Carson appeals to many of the rhetoric tools that Heinrich discusses such as pathos and logos, however in the end she establishes her credibility by using ethos. She begins her chapter with a quote that touches on the pathos aspect of her argument by showing the emotional side to the effects of mankind's work. As you continue to read you see how Carson has created a detailed analysis of how mankind has a had a strong effect on mother nature, thus she is using logos to give logical reasoning as to why we need to feel the emotion we do. In the end I believe Carson has established her credibility because she uses scientific sources to justify her logical argument, and despite her use of intellectual resources, she has also managed to appeal to her audiences emotional side long enough to make her audience want to listen to her argument.

Heinrichs and Carson

Carson uses many different scientific terms, alludes to evolution, and makes references to history and famous scientists to establish her credibility. She uses emotional appeal in the beginning as she paints a picture of the hypothetical town and the eventual destruction caused by careless humans, “a strange blight crept over the area and everything began to change. Some evil spell had settled on the community: mysterious maladies swept the flocks of chickens; the cattle and sheep sickened and died. Everywhere was a shadow of death.” The intro is also a place where she uses sight to involve her audience through imagery and she also uses persuadable moment because, as exemplified by the quote, she uses emotionally charged words to engage and change the mood of her audience. She uses commonplaces in order to set the emotional tone in the beginning as well. Her hypothetical town is a commonplace in the sense that it’s a fairy-tale like town, common and appreciated by the readers. Another commonplace would be that people would agree that pesticides and pollution aren’t good for the environment. Both commonplaces are also forms of ‘identity strategies’ as she using common values to persuade the readers to support her position. She uses ‘repeated codewords’ throughout the essay as well, making allusions to time, evolution, and radiation- all in relation to destruction. In terms of context I think she made connections between WWII, the atomic bomb, and the feat of space travel to the possibility of huge destruction by humans as science continued to develop. 

Heirichs 79-133

It was really interesting to read about different tactics that I personally use or have seen in real-life situations because I had never really given much thought to the history behind arguments. In terms of pathos I have seen people use “the belittlement charge” in various situations. Particularly when one of my friends is angry with someone, they may try to convince a friend that the other person isn’t fit to be their friend by giving an example of how they may have, in the past, done something to show superiority over them. With patriotism bush was able to garner support and ‘rouse the audience to action’ by evoking emotion through strong rhetoric. Regardless of his pathetic excuse for ‘speeches’ he was especially successful at using emotionally charged words to draw support for his tactics. I have tried using the ‘passive voice’ in multiple occasions when I had done something wrong (especially with my parents) but could never carry it out all the way because I knew I was lying, and my mom knows me too well. The most recent example was when I let a friend drive my truck and she wrecked it. At first I told my parents that it was just a common thing, things fall, break, crash…and that my friend and I had no direct fault. Didn’t so much work. In using the audience’s point of view to address a topic “The advantageous” argument tool is the one that first comes to mind. Politicians use this all the time. They tell the audience (voters) that they will do everything they can to benefit the audience. They base their arguments on what’s good for the audience, though they are usually lying scumbags, but it works. In terms of ‘commonplaces’ Obama is the first example that comes to mind. He effectively persuaded key groups during the election by identifying what they wanted to hear then making references to his own life and struggles. In my last rhetoric class we talked about ‘ethymemes,’ and similar to Heinrich’s example of the car ad, we created syllogism that was: “all fetus are human beings, illegal ending of a human life is murder, abortion is murder.” The ethymeme could then be, “All fetus are human beings, abortion is murder.” I see deductive logic used everyday. As Heinrichs mentioned, it starts with a premise (a fact or commonplace). The most common example I can think of is stereotyping. For example, the south is viewed as a conservative area, so the obvious generalization here would be that anyone from the south is Republican.

Nisbet article

Nisbet and Mooney offer some advice when trying to convince the general public of the scientific stand on such controversial topics as stem cell research. They suggest that just using Logos is not enough to convince the public, “as research shows that people are rarely well enough informed or motivated to weigh competing ideas and arguments.” Instead they propose a technique they describe as “framing” where one focuses on “central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions.” This is supposed to simplify the issue for the audience, enabling a previously indifferent person to find value in the controversy. I feel that the audience for this article must be an educated one (maybe only scientists and those involved in the funding of certain studies), as the description of their tactics as “Orwellian” implies manipulation of the facts in order to control the public.

Personally, I find the last line disturbing. I agree that the general public may be ignorant of the technical aspects of scientific research, but to go so far as to suggest that scientists should go against their ethical code seems almost a step in the wrong direction. A scientist’s role has been to elucidate the public on the hidden secrets of the universe, not to skew the public’s perception of the natural world. If anything, there are public relations specialists qualified enough to manage the campaign of this distorted message, and scientists should maintain a separation from the propaganda and their work in order to maintain academic integrity.

Heinrich/Carson Readings

Carson's explosive imagery at the introduction of the text is an example of pathos - her words create vivid images in the mind, and as Heinrich said, sight is mostly pathos. She is trying to gain an emotional lead on her audience, making them imagine a time when things are as beautiful as she makes them. Carson then employs logos at the end of her argument, using Heinrich's tactic of making it look like your view is not opposite of theirs, as well as using "reverse words." Carson says that "it is not my intention that chemical insecticides must never be used." (p.22) Heinrich uses the example of a husband who says, "I'm not saying that dress makes you look fat - it just doesn't make you look skinny." Carson attempts to convince the reader that she is not opposed to the idea of insecticides being used. She knows her readers would not give her any credibility if she was because insecticides do a lot of good. She then goes on to say that "we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals ... into the hands of person largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm," presenting no emotions, but hard facts. This tactic is known to make audiences question their actions without having a speaker actually tell them what they are doing is wrong. This approach is similarly taken in the well-known "truth" ads that simply present the facts and consequences of smoking without telling anyone that it's wrong to smoke.

Heinrichs and Carson Readings

I feel the start of the first chapter shows a deliberate use of pathos, as the audience at the time was led to believe that this situation could happen to anyone at anytime. This represented the heart of America; striking at America meant an attack on our pride. Logos is used throughout the argument, using knowledge of Strontium 90 and other types of pollution to persuade the reader that the author knows the subject matter well enough to formulate a reasonable opinion. A commonplace employed was the view that the public had about nuclear weapons. The audience at the time would have feared a nuclear attack from our enemies at the time; annihilation by these non-conventional weapons was a shared fear here in the United States. Something that I might point out was the Dust Bowl from the 30s. The desire to expand farms and produce more and more is part of what led to this national disaster. Surely the audience at the time would have been knowledgeable of this from school or their parents. This would make the statement on overproduction (which in the 30s led to depletion of suitable topsoil) reasonable and relevant to the audience at the time.

Heinrichs and Carson Readings

I guess I can see her using rhetorical strategies such as ethos, pathos and logos throughout the article, especially at the end of article when she talks about the use of chemical insecticides. She started her arguments by asking questions like “who would want to live in a world which is just not quite fatal?” and provided evidences by quoting other people’s studies; here she used the Connecticut entomologist Neely Turner’s work. Then, she used pathos to get an emotional response out of her audience by saying how “future generations” are not going to forgive our lack of prudent concern for the integrity of the nature world. Also, she employed some pathos in the first chapter by telling a story of “a town where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings,” but then “everything in town started to change because of mysterious maladies and death.” He made up this story of a town that does not actually exist in order to bring up people’s emotion and concerns about the reality issue that this might be easily happening to our current society.