Sample WRTG 1150 "Public Intellectual Series" Project Process-Piece (Pre-Digital Revision)

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 1 of 16

Analytical Essay Before looking at each of the individual pieces, I think it is important to

look at the rhetorical situation, as a whole, in order to get a broad idea of how all

of these pieces are meant to fit together. The context of this situation is an online

blog/magazine of rhetorics in relation to general topics, centered around the CU

student community. The reader within this context is the CU student body, made

up of a diverse group of individuals with diverse interests but with a common

groundthey wish to learn how rhetorics functions in a wide range of topics,

questions big and small. The text of this situation is the blog site itself, as well as

the advertisements that lead the reader there. It is a typical blog site with usual

online formatting for articles produced for consumption by the student body. The

writers are us, public intellectuals with expertise in a wide range of topics but with

a common background in rhetoric. My background: the rhetoric of scientific

discourse.

Beginning with the advertisement, the piece that is meant to bring the

reader to my articles and the blog as a whole, we see a construction based upon

many rhetorical assumptions that I have had to determine based on the situation.

The piece itself would occur as an advertisement on the side of any CU or

Boulder related webpage; the online location being the key as this is where our

audience and our publications exist. The picture used in the ad is made up of

several human shapes formed by numbersthey are the matrix people, which

is visually appealing and this audience can immediately associate with something

out of the ordinarycreating curiosity. The simple question, Are we living in a


simulation? is vague but will pique the interest of any younger individual who is

familiar with Science-Fiction and gaming. I promise to give an answer to this

question, all the reader has to do is follow the link and they are there. The

phrase, check it out, itll change your life, speaks directly to the relatively young

audience, guaranteeing they will not regret that click.

Now that I have brought readers to my blog, they will immediately be

immediately engage by my author photo and biotwo pieces that work in unison

to create the ethos I need to be persuasive as a public intellectual of rhetoric

speaking on scientific matter. The photo I chose was very deliberate as I saw the

need to appeal to the audiences general interests to make an immediate

connection. A love of nature, active lifestyle, youth were all common areas I

identified and could be used to form the necessary appeal. I need to connect with

the reader on a personal level but maintain the ethos of a public intellectual. To

accomplish this, I chose a picture in which I appeared somewhat serious,

trustworthy, and perhaps mature beyond my years. The bio works to reinforce

some of these features of personal connection while creating ethos. I present

myself as a student like everyone else in the audience but I make it very clear

that I have specialized in my studies and I know much more about the topic I will

write about, compared to the average student. For example, I say His main

focus is the analysis and deconstruction of public communication surrounding

scientific matters. This is largely true, albeit an exaggeration--the result being

that I create the strong ethos I need to be persuasive while maintaining the

ethical integrity for myself and fellow bloggers.


The reader is now convinced of my expertise and they have formed a

basic connection, built upon some common interests we have. They have

successfully been drawn to read my dissuasion piece. This piece is a systematic

dismantling of one philosophers argument surrounding my topic and I take him to

task. I immediately wreak havoc on his ethos and that of the paper in which he is

writing. Paraphrasing paragraph one, I say that he is a mere philosopher

publishing in a shock-philosophy magazine so he has no business discussing

scientific matters; He has overstepped his bounds. I take his two main (and only

points) and shut them down because they are irrelevant to the argument as it has

evolved. I make it clear that he is talking about something completely different

than what the argument has becomea classic argument by definition. An

important consideration for this writing context, especially because much of my

argument in hinged upon complex theoretical physics, is that I have to recognize

that the reader is not likely to understand things such as Quantum

Chromodynamics. I have to explain it in terms the reader will understand:

basically it is a framework for modeling small portions of the universe and proof

of this theory can be found in the limitations imposed by it. By leaving in enough

of the hard-to-understand bits, and exhibiting confidence while I do so, I help

support the ethos that comes with true expertise in this field. I rely heavily on

functions of pathos, for example, I offer the assertion that scientists are already

creating realistic simulations, albeit on a very small scale, but that it is inevitable

that they will become larger and more precise. The nail in the coffin for Silby

comes from my (fabricated) expert background in rhetoric and discourse,


describing his ontological and theistic argument as tired and irrelevant. This type

of categorization ensures that my audience believes me over the author I am

shutting down. Lastly, I inserted a critical piece that shows consideration for the

textthe online formattingwhich is a video allowing the reader to find out more.

