This article can be thought of as more of a criticism of early anthropologists despite their important contributions to the scientific community despite their biased conclusions.
Gould came to the conclusion that historical misogynist claims were based on incomplete data and biased interpretation of data. Such faulty scientific reasoning can be interpreted as the primary exploration of the essay as Gould attacks and discredits faulty historical assertions of the intelligence of women.
Rhetoric and Style Questions 1. The viewpoints of Paul Broca, L. Manouvrier, Gustave Le Bon, and Maria Montessori serve to explore the differing opinions of intelligence in women based on scientific evidence.
Each of the opinions expressed by those cited by Gould vary in how they view the intelligence of women but are universal in the fact that their scientific reasoning is influenced by social bias. Gould could have easily eliminated several sources by framing the different sources as viewpoints on the intelligence of women rather than independent studies and opinions on the intelligence of women without damaging his argument. The information contained in the footnote referring to Le Bon only slightly adds to the credibility of Le Bon.
Paragraphs develops the idea that scientific reasoning of the 18th and 19th centuries is faulty due to biased interpretation of data by researchers. This point is developed by using modern statistical analysis along with modern scientific discoveries to debunk the interpretation of early anthropologists. This historical behavior is used to reach his main purpose of the passage that such work to assign biological value as unconstructive.
His explanation serves to prevent Gould from seeming one sided to the faulty scientific reasoning of the debate on the source of intelligence. The practice brings about both faulty scientific reasoning and harmful practical actions that render it unconstructive. Gould primarily relies on both explicitly and implicitly stated social injustices experienced by women and minorities to appeal to pathos. That practice is ultimately serves as the main source of persuasiveness as arguments that entail the mistreatment of women and minorities bring about stronger emotions than an argument centering around the scientific practices of early anthropology.
The passage uses a more conversational tone along with literary references that are seldom used in strictly scholarly scientific publications. Despite the intended audience being non-scientists, there is a strong possibility that fellow scientists are reading the article.
So in this way women were used as the only other group that had inferior brains to work with. I think he is being patronizing he should just stick to his main topic and explain the findings.
Leave it up to the reader to feel sorry for the women, or make up their own mind in the matter. You can make the case that it was about certain groups because now in our times races and people are split up more and given inferior abilities by other groups.
He used the women as example because that was the research he had access to. The quotations serve the purpose of giving Gould information that he can expand upon and a person to agree and disagree with.
He has to show somehow that he is not just making up information but rather talking about things that have previously been studied and talked about. If Broca was right about his research then how could a women say anything of value such that Eliot did.
He finds that Broca jumped to big conclusions from small amounts of numbers. He also found that he did not take into consideration all of the facts around the research he was conducting.
I think it strengthens his argument because he has a good balance of agreement and disagreement and it kept me wanting to read and find out more about the research and what it really meant. Gould makes these claims in passages after he explains the scientific data. He does this to get away from just numbers and data and to dive deeper into what they actually mean.
He weaves the sources together by first saying the data then talking about the usefulness of the data and what it actually means. It adds to his credibility because it shows that he knows what he is talking about and that he can assess both his own claims as well as the claims from research he has studied. There were things not considered in his data. Gould then digs deeper to try to explain how Broca came to the conclusions that he did and why they were wrong. They develop this point by adding more information to each other and building on the process of figuring out the difference in brain size.
His purpose is to broaden his writing and show the reader that these stereotypes and ways of thinking go way beyond just men vs.
Without this information then it would only be men talking about the topic which is one sided. Gould brings together the two by talking about them in the final two paragraphs. He first shows that conclusions are bias by the researcher and then goes on to talk about how scientific data for this stuff is not good for society,.
I think it makes those points stick out more which strengthens the essay. It calls attention to what he is saying and shows that he personally believes it to be true. I think his audience could be normal people who do not know much about the history or facts of women vs.
This is because he uses a lot of scientific data to show he is not just throwing stuff out there and also elaborates greatly on each topic. The sentence taken out of context can definitely seem patronizing, but with context, Gould is stating that, by winning battles for women, we can win battles for all marginalized groups in the world.
