I believe I do have a grasp on rhetoric, and writing rhetorically, but I know that my writing doesn't show this. I was capable of building rhetorical arguments, but on the fourth paper I completely missed the audience, and as a result, the focus of the paper, which only acts as evidence against my writing ability. However I feel most of my writing have strong core arguments, and for the most part are clear enough to understand. As evidence of this In paper four I formed a rhetorically effective argument, but completely missed the audience intended.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14v4FTjMN2BmSDw1hCqqmlGQZZJ5qLvMUcHiTTwfyBy4/edit#
However I feel that some oversights in my writing do not necessarily mean a lack in ability on my part. With a little more attention to detail I think I can craft a writing to my intended audience.
While I do believe I can write at atleast a college english level, I do not feel, given my performance, my grade deserves to be raised.
(I'm also writing this portfolio blind. Since my outline for it is locked in my dorm.)
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
paper 4 (Re-posted.)
Bradley Schneider
English 151
J. Whicker
Arguments from authority
The structure of language and communication promotes the development of a hierarchy of authority, and since writing (In its traditional sense.) is a form of communication, these hierarchies of authority must also exist in writing. To tie authority to writing I’m going to first define authority, and explain some founded theories on authority relationships; second define a valid argument from authority, third discuss objective or argumentative writing; and finally use the previous three premises to conclude what variables of authority relationships are important in the propagation of information, and postulate what things people look for in an argument from authority.
In our society the existence of hierarchies of authority is undeniable, but there is no single or natural authority in our society. In essence authority is the transfer of power amongst members of a community, which is done to ensure that the needs of that community are met. As Hobbes said: “The power of the mighty hath no foundation, but in the opinion and belief of the people.” which means if the community no longer has faith in the ruler, and they no longer act in accord with the ruler, the ruler loses the power they were given. The needs mentioned earlier legitimize the exchange of power between individuals. However power isn’t always given, often enough it’s taken in opportune moments, in the absence (or removal.) of a controlling body; filling the role it once had. Two earlier ideas on authority presented by Plato and Aristotle focused on the metaphysical spheres, (for Plato enlightenment, and for Aristotle natural ability.) which determined the placement of authority. (Thus legitimizing the authority relationship; without placing importance on the internal individuals.) However these postulations failed to explain the process of legitimization. As was said earlier an authority relationship is legitimized by the leader’s ability to meet the needs of their subordinates within the medium they’re working. Within a discourse community such as the writing community (As I understand it.) these authority relationships are often less diverse, and authority is simply given to those who’ve proven their expertise within the field. While within a single field: these figures of authority need to agree relatively consistently for their arguments to be considered cogent.
These figures of authority within different fields (as mentioned earlier.) are referred to by people outside of the group to support arguments that they’re forming; this is an argument from authority. The standard form for an argument from authority is as follows (premise1 → premise2…→ conclusion): Person A (claimed to be) an authority on Subject S; person A makes claim C about subject S; therefore, C is true. An explanatory example of this given by Labossiere, “Not surprisingly, this argument is used when a person lacks the required knowledge and expertise and therefore needs to rely on another source of information. For example, most lawyers are not experts on DNA testing or ballistics, so they hire experts to testify in court. In effect they are saying that what the expert says about the DNA or gun is true because the expert is an expert.” which allows an individual to reach a decision or make a claim. The problem with arguments from authority is that there are unconsidered variables which if present would make the argument invalid. There are six defined criteria for an argument if it’s to be considered valid, and they are as follows: The authority must have sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question, the claim being made by this authority is within their area(s) of expertise, there is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question, the authority in question is not significantly biased, the area of expertise is a legitimate area of discipline, the authority in question must be identified (you need to cite a specific expert; rather than attributing the argument to “experts”.). (Labossiere.) If any of these criteria (especially the first five) are broken the argument of authority is invalid, but these criteria are often overlooked, and arguments, regardless of their origin, are accepted as truths. Simply put arguments from authority are taken to be stronger arguments than they usually are.
