TOW #16: A Breifer History of Time by: Stephen Hawking

As I continued to delve into Stephen Hawking’s work, A Breifer History of Time, things began to make more and more sense to be, but at the same time confuse me. Obviously, all of his topics in his book are extremely complicated, so to put them into “simple terms” (still extremely complex to the average person, like me) is hard. Even in the second half of the book Hawking kept up his simplification skills with the continued use of pictures and metaphors to help the reader comprehend. Although this may not work for every reader, one reason Hawking’s rhetoric was effective for me was that it tapped into my “memory”.

Chemistry class technically is not a distant memory to me, but we are currently (and surprisingly!) learning about quantum mechanics. Hawking’s book is a great overview of all of the concepts that we are currently covering more in depth in chemistry. Therefore, although conceptually, I may not fully understand the concepts as I am reading (even with the metaphors and pictures), I start off in a much better place than the rest of my class because I have begun to already try to grasp these topics. Hawking’s effective overview helps me to get a head-start when I try to understand these concepts more in depth, and that is what partly, even if just for me personally, helps to make his writing effective.

In conclusion, I really did love A Briefer History of Time. It was challenging, intriguing, and, sometimes, truly mind-blowing. I can’t say that it fully changed my views of the universe as I know it, because I am still processing some of the concepts discussed. But, it has helped me to think in a more abstract sense, and given me a leg-up in school! Who would have thought! So, Hawking, thanks for an enjoyable and intellectual read, from one nerd to another.

(Source)

TOW #15: Smug Couples Patronize Singles to Feel Better About Themselves by: Samantha Joel

With Semi-formal coming up here at Wiss, everyone is vying for a date. For many singles, it may be a very depressing time, with all the couples that have their dates already lined up. But no need for the Wiss singles to worry any longer, Samantha Joel, a student at the University of Toronto has dating figured out. In her article, Joel aims to explain why people in a monogamous relationship tend to look down on those who are single. Although the concept is interesting, Joel struggles to achieve her purpose to educate about this phenomenon due to her lacking syntax and confusing order.
       As Joel attempts to explain this interesting topic, her syntax hinders how effective her message is because it is unacademic and basic. Joel uses very basic terminology to explain the premise of the study. As she gives background, she says, "For single people, they measured how difficult single participants thought it would be to find a romantic partner. For romantically attached people, they measured how difficult they thought it would be to leave their current relationships". Although this does explain the study very simply, these two sentences are identical in structure, thus making her argument seem less academic.
     On a less microscopic level, Joel detracts from her argument because of her confusing order, which does not lead the reader clearly through to a conclusion. Joel begins her article by defining what this phenomenon is, which is clear enough. However, as Joel begins to explain about the actual study, she gets confusing. She explains different parts of the study, but fails in some places to identify what these findings mean, which is essential to reader comprehension. Finally, in her conclusion, Joel basically just re-states the point that "people look down on people with opposing relationship statuses as a way to feel better about their own," without driving home the fact that the study she was reporting on proved that. 
   Therefore, although this could have been an extremely interesting an article, the way that Joel wrote the article did not do the subject a justice.

(Source)

TOW #14: Alec Baldwin Hulu Commercial

(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHiJ7v18-EM)

The company Hulu is in an extremely competitive field. Hulu is stacked up market-wise against power companies such as Netflix and other live TV and movie streaming providers. Essentially, all of these companies provide the same service, to deliver streamed TV shows on any media device in the customer’s home. This commercial from Hulu attempts to reach the average TV lover and convince them that Hulu is a great way to watch TV.

Although overall this ad was effective, it does contain a few fallacies that detract from the overall message. The first fallacy that the advertisement has in the false authority fallacy. In the beginning, Alec Baldwin says that he’s credible for talking about TV because he is a TV star. However, Baldwin is not in fact credible because he has clear ulterior motives, such as gaining popularity for his own TV shows. Baldwin is just a star on TV, he does not necessarily watch TV so although he is credible in the acting realm; the watching, not so much. This Hulu ad may have been able to avoid that fallacy if they had used a TV fanatic to talk about why Hulu is great for streaming.

