Response 6

Response 6

Intelligence Ostracized

Potential sources-

1.       The documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed hosted by Ben Stein

2.       Evolution and Intelligent design book

a.       Found Online at:

http://libcat.clemson.edu/search~S1?/Yintelligent+design&searchscope=1&SORT=D/Yintelligent+design&searchscope=1&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBKEY=intelligent%20design/1%2C163%2C163%2CB/frameset&FF=Yintelligent+design&SORT=D&2%2C2%2C

3.       Some source or list of scientists discredited. 

My paper/ Purpose-

·         The purpose is to identify a problem that is paralleled by this documentary.  That problem is that scientists are getting discredited.  This means there work is declared unsound.  All of their articles in scientific journals are terminated, and it becomes impossible for them to get anything published.  More than likely they are fired from their job and shunned by the scientific community as a whole, making it impossible for them to find new work.  This does not only destroy their career but their lives and lives of their family members.  But maybe even more devastating is they are destroying the opportunity for a scientist to possibly discover something great.  That is example by the documentary expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  This documentary proposes the possibility scientifically that there could be an intelligent designer of the world or of living things.  A god or a deity so to speak.  Many scientist which are interviewed in the documentary have had their work and careers discredited for this research and accusations.  They proposed that some aspects of nature cannot be from evolution but have to have some greater cause.  They are out casted for speaking against Darwinism, which is strangely ironic because Darwin and all his followers where out casted at first for their ideas.  But not only Darwin, this tradition of out casting and discrediting scientist goes back to the beginning philosophers like Copernicus and Socrates.  They were hated by many and loved by very few, only tolerated by their closets followers.  But these philosophers were smart and began to write about their findings or view or ideas and only publish them on their death bed, that way they wouldn’t have to see society turn on them.  Socrates was actually put to death (look up how, it was either stabbing or poison) for his ideas.  But Socrates believed in his thoughts so deeply he actually had the chance to escape from an arrange set up between one of his followers (Pluto) and a friend, but Socrates stayed, he didn’t fear death.  This leads to the concept of critical thinking and critical thinkers.  They lived in a medieval day of age where the earth was the center of the universe and the earth was flat, where the stars where gods, and they and what they stood on were all that existed.  Today in our modern day of age with automobiles, and space ships sending men to the moon, and ships to those “godly” stars, we consider ourselves to live in an age of science.  And yet we still continue the same tradition of discrediting and shunning our critical thinkers.  Our society hasn’t changed a bit.  Who cares if the scientists are right or wrong, that is like religion and for the reader to decide.  Let the scientist at least research and study and find hard irrefutable evidence of their accusations.  PROOF what defines science and separates it from all the other useless information roaming the galaxy.  Why is our society still holding ourselves back, for all we know these men and women could have stumbled upon to proof of an existence of an intelligent designer a GOD.  The largest finding to ever occur and that ever will occur.  We could be ruining these people’s lives for nothing, all because of some accusation they made, which in 200 years may be commonly accepted, just like the findings of Socrates and Columbus, and every other great mind laughed at and shunned and disrespected. 

Hypothesis-

·         I am not here to pick my views and choose a side in the matter, just to bring it to attention, but more so bring to attention our society as a whole and how far we have come, but also to point out how far we still need to go.  And that we will never get there if we are killing the possibility of our future.  It may be a false possibility but we should at least give everyone a chance if we ever want to get farther. 

To be done-

·         I will have to watch the video, research the scientists discredited (from the video, and also look back in time to ancient philosophers [not all, just the ones that came up with ideas that are held as common knowledge in this day and age, like Galileo and Copernicus]). 

Intelligence Ostracized; 3 paragraph pre wirte with 2 primary sources listed

Joey Walton

Katie Mullinax

English 101

9-29-2001

Intelligence Ostracized

An essay arguing the thought of Intelligence design and scientist who argue it

3 Paragraph Pre Write In Class

(Ben Stein Biography)

http://www.biography.com/people/ben-stein-9542432

(evolution and intelligent design book)

http://libcat.clemson.edu/search~S1?/Yintelligent+design&searchscope=1&SORT=D/Yintelligent+design&searchscope=1&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBKEY=intelligent%20design/1%2C163%2C163%2CB/frameset&FF=Yintelligent+design&SORT=D&2%2C2%2C