With the degree of contention surrounding academic fields it is necessary to separate yourself from other scholars who you’re competing with. In presenting a new or alternate idea to explain something within your field is itself an argument, and the cogency of an argument , at least among academics, is important in how your paper will be received; whether it be accepted, standing out among other arguments, or denied. A cogent argument is both valid and strong, in order for an argument to be valid it must have premises, which in combination support the conclusion, but in order for it to be strong there must be a high degree of certainty or a low degree of refutability between the relationship of the premises, and conclusion. (It is also important to present information with a confidence; as if you’ve put enough research into your paper to be sure of what you’re saying.) For individuals who aren’t testing the truth values of an argument it becomes necessary to compel them to accept you in another way, and this requires a basic understanding of the target audiences beliefs.
Authority is innately present in communication, and being that writing is a form of communication, authority is also innately present in writing. We always assess the information we’re presented with (whether consciously or not.) based on our beliefs, and as we are all writers we must be aware of what people reflect on when they assess information; especially if we’re trying to persuade them to accept our assertions. If we’re to grow in our professional life we must be able to appreciate structures of authority, and be able to ourselves assess information objectively as quote from Lukes better illustrates, “…one thing is to discover and scrutinize of obedience, and a different one to assess their validity and desirability.” Being able to tell the difference between poor, and strong arguments limits the mistakes we make in forming our own arguments, and this reduction in the mistakes we make will improve the quality, and pull of our arguments. Obedience is not always assumed for the right reasons, but that is not to say that authority relationships aren’t useful in our community. With an understanding of how to use information, both in reading and writing, the quality of the work, and as a result the authority held in the work will improve.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
cover letter. Rough draft... paper #4
As this argument is in it's rougher stages Information on the argument form itself would be useful to me. I'm looking for your feedback regarding your opinion of the purpose of the paper specifically. I will be making several tweaks, and aditions to the paper, but I'll need your help in deciding where to focus.
Thank-you
Bradley Schneider
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I-BaIjx_FjwPeWbqaJlLNAbnn1XE884aw2O5LzLBEcM/edit?pli=1#
Thank-you
Bradley Schneider
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I-BaIjx_FjwPeWbqaJlLNAbnn1XE884aw2O5LzLBEcM/edit?pli=1#
Monday, February 27, 2012
february 27th
Penrose/Geisler
Summary: In 'Reading and Writing without Authority' two stories are presented and compared. One of a freshman english student, the other a graduate student; both writing about paternity. For the more developed writer, authority came naturally in the paper. Leaving us with the conclusion that more seasoned writers naturally write with more authority.
Response: I like this article as I did the last article we'd had assigned. The non-abstract examples made it easier to understand the purpose of the paper.
3. In Janet's paper she simply examines, and reexplains information, while Rodger developes a conversation by explaining gaps in paternal theory.
4. Rather than risk sounding stupid to her teacher she decides to hide behind the developed authority of other writers.
5. I think I can creatively think, and develope a paper like Rodge, and I do read critically, but it's still hard to write with ethos when you don't think it will be taken seriously.
MM: Atleast for my academic article i'm going to try and write with more ethos. Mostly because I know it's acceptible in that setting.
Summary: In 'Reading and Writing without Authority' two stories are presented and compared. One of a freshman english student, the other a graduate student; both writing about paternity. For the more developed writer, authority came naturally in the paper. Leaving us with the conclusion that more seasoned writers naturally write with more authority.
Response: I like this article as I did the last article we'd had assigned. The non-abstract examples made it easier to understand the purpose of the paper.
3. In Janet's paper she simply examines, and reexplains information, while Rodger developes a conversation by explaining gaps in paternal theory.
4. Rather than risk sounding stupid to her teacher she decides to hide behind the developed authority of other writers.
5. I think I can creatively think, and develope a paper like Rodge, and I do read critically, but it's still hard to write with ethos when you don't think it will be taken seriously.