Not only that, but this Hulu ad is also based largely on the claim that many people believe TV will turn your brain to mush. The ad then uses this claim to create a satirical promotion of Hulu that shows that it is good that human’s brains become mush using streaming because the people at Hulu are aliens. Although entertaining and amusing, this claim falls to the ground if the audience does not agree that TV has the capacity to turn one’s brain to mush. Yes, this fallacy may be having to do with something extremely fictional but the difference in effectiveness of the ad if you don’t go along with the premise, even a fictional one, is substantial. So, although this advertisement is effective in that it is memorable and creative, fallacies take away from its credibility.

TOW #13: Niche is the New Mass by: Tim Wu

The average American consumes over five hours of TV per day according to Tim Wu, writer for The New Republic magazine, and author of “Niche is the New Mass”. In this article, Wu explores how the popular video streaming company Netflix is revolutionizing the television industry. He argues that because they are creating a television culture that is catered to specialized fan bases, instead of the far-reaching scope of on-air television, Netflix is changing America’s TV watching habits. To prove that Netflix is slowly but subtly changing our television culture, Wu calls upon the history of Netflix, and quotes from various people.

To help the reader understand the context of the Netflix “revolution” and the company itself, Wu explores Netflix history. He explains how they pioneered the beginning of Netflix exclusive shows: “Once while attending a software convention, he ran into a guy named Stu Pollard… ‘He gave me his movie, and he said. “I’ve got ten thousand of these if you’re interested’’” (33). Wu also explains the new series on Netflix: “Rather than putting the show through the normal pilot process, the company would commit to two 13-episode seasons up front” (34). The fact that Wu spelled out the achievements and history of the company helps him to understand how Netflix is different than network TV. Therefore, he is later able to compare Netflix to regular TV more effectively, because the reader is able to see the difference, and how specifically Netflix is different.

Not only that, but Wu uses quotes to back his later assertions that Netflix is revolutionary. He claims Netflix can offer something regular programs for the masses cannot: a niche, series that specific groups of people watch that don’t target the masses. He quotes Netflix Chief Content Officer: “Human beings like control...To make all of America do the same thing at the same time is enormously inefficient, ridiculously expensive, and most of the time, not a very satisfying experience” (34). Through this quote, and others like it, Wu is able to drive his points home, and show the reader that he is not blindly asserting random statements. The reader is able to see other people backing this argument. Even though the person who says this is partial, the quote, along with others, strengthens Wu’s argument considerably, and brings to attention the subtle change Netflix is inflicting on our society.

I agree, after that, all I want to do is go “binge-watch” on Netflix. It’s addictive and I fully believe they’re taking over America.

(Source)

TOW #12: IRB- A Breifer History of Time by: Stephen Hawking

How does our universe really work? Where did we really come from and where are we going? The answer is actually more complex than you would think, according to Stephen Hawking, world renowned theoretical physicist, and author of A Breifer History of Time. In A Breifer History of Time, Stephen Hawking offers a simple explanation to the common person about complex theories about our universe. He is able to dumb these complex theories down for us through the use diagrams and analogy, which help the reader to understand.

Although usually scholarly works offer no more than one bland diagram, Hawking takes another route in A Breifer History of Time. For example, when explaining the Relativity of Distance, it is hard to illustrate the idea with only the use of words. Therefore, Hawking includes pictures to go along with his written examples so the reader can comprehend the topic more. There is a picture with a person on a train bouncing a ping pong ball. To them, it looks like the ball moved only a couple inches from hand to table to hand, but to an observer outside, it looks like the ball moved forty feet because the ball was on the train moving as well (I could not find the actual picture online). These pictures are rhetorical devices because they are used to forward Hawking’s purpose, which is to educate the general public on important scientific theories; and through these pictures, the reader is able to comprehend them.