The sentence is actually concerned with a serious conclusion that Gould has formulated, and therefore it cannot be patronizing. Looking back on it you both do make a fair point but I feel that it could still be left out. Might just how I read it the first time. I disagree with your response to number two. I will have to disagree with this conclusion Mr Rankin, simply because it is never states in the passage as to if Broca had access to black male brains.
I diasagree with 11 because the 1st person displays his position and the 3rd person displays simple evidence. Discussion 2. At the time, all minorities were grouped as inferior to men and anything against one group, in this case women, would undermine all minority groups. Gould is not patronizing because he wants all people to be treated with the same respect.
This comment does not undermine his scientific credibility because he looks at humans as human beings instead of information written on paper. If anything, his comment makes him interpret the data even more, thus increasing his credibility. His argument was more about the discrimination of minority groups rather than women. In paragraph 13, Gould includes blacks and poor people with all his points defending women to show that they are all looked at as minority groups. Rhetoric 1. Gould finds that Brain weight decreases with age Para.
Paul Broca and Gustave Le Bon showed the nature of science and how women have a lower intelligence than men. If any of these claims is taken out, the argument would not be as credible. He did not look at the percent error of his data and Gould pointed this out in known facts of the human body. This point added more information discrediting the theory that human skull determine intelligence. This statement is shown in his constant relation between women, blacks and the poor. He questions both conclusions of Broca and Montessori.
The questioning is effective because no valid claims are drawn from just one source due to the varied test results. Either sex can twist the results to fit their claim that one gender is more intelligent than the other. He wants humans to realize that they can do whatever they want to do no matter what race or sex they are.
We should not be defined based on our brain size given. He attempts to make the reader feel sympathy for the women that the conclusions were against. This shift strengthens the essay. When Gould used pronouns that included himself in the reference, the audience focuses its attention on that idea. Third person is vague and the main point is missed. Related to question 12, I would disagree with the assertion that the passage in intended for non-scientists, the theme he develops throughout the passage is that making biased conclusions based on objective data can be harmful to society.
And since the ones doing the collecting and reasoning based on evidence are scientists themselves, I believe Gould is aiming this argument at his contemporaries, as a sort of warning as to the dangers of being biased. He is against the practice of making assumptions about abilities of people in certain groups, especially when those conclusion are based on weak data.
He makes reference multiple times to blacks and the poor along with women in regards to being inferior to men. Gould means that, while women were the only ones who faced denigration on the basis of scientific data, other disenfranchised groups also faced denigration, but there was no data with which to disparage those groups.
Gould wants to show his audience that, by winning societal battles for women, we are ultimately winning battles for all the unappreciated races, classes, and genders. Therefore, Gould is not being patronizing, but rather sincere in his belief that helping women will ultimately help the world. Furthermore, this personal viewpoint strengthens his argument and does not undermine his scientific credibility because it is very scientific in its nature: if we help women win societal battles, then we can slowly chip away at other common prejudices, and we can make the world a better place for all of us.
Though Gould spends most of his essay speaking about the misconceptions of the female intellect, he is actually trying to address the prejudices faced by all marginalized groups.
Any evidence found against women, Gould argues, could and most likely would be used against other marginalized groups if society had a particular bias against them.
In quoting Middlemarch, Gould not only substantiates his own argument from a renowned work of literature, but he also provides an example of a woman—George Eliot herself—who proved that all the biological data collected against her could not prevent her from being more successful or talented than the majority of men.
Eliot had already created something more incredible than Broca ever could. Instead of conceding that women were just as talented as men, Broca ignored the plain facts and found inconclusive evidence to back up his false claims. Gould provided Broca and Le Bon as two examples of people who base their conclusions on pre-determined opinions and bias. Manouvrier and Montessori, on the other hand, are hailed as figures who were not convinced that average larger brains of men made women inferior to them.