                I have not watch the video in a long time so I do not know what my stance will be for the video.  I could pick to agree with the idea of intelligent design, but I feel I would just be agreeing with all the scientist that were interviewed in the documentary and I wouldn’t be able to give much input of further explanation into the topic, I would only be able to express my views; which mean nothing to the whole topic.  I could also disagree with intelligent design like so many of the scientists have who have discredited other scientist work because they back the idea of intelligent design.  Which could be another topic to write about; the discrediting of scientific research and knowledge in our modern day and society.  I would reference back to Plato and Socrates and even Darwin and explain how society shunned and ostracized the men and their work for questioning the “system.”  I would express how in our modern society we are so much more accepting of people, race, religion, and ideas.  We live in a scientific world broken down into scientific communities.  We saw critical thinkers of the past be ostracized and all thought of how dumb their society must have been, because now we know those scientist ideas were valid.  All scientist and thinkers have felt that idea, the thought of, “if I were around back then I wouldn’t have discredited Socrates but encouraged him.”  In our society scientists are still being discredited for doing their job.  To raise questions of “what if,” “why,” and “how.”  Are these scientists correct in their research?  My paper can’t prove that, and a life time or research may never get me closer to answering that question.  But my paper can bring up a new question.  “why, in our modern society, are we discrediting scientist for linking two thing; science, which our society is based on, and “intelligent design,” a thought that has been around since the beginning of man. 

                The 3 primary souces i have to use are the video of the documentary of course.  (which i have to either find a hard copy to buy, netflix is a possibility, or just find a GOOD online copy)  A second is an online biography on Ben Stein, who is the host of the documentary.  And a third is a book i found in the library index that is about intelligent design and conflicting ideas against darwinism.  I could also find scientific journals on some of the scientist that were discredited or some academic journals about the idea intelligent design and darwinism or evolution.  

                 The obstacles i see me facing are finding a strict topic to argue about and sticking to it.  Also who my intended audience is and how i should mail it to them.  Its hard to write my paper for one person.  The only person i could see me writing to is either the producer of the movie or Ben Stein which i could do, but i feel that my intended audience is more based toward our culutre, more specifically the scientific community.  Which gets narrowed down to the scientist how have been discredeted, but i feel my paper would serve more purpose in the hands of the boards and scientist that discrete these other scientist for their views. 

Expelled: no intelligence allowed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE




Super Trailer

Full Movie

Response 5

Summary of EID Chapter 4
Planning and proposing research arguments
This chapter goes indepth of how research.  Mainly speaking of how to research information to understand propoganda.  It shoes many old media and propaganda posters that people may not understand and expalins how one may have to do some reasearch to understand it.  It explains how the reseach may be historical, or culutural; ie. an example would be a propaganda poster during the cold war days in america either depicting nuclear war and posting a negative image of the soviet union.  If someone were to see the poster and have no prior knowledge of the cold war or United States and Soviet Union relations they wouldnt understand the poster.  A good way to start research is by making research questions.  Knowing what you want to find that will help you build an argument.  Make a web, then pick a topic and ask questions about that topic to start an argument.  This can help focus your paper or argument alot.  These research questions can help you make a thesis for your paper, or a thesis for a scripted argument. 
This chapter could help me in the class find ways to depict and analyze propaganda.  We are going to have to do a research paper next and this chapter sets up a good structure of where to get started on.  It can also help me pick propaganda to analyze and form an argument on.  If i can't think of any questions for the propoganda it will be harder to research and form a thesis and over focused paper.  It can also help me analyze commercials and propaganda in the real.  It can make me stop and ask why are they doing that, or what does that mean.  It gives me tools to break down there argument and form my own to see if the product is good and i should really buy it or not. 

Response 4

Summary of the Readings in Class; and how might the information be used in class.
Chapter 1-2 in the EID book was titled Analyzing texts.  It explained different types of rhetoric which give a broader perspective on the art of persuasion.  It explained visual persuasion, ie commercials on TV or ads in the newspaper.  It breaks down how to analyze text and pick out the important information.  Like identifying the author and who the intended audience is.  Then in chapter 2 it really becomes in depth of how to analyze ads.  It points out strategies of advertisers: Narration, Comparison-contrast, example or illustration, cause and effect, definition, analogy, process, description, Classification and division.  Then it describes Logos, pathos, and ethos.  Then finally hits the concept of Kairos.  All of this can be used in class to practice analyzing texts and ads, which helped a great bit in our first essay.  Chapter 3 was composing arguments which broke down how you should argue a point.  It broke down arguments to their base or structure.  It said in ancient greece, all communicative acts were classified into five categories, or the canons of rhetoric.  These include invention (coming up with your ideas), arrangement (organizing ideas in effective ways), style (expressing those ideas in an appropriate manner), memory (accessing learned materials), and deliver (presenting crafted ideas to an audience).  It listed things like Definition, Division, comparison, classification, and testimony.  It said you needed a claim, then have grounds for that claim, and have warrants of how the grounds support the claim, and possibly even having supporting evidence called backing.  All of this helped in creating a strong argument to critique our advertisements in our papers. 