This helps to create a buzz around the topic and reinforces my position by

showing that there are other knowledgeable people out there that believe the

same.

The dissuasion piece works well on its own, but now the reader is

overwhelmingly fascinated by this idea of a universe simulation and they want to

find out if it is actually true, so they move on to my persuasion piece. Here I really

get into the rhetoric of scientific discourse, hinging my argument on a rhetorician

called S.M. Halloran, who I present as an expert that can extricate deep meaning

from publications, and by using his methods, I can do the same. I compare the

prominent scientific publication on Simulation Hypothesis to Watson and Cricks

popular piece on the DNA model. Using an argument by definition, I convince the

reader that these papers are exactly the same. I go as far as picking out three

blatant commonalitiesthe beauty of the model, the explanatory power, and the

consistencyto show that these papers should be treated as equals. By

comparing the paper that is important to my topic to one that has revolutionized

another field of science, I convince the reader that we are perhaps at the

beginning of a new revolution. I carefully support the ethos of the authors of this

paper, describing them as prominent theoretical physicists working out of a

respectable university. I utilize some functions of logos when I demonstrate how


quickly and how incredible technology is in our era (supercomputers in our

pockets) and suggest that, given enough time, one should logically assume that

anything is possible. Again, when discussing complex matters of physics, I find

myself having to simplify my points in order to reach my audience. For example, I

have to refrain from pointing out the specific quirks of our universe (quantum

interdeterminancy, GZK limit, Heisenbergian uncertainty, etc.) that could be

explained by this hypothesis, and rather, just say that this model explains a lot of

the unknowns we have in physics. Again, I link to a video (a useful addition in this

type of text) so that the reader can quickly and easily get some more details of

the argument, which I have had to leave out to save space in my blog entry.

All of these considerations for Context, Reader, Writer, and Textfor each

of the pieces I have created that stand with one another and with the rest of the

material produced by my fellow bloggers--demonstrate that I have carefully and

effectively analyzed the rhetorical situation for the Public Intellectual Series.


Reflection

The most useful benefit I derived from the workshops was gaining a better

idea of the true nature of the audience within this particular rhetorical situation.

Our audience is the CU student body so I can make some decent assumptions of

the individual readers perspective and knowledge because I am a member of

this community, but only by workshopping with other students could I gain a truly

accurate analysis. This was especially relevant in my dissuasion and persuasion

piece because I had to be careful to present the scientific side of my topic in a

way the majority of CU students could understand. Prior to workshops, I falsely

assumed that most students would have a basic grasp of physics and computers

because I understand some of this stuff and Ive only taken a couple of physics

course. The workshops showed me that practically no one is knowledgeable in

physics. The workshops demonstrated that my main focus, in order to reach the

audience I was writing to, was that I needed to simplify, clarify, or otherwise

rework certain portions of my argument to meet their needs. I recognized that, for

example, I had to steer away form the topics of quantum computing, Quantum

Chromodynamics, interdeterminancy, and hiesenbergian principle because these

would not help me create a persuasive argument for my particular audience.

Simply put, I wasnt talking to my audience until I saw the disconnect during the

workshop portions of this series.

Another major benefit of the workshops was that I was forced to think

outside the box by examining other topics. I think I was so focused on my own


topic that I left little space for creativity in my argument. By looking at others

arguments, and seeing the way they created their categories and argument by

definition, and how they propped up the ethos of themselves and the writers they

were discussing, I was able to bring some of that creativity to my own argument.