Not only do pictures aid in reader comprehension, but in addition to that, Hawking includes well crafted analogies. Intellegently crafted either before or after the introduction of a new theory, these analogies also help the reader to comprehend complex theories. For example, in the “Curved Space” chapter, when discussing uniform gravitational fields, Hawking compared gravity from a uniform field and gravity from acceleration to an elevator. He says that when “you are accelerating, everything that happens inside the elevator will unfold exactly as it would if the elevator was not moving at all but at rest in a uniform gravitational field” (Hawking 45). Although this complex theory, the principle of equivalence, is hard to explain with the scientific terms, the analogy to the elevator connects the principle to something the common person can conceptualize. Therefore, Hawking is able to make sense and teach his readers.

So far, Hawking has achieved his purpose with a great amount of craft, because as a reader I am able to understand theories probably way over my head when he offers visuals and analogies, for me, the common peasant (compared to Hawking’s intelligence) to understand.

(Source)

[Not Hawking's picture of the principle of equivalence, or relativity of distance, but the only picture form the book online]

TOW #11: Why pro-lifers keep fighting abortion by: Helen Alvaré and Meg McDonnell

When I came across the article “Why pro-lifers keep fighting abortion,” and I saw it was written by two obviously educated and high-profile people, Helen Alvaré and Meg McDonnell one of whom is even a professor of law at George Mason University, I expected an academic argument about the debate on abortion with considerable substance. To my disappointment, this article depicted “pro-lifers” to be simpleton and the article’s purpose does not even have a platform.

The article aims to convey reasons why the pro-life argument has survived, and at the same time give people who are pro-life confidence in their views. However, in the beginning, Alvaré and McDonnell make a fatal mistake. They begin with, “pro-choice Americans must wonder from time to time what keeps pro-lifers going,” (para. 1). Beginning an article with a highly arguable statement like that plants the seed of doubt in a reader’s mind right away. Not only that, but their reasoning for their purpose relies mainly upon the assumption that pro-choice has been beating pro-life for “40 years since Roe v. Wade,” (para. 1). This is also an assumption. If the abortion battle had been won by the pro-choice side, then “pro-lifers” would be a minority with a very bleak future. This is what Alvaré and McDonnell attempt to illustrate with this assumption, but it just is not true. The abortion debate is still very prevalent and neither side has dominated. Although there are laws that legalize abortions, many states are passing preventative pro-life laws. For example, in Virginia, it is illegal to get an abortion unless the woman views an ultrasound of the unborn baby and then decides to go through with the abortion. This is very much a victory for people who are pro-life because it prevents a significant amount of abortions.

Aside from the premise of the views in the article which fuel the purpose being refutable, the rest of the arguments in this article are spotty, and never offer any facts. The few fact that are thrown in are stated plainly without a source and highly questionable. So, even if the article was not based on a refutable idea, the lack of facts and reliable information to support their arguments would crush any shot Alvaré and McDonnell had at proving their purpose regardless.

(Source)

TOW #10: Comic by Gary Larson

(Source)

“The Far Side” is a comic series by Gary Larson that covers and comments on everything from political issues to people’s everyday grievances. This particular snippet is about the worst scenarios that can happen to an Apple computer user and to a PC computer user. In the comic, the top section is “Hell for Apple users” and there is a man standing naked (censored) in front of the devil, who says to him: “Welcome to Hell. Here’s your PC”. This is understandable considering Apple computer users would not like to have a PC because they chose Apple in the first place. In the bottom section of the comic though, is the same scenario, except it is “Hell for PC users” the kicker is that instead of the devil saying “Welcome to Hell. Here’s your Apple,” he says “Welcome to Hell. Here’s your PC”.

Larson wrote this comic to highlight the fact that even PC users hate PCs, and thus comment on how PCs are far inferior to Apple computer (implying it is because of various functional problems with PCs). Larson is able to do this through the obvious, satirical humor. The main device he uses to get across this humor is juxtaposition. The juxtaposition of the two scenarios works well because visually the pictures of the two different “hells” are right next to each other. Also, the devil is saying the same thing in both of the comics and there is the same caption with it: “Hell for PC/Apple users”. The constants in the comic just make the single difference (or lack of differences) stand out more. Thus, Larson is able to cut right to the point and make his purpose extremely obvious by the clear juxtaposition that helps to build satirical humor.