This Is Our House

Under Armour TNP commercial
YOU are the next Prototypes
INTRODUCTION
-"The game has changed, It all starts today! YOU are the new prototypes, We are underarmour, The Future Is OURS!
:Under Armour is an athletic clothing brand, not a worldwide movement, it shouldnt be represented like a dictatorship consisting of perfect athletes.
:Thesis- Under Armour uses visual appeal to convince the consumer to purchase their item by using the best looking atheletes, having attractive tight fitting and brightly colored clothes, also through the human eye of curiosity.  They do this buy creating a world similar but differnt from our own by depictinga city like New York and filling it with athletes doing intense urban workouts, and ending with a type of neonazi cult meeting; like the world is some type of dark gloomy post apocalyptic world where only the strongest athletes survived and is dictated by under armour. 
-UPDATED THESIS-
Under Armour uses visual appeal to convince the consumer to buy their product through a variety of ways.  Under Armour produces a false premise, which is that people would think their athletic abilites would be greater if they wear under armour.  They way they present their product, all the athletes group together in a building like a riot speech is extreme and controversial. 
BODY 1
-Under Armour has a very good selection of all types of sport apparell and are a very good althetic brand.  Between there comfortable and eficient clothes they are also very stylish and you can get about anything you need or want in any color you desire.  Furthermore they do a very good job at selecting their audience and making a commercial that appeals to them.  Athletes see other better athletes using this brand doing intense workouts and feel inspired and want to wear the same brand.  Also the dialoque at the end represents a team captain motivating his team, the team of under armour to join together and be the next set of atheletes, inspiring and motivating them.  This also appeals to human ideals and their basic instinct to want to fit into a group, and for any athlete looking for the next level or next opportunity would be more than willing to join under armour.  (give all good things about commercial)
BODY 2
- However....They over sell their product in the wrong way.  They spice up what is already a good brand and proven by putting it on the biggest, fastest, and best athletes.  They do so by putting them in this made up world that looks post apocalyptic version of newyork and the only people alive are super athletes.  All it proves is that they can pay the biggest and best athletes to do an intense clever urban/industrial workout while wearing underarmour clothes.  It proves nothing to the brand.  The commercial list nothing of the characteristics of the clothes or if they help cool people or warm them, it just shows they can make a tight slim muscle fitting shirt and put them on the best athletes and make them look good.  THe dark imagery of teh back ground contrast greatly with the large athletes and the brightly colored under armour.....(more about people/characters and the brand (just clothes))include famous athletes
BODY 3
- lastly, talk about the setting more as a transition they depict the post apocalyptic world created and the large red neonazi banners with the dictator talking, how to over the top it is, use of logos, how it doesnt fit into the modern age or time at all
CONCLUSION
-rap up argument, quote old under armour "this is our house, we must protect our house".  summarize/ restate argument in a differnet way, give a last thought to under armour, maybe a suggestion.

Free Writing Exercise

What is problematic- its an unreal setting with unreal characters, all theses ripped good looking athletes working out in an urban enviornment that resembles a run down dark and gloomy new york, which use to be the bright light city that never sleeps but now its all dark and the only people you see are athletes and they all congregate at the end in this dictatorship style building with large red under armour banners hanging everywhere, its a little extreme for selling clothes and sports apparel, it seems like under armour took over the world and these athletes refrenced as prototypes arent like free people but look like pawns for this under armour dictatorship.  It also uses celebritys like Ray Lewis (look him up) who is doing this weird tricep work out with a chain and a fire escape. All the workouts they show are extreme but completely unreal and in an unreal setting.  They also only show these SUPER athletes wearing under armour.  They never tell about any of the qualities of the clothing or even if its good.  They dont compare it to competition, all it is is skin tight cool looking sports apparell, it might even constrict athletic capabilites, its all just unknown.  All it does is prove underarmour can pay a bunch of fit really big athletes to do a commercial wearing under armour clothing.  It does do good by showing like the world is a tough dark place and the only people left are these super athletes and the new prototypes of athletes.  Representing its a new day and age and thus there are new athletes and kinda implies that you can join that, but you need to wear under armour.  People like to fit in and the commercial makes this unique group and invites people to join.  But i think the dictatorship type of 1 man standing infront of a group yelling at them is just so extreme and unreal it makes it almost a joke.