MM: Atleast for my academic article i'm going to try and write with more ethos. Mostly because I know it's acceptible in that setting.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Wardle: february 24th
Summary: In Wardles paper " Identity, authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces." she presented the need for an understanding in identity, and the willingness/ability to change. If you don't fully assume your role in the world, and if you don't change your position won't improve.
Response: I like the simplicity of Wardle's argument. She introduces a character and relates it to her main argument, which made it easy to read this paper.
3. Alan refused to change the way he wrote so no opportunity for positive change was presented to him.
4. I think most people are unconsciously changing the way they use language more often than they consciously change the way they use it. So yes.
5. Alan's original discourse was quite different than the one he was introduced to, but i don't think that prevented him from being assimilated.
6. People are hired to do a job, whether that job is as a member of community or as a gear in a machine is left to the discretion of the reader. Neither.
7. If I see a teacher make an obvious mistake it makes it hard to view them as a figure of authority.
A&EI: Just being introduced to more dominant, secondary discourse communities leaves me in the position of the novice. My authority is limited, and my work isn't viewed in a serious respect. Almost all of my work I've done through writing is for assignment, and not expected to have weight.
Response: I like the simplicity of Wardle's argument. She introduces a character and relates it to her main argument, which made it easy to read this paper.
3. Alan refused to change the way he wrote so no opportunity for positive change was presented to him.
4. I think most people are unconsciously changing the way they use language more often than they consciously change the way they use it. So yes.
5. Alan's original discourse was quite different than the one he was introduced to, but i don't think that prevented him from being assimilated.
6. People are hired to do a job, whether that job is as a member of community or as a gear in a machine is left to the discretion of the reader. Neither.
7. If I see a teacher make an obvious mistake it makes it hard to view them as a figure of authority.
A&EI: Just being introduced to more dominant, secondary discourse communities leaves me in the position of the novice. My authority is limited, and my work isn't viewed in a serious respect. Almost all of my work I've done through writing is for assignment, and not expected to have weight.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Feb. 22nd Johns
Johns:
Summary:
1. The conventions of a discourse community make it hard for a new member to be taken seriously. (new ideas come unwelcome.)
I felt this article was easier to relate to than the other 2(3) on discourse communities.
2. The scientific community uses to follow Pythagorean ideals of thought constructs until mode was challenged by the scientific method.
3. Yes i'm beggining to step into a scientific discourse community, and my being opinionated may conflict with the ideals of the Physics discourse community.
4. With english people are more likely to blame others, which may make you prejudice to the idea that everything you've lost has been stolen or done at the fault of another. Other languages may not share these patterns of thought.
5. My authority in all early academic texts is derived from established authorities.
6. established authorities don't need to worry about being brushed aside and ignored, while new writers are at risk by being buried by detail focused errors.
MM: Following the path of least resistance will increase the chances of you establishing yourself as an authority in a discourse community.
Summary:
1. The conventions of a discourse community make it hard for a new member to be taken seriously. (new ideas come unwelcome.)
I felt this article was easier to relate to than the other 2(3) on discourse communities.
2. The scientific community uses to follow Pythagorean ideals of thought constructs until mode was challenged by the scientific method.
3. Yes i'm beggining to step into a scientific discourse community, and my being opinionated may conflict with the ideals of the Physics discourse community.
4. With english people are more likely to blame others, which may make you prejudice to the idea that everything you've lost has been stolen or done at the fault of another. Other languages may not share these patterns of thought.
5. My authority in all early academic texts is derived from established authorities.
6. established authorities don't need to worry about being brushed aside and ignored, while new writers are at risk by being buried by detail focused errors.
MM: Following the path of least resistance will increase the chances of you establishing yourself as an authority in a discourse community.
february 20th post
In the article "The Concepts of a Discourse Community" Swales defines the makings of a discourse community, providing six qualities that are needed for a group of individuals to be a discourse community.
