2. If I weren’t reading this for a class, I would have never finished it. I do come from a more science-based background, so I may have had a negative opinion because of that. I agree with some of his concepts, but disagree on his idea of implementation.
3. He is talking about having more art within STEM education. He sites a few things in neurology to show the importance of the logical and emotional sides of our brains. He also talks about how we need both to have a more fulfilling life.

*Berggruen Institute on Governance: Now just the Berggruen Institute is dedicated to the design and implementation of good governance within the globalisation context.
Sarabande: A slow dance in triple meter, of Spanish origion.
Silk Road Project: Now just Silkroad is a project dedicated to the cooperation of artists to promote multicultural exchange.

Anne Lamott’s essay, Shitty First Drafts, proves quite entertaining and rings true in many aspects. The one thing that didn’t really relate to me was first drafts being longer than they should be. It depends on what I’m writing about, but I tend to be on the short side. However I do relate to the writer who told Lamott, “He sits down every morning and says to himself nicely, ‘It’s not like you don’t have a choice, because you do — you can either type, or kill yourself.'” And that’s how essays happen as I’m still here. In reality, I know my first draft of anything is going to be terrible and I would rather throw it in a garbage fire before having anyone read it. Hell, someone could read my 501st draft and say it’s the best thing I’ve ever written, and I’d still want to throw it in a garbage fire.

Revision Strategy Plan

#1-Goal: Make paper not terrible
Sub-Goals: Work with some of the ideas I got from peer review and play with the moving of paragraphs and quotes

#2-The Plan
1. Review things from peer review
2. Create first draft of new paragraphs
3. Review all paragraphs to see if each has coherent idea
4. Move paragraphs here, there, and everywhere until it works
5. Second draft created
6. Have someone else read it to make sure my point is actually getting across
-If not, go back a few steps
7. Editing for sentence and word level error
8. Product

#3-Challenge
1. “It’s not like you don’t have a choice, because you do — you can either type, or kill yourself.” (I enjoy this quote and using it)
2. I can’t tell if my point is being made well enough or not
3. I missed things that need to be fixed

#4-Over coming
1. Moral support i.e. my girlfriend
2. Literally anyone willing to read my paper
3. Literally anyone willing to read my paper but is also pretty good with English and grammar