This was especially useful for my persuasion piece, which is heavily reliant upon

my categorization and rhetorical analysis of two scientific papers from different

fields. The idea of comparing the paper relevant to my topic directly to another

scientific paperand focusing in on the language within each piece--hadnt really

crossed my mind until a workshop with XXXXX. His writings on the Syrian Civil

War showed clearly how language and discourse have been very powerful

mechanism in allowing the conflict to propagate an continue. I took his assertions

that language is power and used them directly in my article. The same way that

language has impacted matters of life and death in Syria, it has also impacted

matters of acceptance of science among the public.

Some other direct feedback proved beneficial, especially in this style of

text that has limited space. Prior to workshops, I spent way too much time,

words, and space explaining the argument itselfI was essentially regurgitating

what the original philosopher had said. Feedback from workshops convinced me

that by focusing so heavily on all of the complex arguments within the

hypothesis, I was crowding out my main point. The result of this feedback is

readily apparent; I give just enough information on the origins and main points of

the hypothesis that the reader knows what Im talking about, but I still leave

plenty of room to argue why the opposition is wrong and why I am right.


Workshops made it readily apparent that we were all under certain constraints for

these pieces and we must use that to our advantage.

Sources:

Crick, F., & Watson, J. (1953). A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737-738. Halloran, S. M. (1997). The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. 39-53). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press. Silas R. Beane, Martin J. Savage (2012) Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation. Institute for Nuclear Theory, Box 351550, Seattle, WA, USA


XXXXX is a student of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He was born and raised in the suburbs of Denver, Colorado where he developed a fondness for the outdoors and all things physical. His academic work examines the disconnect between the scientific community and public perception, and the way politics, economics, and culture impact our environment. His main focus is the analysis and deconstruction of public communication surrounding scientific matters. XXXXX hopes to help build a future in which science is integrated into public policy and information literacy is shared by all.


Dissuasion Piece

Philosophers Run Amuck The Simulated Universe, by popular philosophy writer Brent Silby, offers a very basic understanding of the Simulation Hypothesisthe idea that everything in our universe is the product of a massive computer simulation, running on hyper-advanced supercomputers. Silby uses the platform of the Philosophy Now magazine, which "aims to corrupt innocent citizens by convincing them that philosophy can be exciting, worthwhile and comprehensible, and also to provide some light and enjoyable reading matter for those already ensnared by the muse, such as philosophy students and academics." He certainly accomplishes those goals but it becomes abundantly clear that he is overstepping his bounds. Ill admit, he presents a good outline for the philosophical argument surrounding this issue but fails to bring the argument fully into the realm of physics, a field of study in which it has gained considerable traction (and one in which it ultimately belongs).

He proceeds to discredit the theory based solely on two philosophical

principals, which he calls an argument of ontological economy: 1. Future simulators would have superior morals, which would prevent

them from running simulations that allow for the suffering we see in our world and 2. It does not explain how the original universe came about, specifically, it

does not explain who created these Gods we are describing who created us By failing to present the entire body of evidence and areas of promising

study, and relying on over-simplified ontological arguments, Silby comes to an unjustified conclusion, refuting the simulation hypothesis.

Lets back up a bit, these are some heavy ideas and Id hate for you to just brush them off like Mr. Silby has done. Simulation hypothesis, an argument presented initially by Nick Bostrom in 2003, relied almost entirely upon his three philosophical principles and essentially stated we are statistically more likely to be simulants rather than true physical beings. The idea quickly spread into the world of physics, an area in which scientists are always looking for an answer to explain the peculiar things we see in the universe. Some have argued that the presence of glitches in our universe could be caused by errors in the simulation or due to the need to compress the data the simulation utilizes, much like music and video data is compressed, causing a loss of fidelity. These arguments arent particularly convincing as they are reliant upon wild assumptions and speculation, but this is not all of the story.

