There was a line from “Beyond the Realm of Reason” that, I thought, encompasses a main aspect of their theory. “…we must treat all rhetorical production as a complex system, understandable only through analysis of multiple, interconnected relationships.” For example; the article refers to the resistance to the John Birch Society, and how on one hand it is negative because they want support, but on the other hand, because their view is extremist, their argument actually gains value from resistant reactions. There is a relationship between the rhetoric/presentation of “The Resilient Earth” and how the audience reacts; one does not affect the other; they both affect each other.
To apply this theory to Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, I’m also going to bring in “classical Aristotelian distinction of logos, ethos, and pathos.” The two most important arguments of the Center for Science and Culture is that they " supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory” and “encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.” This website has strong ethos rhetoric. “Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities.” In our culture, having a Ph.D. and/or being a chemist, philosopher, etc, results in a lot of respect and credibility for their view. I know, personally, when I read that statement I decided that this was a credible source.
Now the audience has established credibility; this will aid in the logos argument. The website states that “Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution include unresolved debates amongst scientists over issues such as the peppered moth, the myth of human gill slits, Haeackel's embryos, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution address problems for which adequate solutions have not been presented. “ It has provided logical reasons to challenge neo-Darwinian theory; unresolved debates and lack of adequate solutions. It also furthers its logos by giving specific examples of the unresolved debates. Although I have no idea what the debate about peppered moth is, the fact that there is a debate, being presented by a credible source, persuades me to also believe that it should be challenged.
I have established that this argument is coming from a credible source with legitimate arguments; all that is left is the pathos. How a person is emotionally affected can have an immense influence on how they feel about an issue. The ‘Academic Freedom’ page has strong pathos rhetoric. One pathos rhetoric technique is language use. “Across America, the freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin is coming under increasing attack by what can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists. These self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them.” There are some strong, negative words being associated with ‘Darwinian fundamentalists’ to suggest they’re villains.
‘waging a malicious campaign”= their evil plot
“to demonize and blacklist”=conquer/hurt people
“anyone who disagrees with them”=blindly going on their evil rampage and will crush anyone in their way
Another pathos argument is having specific examples of teachers who have lost their job for questioning Darwin. This one affects me on two different levels, the first, is justice, it is unjust for those teachers to be fired for those reasons. The second is the fact that they are teachers, my mom is a teacher and although she is not a science teacher and it doesn’t directly relate, the fact that my mother is a teacher enables me to be more strongly influenced by the outrage they are persuading me to feel.
It's really informing to see HOW these arguments worked on you. They work on me, too--though I absolutely know better. But it's important to know (and how would we, if we weren't following science blogs or doing evolutionary biology?) that their arguments are just dead wrong--and refuted over and over in great detail by practicing biologists.
ReplyDelete