The Iggblog

Big thingie on rhetoric, analogy, and science behind cut. Read if you’d like. ignore if you don’t some time to waste. It’s *long* but has some good tidbits. at least I think they’re good. I’m told I have very yummy tidbits.

I caught myself using rhetoric today. I’ve been taught to avoid rhetoric, since it is so damaging in my field. But my crime was small. I was using word choice to change the perspective on an issue. I was using rhetoric to generate something that doesn’t exist, or to blind someone to something I want to keep secret. My friend Brian and I were having a conversation about animal rights. More specifically we were talking about how value is assigned to life. We are both on the same side of most issues, this one included. We’re both good at playing adversary to one another, or simply picking apart opinions eachother has. He’s a very articulate person to speak to.

Anyways, I was using the word “arbitrary” to describe how humans came up with the whole idea of assigning value to life. Techincally it’s correct to use that word. but it’s a bad fit. The reason I use it is because of the ideas people get when they hear the word arbitrary. it makes the target of arbitration sound trivial. If a decision is arbitrary, it is thought of as trivial. not worth a real thought. So when people hear me say “The value assigned to a living thing is arbitrary” they hear “the value of life is trivial” or something of the sort. They think I’m acting despotic. It will get them to think about the situation a little differently and perhaps a little harder. This is what I’m going for.

It was pointed out to me indirectly that I was using rhetoric. I didn’t think of it this way before. Brian asked me why I’m being so roundabout. why don’t I use analogy? Certainly analogy is more efficient and terribly useful in translating complex situation. but as a scientist it’s dangerous for me to use analogy. Analogy gives the listener something he can relate to so he can better understand the idea when the listener is lacking the requisite knowledge to directly relate to the idea the speaker is conveying.

The problem with using analogy in science is that much of the important information is lost in translation to laypeople. This is not to say laypeople are stupid or incapable of understanding science. The problem is that in order to understand a certain aspect of science, some amount of previous knowledge is required. In fact, such requisite knowledge is very often assumed by scientists who don’t know better. A scientist may feel obligated to explain, to the best of his ability, natural phenomena to friends of his who may be a layperson. The most often used tool to do this sort of translation is analogy.

In most cases analogy is fine, but some things are lost in the translation. Information is lost. Analogy strips an idea down to a form (often a bare form) that can be easily understood by someone unfamiliar with the subject. Also, there is the problem with responsibility. The listener did not learn the idea in its entirety on his own, so he does not recognize the significance of the information. Furthermore, he feels no responsibility to faithfully pass on the information unmolested. Neither of these problems are necessarily malicious. The source may not realize the significance of the loss of information or responsibility. Sources tend to take their previous knowledge for granted and may leave holes in the information. It can be very hard think of what a listener may not know. Also, the source may not realize their responsibility to pass on information with absolute faithfulness. They rarely make sure the listener realizes this responsibility either. The reason for this responsibility is that misinformation can be worse than lack of information. It is natural for someone who has just learned of new information to not feel any responsibility towards it since they haven’t learned all the surrounding information.

Blarg. but yeah. that’s what I have to say on analogy. you should see what I have to say about other forms of rhetoric. But I’m skewed since I come from a certain facet of humanity for whom rhetoric can be infinitely damaging. such small things as simply speaking persuasively when presenting data are looked down upon with utmost sternness. It can even be damaging to one’s reputation. People often give technical reports in such a way that it trivializes aberrant data to make the project look better. but it always gets found out about, and the person is scrutinized forever. Science depends on an unbreachable code of ethics since the scientist is required to present data “as is.” interpreitation is often left up to the scientist as well, and absolute ethics are required there too. Very rarely do I make a positive statement in a report. like “this means that” or “this part is bad”. I will say “this appears as that” and “this part exhibits signs of faliure”. Making a positive statement is just asking to get your reputation destroyed. The best a good scientist will ever say is “the degree of certainty is very high” or some derivative of that. Many people don’t appreciate science for what it is. So few people can’t tell me what the scientific method is, and what criteria a theory has to live up to. It’s not that people are stupid (usually). it’s just not common knowledge.

Basically, I like rhetoric a lot. But I was using other methods besides analogy because I come from a place that doesn’t allow for rhetoric. so when I teach something I think is worthwhile I try to do it in a way that doesn’t require it. when I do use rhetoric I try to use it solely to give perspective and not change the data. I do this even when I’m talking or debating things other than science. It’s just reflexive.

Blarg. w0rd. Sorry if the thoughts aren’t contiguous. I did the best I could. the info is in there. I hope most of it makes it into your head. thanks for your time.

I swear, I’m not this dry in real life 😛

-IggDawg