The feature of this topic that Silby conveniently leaves out is Silas Beanes work with Quantum Chromodynamics. Quantum Chromodynamics is an incredibly complex field of theoretical physics, but basically, it attempts to model


how forces within the atoms that make up our universe hold together subatomic particles. These researchers have successfully modeled subatomic particle interactions on a femtometer scale (1.0 x 1015 meters). Such simulations are so elementary, so fundamental to the construction of the universe, that it is basically a simulation of the universe itself, albeit on an incomprehensibly small scale. (Dillow, 2012). Beane and his colleagues are looking at these simulations for the ultimate clue that will answer this simulation hypothesis-- the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff. Basically, anything simulated by a computer with have constraints, in this case, 3-D space is constructed on a minute framework that sets limitslike the GZK cutoff. If Beane and his team are correct, we can measure the energy of cosmic ray particles, to see if they have this constraint placed upon them as they would under the constraints of this type of computer simulation. If we found that the cosmic waves behave in a particular way, we would basically be able to see the construction of the minute simulation framework--and confirm that we are indeed living in a computer simulation (Dillow, 2012).

Sidestepping this critical area in simulation researcher, Silby goes on to refute the hypothesis with largely irrelevant philosophical arguments. His main problem with simulation hypothesis is that he cannot fathom that such an advanced species would be so morally depraved that they would wish to create a simulation in which intelligent beings are made to suffer. He expects that technological evolution would coincide with moral evolutionas the former progresses towards perfection, so does the latter. This idea is simply absurd when looking at our history of progress and moral development thus far. We are a species in which war, competition, selfishness, and fear drives technological progress. Vastly different cultures of humans, possessing vastly different levels of technological capability, are all governed by the same features of humanityself-preservation, self-indulgence, and desire for control. These features have ensured survival and driven human progress for a few million years and theres no reason to believe they cannot last another few million years.

Silbys other main argument is that everything that exists has a cause, the universe exists so it must have a causethe basic Cosmological Argument, normally applied to theism. He shoots down the simulation hypothesis because it assumes a cause, but does not explain the cause, or the origin, of the parent universethe real universe. This argument is irrelevant because the simulation hypothesis never claims to explain the origins of the parent universe or universes; rather, it only attempts to explain the origin and workings of the one in which we exist. Whether you believe our universe is real or simulated, you face the same problem trying to explain how everything was started at the very beginning. Silbys article serves only as a distraction. His rejection of the simulation hypothesis is based off of an incomplete understanding of the argument as a whole and off of irrelevant ontological arguments. He bases his rejection on ontological economybasically because, in his opinion, the hypothesis creates


an overly cluttered worldview. He sees the simpler explanation of one universe as more compelling only because it is simpler. Silby recklessly makes grand assumptions about the progress of morality, which he asserts would prevent any advanced species from creating a simulation of suffering. He compares the simulation argument to tradition theological arguments supporting the existence of God, stating that since you cannot prove the existence of God, you cannot explain the presence of the simulators (God-like)a false equivocation. Im not saying we are definitely living in a simulation, but Im going to keep an open mind until science sorts it out. To learn more about the Simulation go to: Are We Living In A Simulation? Persuasion Piece

Universe Simulation: The DNA of Our Future

It is April 2013 and those of us lucky enough to be living in this era are seeing technological advancement move at a pace unseen in all of human history. In our pockets we carry supercomputers that can connect with anyone on Earth in a matter of secondsand we think nothing of it. It appears that in the realm of scientific and technological progress, the sky is the limit. What can we expect in our lifetimes? What can we expect in a few centuries? How about a million years? Philosophers and scientists have been asking these questions--curiosities that have sparked some very interesting discussions. These sorts of discussions have the power to turn the world upside down as they suggest alternate ways for interacting with the world and challenge reality itself. One of the most interesting publications put forth in regards to unstoppable progress presents Nick Bostroms assertion that we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. More on that later.