I didn't like much of Swales' article it was dry, and I didn't feel like any of the information he presented was much of a revelation.
1.1. Discourse communities members share a broad set of common goals.
1.2. There is active intercommunication between members.
1.3. A discourse community has participratory mechanisms, which incentivize providing information & feedback.
1.4. Use relevent resources (for reference & understanding) to further their aims.
1.5. Discourse communities develope a lexis. (use of acronyms & jargon)
1.6. Reliability of information provided is weighed by the assumed expertise of an individual member. (heirarchy novice<expert.)
3. Swales didn't think a first year college class would be a discourse community, but a graduate level class would. (probably because they have like career specializations.)
5. A discourse community is my english 151 class. we all share common goals, interact, use similar resources, provide feedback, developed a lexis, and have a
MM: no
Gee:
Gee discusses that language and grammer are less important than discourse in our communication patterns.
Like Swales' article this paper was rather dry, but atleast it had more new information than the later article.
3. Discourse: saying-writing-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations
discourse: connected lengths of language that make sense.
4. Primary: first connections
Secondary: connections made outside of our comfort zone.
Dominant: Inspirational
non-Dominant: social interaction
5. This makes everyone loose members of the same discourse community.
6. This is similar to his ideas of Discourse and Identidy because an individual has to on his or her own learn to read& write.. "say-do-believe"
7. In a scientific community there is an expected level of understanding of the discourse communities focus. Failure to meet this level of understanding is obvious because a lack of participation or presentation of lacking information.
8. Bad information is ignored, and growth is more likely to happen in the right direction. (progress.)
13. I would like to be an apprentice in the Physics discourse community in the near future since I'm pursuing a degree in Physics.
A&EI: 2. value of knowledge carries over into academia. (wanting to know more ensures you'll try to learn more.)
4. Friends & Family hold different expectations for language and formality. Knowing and following these or atleast following the most mild of the two (family) prevents much conflict.
I didn't like much of Swales' article it was dry, and I didn't feel like any of the information he presented was much of a revelation.
1.1. Discourse communities members share a broad set of common goals.
1.2. There is active intercommunication between members.
1.3. A discourse community has participratory mechanisms, which incentivize providing information & feedback.
1.4. Use relevent resources (for reference & understanding) to further their aims.
1.5. Discourse communities develope a lexis. (use of acronyms & jargon)
1.6. Reliability of information provided is weighed by the assumed expertise of an individual member. (heirarchy novice<expert.)
3. Swales didn't think a first year college class would be a discourse community, but a graduate level class would. (probably because they have like career specializations.)
5. A discourse community is my english 151 class. we all share common goals, interact, use similar resources, provide feedback, developed a lexis, and have a
MM: no
Gee:
Gee discusses that language and grammer are less important than discourse in our communication patterns.
Like Swales' article this paper was rather dry, but atleast it had more new information than the later article.
3. Discourse: saying-writing-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations
discourse: connected lengths of language that make sense.
4. Primary: first connections
Secondary: connections made outside of our comfort zone.
Dominant: Inspirational
non-Dominant: social interaction
5. This makes everyone loose members of the same discourse community.
6. This is similar to his ideas of Discourse and Identidy because an individual has to on his or her own learn to read& write.. "say-do-believe"
7. In a scientific community there is an expected level of understanding of the discourse communities focus. Failure to meet this level of understanding is obvious because a lack of participation or presentation of lacking information.
8. Bad information is ignored, and growth is more likely to happen in the right direction. (progress.)
13. I would like to be an apprentice in the Physics discourse community in the near future since I'm pursuing a degree in Physics.
A&EI: 2. value of knowledge carries over into academia. (wanting to know more ensures you'll try to learn more.)
4. Friends & Family hold different expectations for language and formality. Knowing and following these or atleast following the most mild of the two (family) prevents much conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)