Argument and the Dangers of Certainty

As some of you know, I’ve been reading a bit about the New England witchcraft crisis of the late 17th Century, and recently recommended Mary Beth Norton’s work in general. So it was serendipidous that Andrew Sullivan linked to this essay by Ben Shattuck (student at the University of Iowa’s Writing Workshop). Shattuck addresses the theory that the girls at the center of the crisis had taken some sort of hallucinogen, and talks to Suzy Witten, who is aggressively pushing this theory. I recommend it as an example of how being so certain of your own beliefs that you dismiss competing views can hurt your credibility. A key passage from Shattuck:

It may seem unproblematic to speculate, to flesh out the unrecorded 99 percent when selling your book as fiction, but by tacking on a claim to have “solved” a real mystery complicates credibility. Couching nonfiction in speculative fiction is not the way to present whatever kernels of truth you might have dug up. This is why there’s only one citation for Witten’s theory on Wikipedia, and why it comes from her own book.

I started noticing weaknesses her argument that are absent from academic theories. She did most of her research with books written about Salem instead of going to the primary sources. She wouldn’t admit that any of the other theories might be at least in part right. She was defensive about criticism of her book. She made at least one claim that wasn’t true: “Jimsonweed is actually considered the most toxic plant on the planet,” she said early in our conversation.

I highly recommend the whole thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

More Argument by Analogy

Nate Silver uses the prevent defense to explain Mitt Romney’s slide in the South Carolina polls. Reasonable?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Treasure Hunt with Clay Shirky

Here’s a game. Watch this twelve-minute TED talk with Clay Shirky, and find the following:

* an analogy

* an emotional appeal

* a metaphor (hint: it’s in someone else’s argument that Shirky is paraphrasing)

* antithesis

* Fun fact: I quoted Shirky a whole lot in my dissertation. Like this, for example.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PBS, Fox News, and Trustworthy Sources

Public Policy Polling has released a poll they conducted of what television sources people trust. Interestingly, PBS is the source that the most people trust, while Fox News was listed as the #1 “most trusted” source and the #1 “least trusted” source. I highly recommend reading the summary at the very least, and actually the full report is very readable and gives you a lot more detail, breaking it down among political parties. Key quote:

-Democrats trust everything- except Fox News. NBC does the best with them at +50 (67/17), followed by PBS and CNN at +49 (66/17 and 65/16 respectively), ABC at +38 (57/19), CBS at +35 (58/23), MSNBC at +33 (56/23), and even Comedy Central at +4 (36/32). Fox News comes in at -36 (25/61).

-Republicans meanwhile don’t trust anything except Fox News. PBS comes the closest to breaking even among non-Fox outlets, although not very close, at -30 (26/56).  It’s followed by CNN at -49 (18/67), MSNBC at -51 (18/69), NBC at -52 (17/69), CBS at -54 (17/71), ABC at -56 (14/70), and Comedy Central at -59 (12/71). But Fox News comes in at a stellar 73/17.

Independents are with the Democrats. They trust everything except Fox News. Main takeaway from this poll: tv news has become just as polarizing as the political parties in this country.

It would be worth our time to talk a bit in class about the implications of this kind of divide for providing support for an argument.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Name Change

I’ve impulsively changed the name of this blog from the bland “AP Language & Composition” to the bold and provocative “Now Read This.” I’m crazy! What will I do next?!

This is really meant to signal my intention to post things that are relevant–even in a general way–to our discussions in class, especially regarding argument and persuasion. These will not be required reading unless I tell you otherwise, but I will expect that most of you have at least glanced at it. I’m not going to put it here unless I think it will help you understand the concepts we’re discussing.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Stephen Bloom, “Observations From 20 Years of Iowa Life”

Today we’re discussing Stephen Bloom’s essay, “Observations From 20 Years of Iowa Life,” which was published in the online edition of the Atlantic Monthly.

Here are a couple of responses prompted by the essay (and there were many):

And then there’s this (warning: a few four-letter words inside):

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reading Assignment for Thursday

There are two reading assignments for Thursday.

First, read Mary Wollstonecraft’s essay “On National Education.” I recommend you review the one-pager from last term if you still have it.

Second, read the introduction to definition in the Bedford Reader, which runs from page 479-487. Pay special attention to the blue checklist on page 485, and to any new vocabulary along the way.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Assignments

Hi Folks,

I’ll be thinking of you on my way to Jacksonville tomorrow morning. While I’m gone, please read Margaret Talbot’s essay “Best in Class” (p. 113 in Language of Composition). I think you’ll find it interesting. Read it, and come to class Friday prepared to have a discussion on it.

Also, if you haven’t already done so, make sure you read the intro to chapter six in the Bedford Reader (pgs 185-191). That’s the chapter called “Example: Pointing to Instances.”

Finally, for Monday, read the introduction to chapter seven in the Bedford. That’s on Compare & Contrast, and runs from page 223 to 229.

See you Monday,

~ Dr. Ayers 🙂

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ken Robinson

If you missed either Tuesday or Wednesday, we were starting our discussion of argument and persuasion. We watched these two videos of Sir Ken Robinson, who speaks on education and creativity.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Writing an Annotated Bibliography

The purpose of writing an annotated bibliography is — oh, I’ll just let OWL at Purdue explain it:

A bibliography is a list of sources (books, journals, websites, periodicals, etc.) one has used for researching a topic.  Bibliographies are sometimes called “references” or “works cited” depending on the style format you are using.  A bibliography usually just includes the bibliographic information (i.e., the author, title, publisher, etc.).

An annotation is a summary and/or evaluation.

Therefore, an annotated bibliography includes a summary and/or evaluation of each of the sources.

If you click the link up there, you’ll find a more elaborate explanation of what sorts of things you might write in the summary/evaluation. Remember, we are interested in how you used the sources.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment