Parallel Induction

"Living in a Landscape of Fear" by Cristina Eisenberg was published in the August 13 issue of Scientific American. In her article Ms Eisenberg weaves a tapestry of anecdote and eco-history to persuade her readers that fear is a necessary part of natural landscapes. This text serves as an example of Baconian induction as described by Alan Gross in The Rhetoric of Science. Her anecdotes illustrate the principles she seeks to establish to "lead directly from sensory experience to reliable knowledge about the natural world."

I would also argue that her paper conforms to the general arrangement of stases as described by Jeanne Fahenstock and Marie Secor in "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument."

My first claim is complicated by the introduction of several parallel lines of experience which ultimately coalesce as an inevitable conclusion - that predators shape the landscape through fear and by removing apex predators the landscape and biodiversity suffer. The experiences that form the basis of her argument are direct observations of the natural world. The eco-history forms the connecting link that ties the observations to conclusions of cause and effect. This is not a linear progression however as each piece is only a small part of the overall induction. To attempt a linear treatment of the subject would fragment her work. Instead she introduces various lines of evidence, withholding the final conclusions until the last two pages of the article. In that sense Eisenberg moves gracefully from one stasis to another but always in the pattern of fact and conclusion. There can be no linear treatment of the subject as in the case of the simple lab report. (introduction, methods, results, discussion, Gross pgs. 86-88) Eisinberg has constructed a meta-analysis from a great number of smaller, independent studies and experiments. Each of these compliments the others by showing how particular instances of predator removal show a general principle in the natural world. Together these principles unite in a grand hypothesis, the Green World Hypothesis, introduced early in the article. Each of the various principles support the greater work, such as the keystone species concept, top-down versus bottom-up and the ecology of fear. These smaller themes constitute the methods of the induction, always working from the observed to the supposed cause.

Ms Eisenberg demonstrates how a scientific paper can be at once readable and thorough. I assume that in her book from which this was excerpted, citations were given that did not appear in the online article. That would be my only criticism of this as a scientific paper.

Alan Gross, The Rhetoric of Science,Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press,1990

Fahenstock and Secor,"The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument" Written Communication, Vol5 No 4, October 1988, 427-443

Catharsis

"One Day, Now Broken In Two", by Anna Quindlen, is a reflective piece that seeks to understand how the events of 9-11 have affected the American psyche.

Quindlen's principal aim seems to be an expression of her own feelings projected upon the fabric of American society. Her article asks several times, "Who are we?", and then attempts to answer. In that sense the article is "referential" and "exploratory." The boundaries are blurred with the "expressive" as she rocks back and forth between personal anecdotes and her perception of how Americans have dealt with the tragedy. In large part these anecdotes are a way of reaching out to grasp her audience. She invites her audience to identify with her and then uses that identity to speak for the American people. She constructs her audience through that empathy, an audience of anyone touched by the events of 9-11. In that respect, the text's aim relies heavily on audience construction. Only those people that care about 9-11 will care about the article.

This text complicates the principal divisions James Kinneavy sets out in "The Basic Aims of Discourse" as noted above. The significance of this lies in the nuances of purpose contained in the article. There seems to be a catharsis for Quindlen in the writing of the article. It's something personal to her that only peripherally touches her larger audience. In that sense she is her own audience. There is also the aspect of the exploratory. This includes the larger audience in the realization that there can be no real resolution of the issue. Quindlen uses terms such as bifurcated, split, of two minds and others to describe the American psyche post 9-11. She explores the ramifications of such a split and offers up suggestions for living with the unresolved conflict of being. In that sense the article is persuasive. Quindlen urges her readers to make September 11 something different from 9-11. As she says, "life goes on."

The Real Reasons Professors Can't Teach Writing

"The Real Reason Students Can't Write" by Laurence Musgrove considers a number of reasons students do not write well. He deliberates the issue in a sly way by introducing problems with students but ultimately placing the blame on the educational system. Indeed, Musgrove states clearly that,"students really do know how to write."

The audience for this article is primarily college professors and administrators. Musgrove runs a risk of alienating his audience in pointing out that that the educational system is largely at fault. He avoids this by proposing a draconian system of "writing tickets" to enforce good writing. What appears to be a punishment for poor writing ends up being an exhortation to college professors to do their jobs.

Musgrove moves his audience through a series of thoughts designed to stimulate positive action. He begins the article by introducing his credentials as an educator (ethos) and some proposals for a change in curriculum. He then defends the ability of students to write well, given some help and reasons to care about their writing. The author next aligns himself with his audience. He "sympathizes" with his "frustrated" colleagues and strengthens his authority by recounting his professional experience in teaching. He also lists some reasons students fail to produce good writing. Overall this contributes to a feeling of comraderie with his audience as having shared the same experiences. This eases the the condemnation in the next paragraph where he states, "Most college professors would prefer to complain about poor writing than simply refuse to accept it."

The author next proposes his scheme for writing tickets and the consequences of adopting such a system. This is where Musgrove introduces the logos of his article. He makes a number of suggestions but what is interesting is that he focuses on what professors can and should do rather than what students need to do. He maintains his connection with the audience by the liberal use of "we" and what "we" should be doing.

Musgrove ends his piece by stating that a lot of tickets would have to be written but only until students learn good writing skills. He then gives his audience permission to act by simply ending the article with, "Here's your badge."

I found this article interesting in the way Musgrove approaches his audience, empathizes with them and ultimately empowers them to take action.