Before we delve into the mind-bending discussion surrounding what has been deemed Simulation Hypothesis, it is useful to look at the discussion surrounding another scientific revolutionone that happened during the era of our grandparents. Imagine a time when world-class biologists were baffled by how genetic information passed from parent to offspring. They could see the results of this passing of information but they could not explain the mechanismhow information could be physically stored in a biological molecule. Cut to exactly 60 years ago this month. This is when Watson and Crick published their game-changing paper, A Structure For Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Their DNA model would revolutionize the scientific world and has been heralded as the birth of molecular biology. It set the stage for a level of scientific understanding and inquiry, the likes of which have never been seen in human history. Watson and Cricks earth-shattering paper is somewhat unique in its heavy use of specific rhetorical techniques, generally avoided in scientific


literature. See, scientists publishing in journals that perhaps only other scientists will review wish to be persuasive just like you would in your big literature thesis; the difference, though, is that in scientific communities persuasion is entirely reliant upon empirical evidence. Or is it? Watson and Crick outlined and published a seriously persuasive model, which turned out to be spot-on, with very little if any empirical backing. The authors present themselves as experts in the field, creating a persona and a tone that is more reminiscent of a person-to-person interaction, rather than a scientist speaking. (Halloran, 1997) According to S.M. Halloran, a prominent expert in the field of the rhetoric of scientific discourse, the paper is understated and the rhetorical effect is to communicate a sense of supreme confidence. In essence, Watson and Crick are not describing the structure of DNA, they are selling their idea of the structure of DNA, which they admit themselves is largely a product of their imagination. These methods are used almost identically in the scientific paper on Simulation Hypothesis that has caused a media and pop-culture firestorm: Constraints of the Universe As a Numerical Simulation, by Bean and Savage. In this landslide paper, theoretical physicists out of Washington University aim to determine the plausibility of the universe actually being a simulation and attempt to find some observations that could prove this theory one way or the other. Their conclusion: there is a very real possibility we are living in an advanced computer simulation and this would actually help to explain many of the anomalies seen in the universe across different scales. The language, tone, and generally non-scientific rational of these publications is what has given them the power that they possesshelping to draw support from scientist and laymen alike. We can extricate three main arguments from Watson and Cricks paper that are identical to Bean and Savages offering: 1. The great elegance of the model Watson simply suggests: a structure this pretty just had to exist. (W & C, 1953) Similarly, Bean and Savage suggest current simulations, only able to function on a subatomic scale but will certainly be expanded in coming years, yield the most realistic predictions of nuclear interactions. Our computers can already accurately and realistically simulate a universe on a femto scale (1.0 x 1015 meters). To them, larger and more accurate simulation is inevitable. 2. The explanatory power of the model Watson and Crick argue: the proposed model provides a very precise theoretical explanation for what before had been simply a curious fact the observed ratios of adenine to thymine and guanine to cytosine. This is reminiscent of Beane and Savages suggestion that describes simulation hypothesis as a perfect explanation for numerous quirks in the universe such as a particle existing in multiple states until it is observed and the existence of universal constants, among others.


3. The consistency of the model with empirical data Watson and Crick offer a negative argument, stating that their model is not inconsistent with any experimental data. Beane and Savage use the same mechanism stating that, due to limits in the pixilation of current simulations, the theory holds plausibility and that only when finer scales are developed and some fundamental elements of nature are discovered will we be able to even attempt to refute the claim. Basically, it works within the framework of physics as we know it. So there we have it. Two scientific publications, sixty years apart, each attempting to sell an idea that is certain to revolutionize the way we view the world. Language is power, even in the rigid world of science. Watson and Cricks discovery has stood the test of time and their model has become fact as observation has turned the idea into certainty. The pair went on two win the Noble Peace Prize for their work solving the DNA conundrum and have become two of the most well know scientists in the world. What does that mean for the strickingly similar paper that outlines the Simulation Modelsimilar in tone, similar in argument, similar in weight of evidence, but possessing vastly more game-changing potential? Are we on the brink of some incomprehensible shift in understanding? Only time will tell, but one thing is for certain the Simulation Hypothesis should not be taken lightly, it should not be relegated to the imagination of some sci-fi writer. It should be on the mind of anyone wishing to understand the true nature of the universe in which we live. To learn more about the Simulation go to: Are We Living In A Simulation?


Online Blog Advertisement

Documents

Sample WRTG 1150 "Public Intellectual Series" Project Process-Piece (Pre-Digital Revision)