TOW #11 "Darwin's Dilemma" Article

I have always loved learning about pre-history, specifically the animals that existed before humans came along.  And not just dinosaurs, although those are fun to learn about.  I love learning about the first forms of life, like the first fish, the first reptiles, the first amphibians, and the first birds. Through learning about these early life forms, I have become well acquainted with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. And anyone who learns about the Theory of Evolution knows that evolution is a slow process. If that is to be believed, then the Cambrian Explosion, a time period where rapid evolution caused multiple species to come into existence, should never have happened. The article in the Huffington post claims that the rapid evolution might have been caused by the separating of Laurentia and Gondwanaland, two ancient continents during the Cambrian. According to the article, the splitting of the continents caused "water [to be] displaced by the shift flooded land areas, creating an ideal environment for new species to flourish" (Huffington 1).

The article supported this theory with expert testimonials from Dr. Ian Dalziel of the University of Texas' Institute for Geophysics.  Since he was the one who came up with the theory, his word should be trusted.  Also, the article uses a diagram to show how the continents were arranged and how they drifted apart.  As a visual learner, I can better visualize something if a picture is displayed.  It better explains the purpose of the article, past the simply textual rhetoric.  Also, by addressing the problems raised by this question, namely why this theory has not been figured out until now, it helps to strengthen the argument.  When the argument is disproved, it makes the main argument seem more trustworthy and credible.  I loved reading a news story that has given a possible answer to a question plaguing me since I was 6.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/darwins-dilemma-solved_n_6178504.html?utm_hp_ref=science 

TOW #10 "You Won't Hear It Coming" Visual Text

 

My dad has always become most angry at me for listening to music while I either work, walk, or wonder around the house. He claims that I'm not "paying enough attention to the world around me". Well, I hope he never finds this picture, because my case is sunk if he does. The advertisement is rather simple. The title is "You Won't Hear It Coming". An equation, set to a plain green background, combines a car and a man listening to his iPod to make a man in a wheel chair listening to his iPod. The message simply states "iPod. Use responsibly."  That message is an allusion to the warnings one medication, alcohol, and casino commercials have to put to levy them from blame if the person using the product sustains injuries.  Even though the advertisement does not relieve blame from Apple, the goal of the blurb is to make people pay more attention when using their iPods.  If you are told to use a medication responsibly, you make sure you read the directions and check to make sure you are taking the right dose.  The advertisement is hoping that the viewer will make sure that they are paying attention when using their iPod, especially since the iPod takes away the sense of hearing. 

Without the sense of hearing, humans would be at a disadvantage in the outside world.  The equation presented in the picture clearly shows that.  The simple addition of the variable (the car who relies on sound to warn of its presence and the man who cannot hear because of his music) to an unfortunate outcome (life in a wheel chair) touches on appeals to logos.  The logical argument is that when driving, a driver will blow his horn to warn someone to get out of the way.  If the person cannot hear, he would not be able to get out of the way in time.  Also, if someone gets into a car accident, there is the very real possibility that their lives could change forever negatively.  In this picture, losing the use of your legs is the result. The logic is pretty air tight.  Now back to wandering the high way listening to “Hello” by Evanescence at full blast.

IRB Intro #2 "The Blind Side"

Let's get something straigh: I do not like sports.  Never have, never will.  You might then ask why the pasty white nerd chose to read The Blind Side by Michael Lewis, a book entirely devoted to sports.  First off, let's establish that I love to watch movies.  And in my desire to watch a movie back in 8th grade, I stumbled upon the movie The Blind Side, which I watched with my cousins.  I immediately fell in love with the heart-warming story of how one woman's kindness saved a poor young man and helped him to accomplish fame and the oppertunity to be successful.  Then, I discovered that the movie was based off of a book.  Let's get something else clear, I love reading more then I love watching movies.  I find that usually, books are better then the movie, which I assume many people do as well.  And if this book is better then the movie, I am in for a treat.  I will enjoy starting to read The Blind Side.

TOW #9 "Magic Mushrooms" Article Post

I always wanted to go into a biological field when I grow up.  In order to better keep in touch with the science advances going on,  I am going to start reading more scientific articles.  Of course, some of those articles contain words that I would have to look up, then look up the words in the definition.  So, I'm starting small.  So, I went to my favorite search engine (google) and typed "science articles", which lead me to live science, and headed directly to an article about magic mushrooms.  Fungi have always been super interesting to me.  They function like plants, but eat dead things like bacteria and they produce some of the worst toxins known to man.  This article actually talks about the effects of mushrooms on the brain.  The drug "magic mushrooms"'s active ingredient, psilocybin, apparently changed the brain's connections, linking networks not normally connected.  This explains the "trippy" feel one gets when taking magic mushrooms

To help the average reader, like me, who might not understand all of the scientific terms, the article usually defines them for the reader.  For instance, the author writes "Psilocybin may create a brain state akin to synesthesia, a sensory effect in which one sense stimulus (such as a number) always gets paired in the brain with another (such as a color or a sound)".  Now, I know exactly what synesthesia is, so I can gain a greater understanding of the article.  Also, they article uses expert testimonial to gain ethos for their arguments. When talking about the connections made in the brain under magic mushrooms, the article quotes "study co-author Paul Expert, a physicist at King's College London".  Since the man they are quoting is both the study author and a physicist at a prestigious college.  It makes what the article is saying believable and credible.  I'm guessing a lot of scientific writing is building up credibility to successfully argue a point.  The article seemed to hint that psilocybin might be useful in treating depression.  That could be a real world application of the knowledge listed.  I guess science articles usually present the fact, then apply the knowledge to the real world.  I will definitely look for these in the nest article I read.

http://www.livescience.com/48502-magic-mushrooms-change-brain-networks.html 

TOW Post #8 "IRB Post #2"

There are very few nonfiction stories that were as good as In Cold Blood. True, the story pushed the limits of nonfiction. Actually, I think that the reason I liked this story was that it was not some dusty, crusty almanac from some even dustier, crustier library. It was modern and definitely pushed some boundaries.  One thing I loved was the parallel story lines between the killers and the victims/towns folk.  The parallel stories help keep the story interesting right up until the end. 

To establish the difference, when talking about the townspeople and the Clutter family, the writing style resembles a nonfiction reporter type of writing.  When discussing the death penalty, Capote writes, “Kansas abolished capital punishment in 1907; in 1935, due to a sudden prevalence in the Midwest of rampaging professional criminals… the state legislators voted to restore it” (311).  By using dates, which establishes logos, it sets up the formal tone of this part of the parallel story. 

The other part, when referring to the criminals Dick and Perry, uses more of a fictional narrative style.  This is mostly achieved through use of dialog.  Dialog is almost impossible to write for a nonfiction story, because unless there is a transcript, it cannot be totally real.  For instance, how did Capote know that Perry said exactly “That’s all.  Somebody he could work their guts out and never have to pay them one hot dime.  No, Bobo, I’m talking. Shut up or I’ll throw you in the river” (185).  Because dialog from real life cannot be exact, it seems more like fiction.  These aspects of fiction definitely made the story easier for me to read.  I think my problem with nonfiction is that the facts seem endlessly drilling into my brain, as the cheesecloth I my head tries to save as many acts as possible for use later.  Capote presents the murder as if it was fiction, which means the facts are not as focused on.  It makes it easier for me to understand, and altogether, more enjoyable.