Gould could have eliminated one or two of the viewpoints without substantially damaging his argument, though it is important that he has both one viewpoint to agree with and one to refute, so as to keep his argument strong. The footnote does make it seem as if Gould was not as informed as he could have been when he wrote the essay. However, by showing was willing to correct his error though it would probably hurt his credibility , Gould demonstrated his credibility as an author who desires to provide his audience with the most truthful evidence he can provide.
In paragraph 13, Gould attempts to show the disastrous consequences that groundless conclusions can have on everyone, not just the groups directly involved.
By doing so, Gould has established himself as someone who is set in his opinion, but is not necessarily willing to support something someone else claims, simply because they share his same viewpoint. He makes sure that he is not like Broca, someone whose bias causes his judgement to become skewed. While Gould does not provide specific examples of ways in which women and other marginalized groups have been treated, the entire essay itself serves as an appeal to pathos, and more specifically, empathy.
Throughout the entire passage, Gould implies that women have been looked down upon as less intelligent and less talented than men, on the basis of no scientific discoveries. Furthermore, Gould notes that women and other groups have been the subject of unfair conclusions simply because biased white men wanted to prove that they were the superior gender, race, and class. This type of description makes the reader empathize with women and all of their struggles.
Without the shifts, it would be far more difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. In his essay, Gould is trying to persuade these people to not look down on other races, classes, or genders, since there is little, if any, scientific evidence to prove that their intellect is superior to that of other groups.
Gould is also definitely addressing scientists, as he is trying to encourage them to not be like Broca, but rather to remain unbiased in their conclusions, since biased conclusions lead to injustice among many different societal groups.
He seems to have a more critical tone for the scientists despite their success. Gould was saying that women were the only group other than men used that had better brains to work on. Since the research was done on one race of males and females the research was limited. I think Gould is being patronizing because if he wishes for us to feel sorry for women, he should leave it up to us to determine our feelings about that topic.
I think that his comment does undermine his scientific credibility because the majority of people believe that as well, which I believe makes him seem less credible. Gould seems to be actually addressing problems with assumptions about certain groups, he is just using women as an example because the research only supported that claim. Gould questions the methods Broca used to gather information, rather than the findings themselves.
Broca made group conclusion from only a small sample of that group. The footnote adds to his credibility because it shows that Gould knows he makes mistakes but can see them and make corrections to them. Gould tries to explain what conclusion Broca had come to and shows how they are incorrect. Without this the argument would be one sided and people would claim it was a male only argument.
The usage of first person on occasion in contrast to the usage of third person makes those sentences which are in first person more important and add to the strengthen of the essay. Mostly because he uses lots of data that an average person might not understand, but also the usage of refutations of established scientists gives his argument credibility to other scientists.
Your conclusion for the second portion of the prompt is frankly unsubstantiated and incomplete. So we potentionally begin to see a hierarchy of intelligence occurring in the eyes of Broca and his disciples. That hierarchy being white men, black men, and finally women. This one study found in the essay does not conclusively show that all white people are intellectually superior to blacks, but does open up the discussion for further research.
For question 2, I agree that the research was limited. However, I think you need to elaborate because as a result of limited research, women were used as a model for all disenfranchised groups. Gould used all of these viewpoints to show different views and ideas people had at the time of the 19th century and early 20th. I think all of them are needed to make his essay as strong as it is. Paragraph 12 uses that shows how it was interpreted incorrectly.
It broadens the idea of the essay. It strengthens what he believes in. He includes another group of people who are disadvantaged in this situation and may be appealing to them for this argument. He also uses examples from Broca and Le Bon to try and create sympathy for the women who are discriminated against.
It is most likely for informing normal people on the inequality between men and women over the past century and a half. I think Kyle does fail to realize that Gould might also be discussing the responbility of women to broaden the fight for equality outside of their own group and into such groups as the Civil Rights Movement.
On your answer to 4 I agree with the first half but the reason women were the example used in this essay is because of the knowledge and data on their specific brains, not because the assumptions about them were wrong. Also, men have to treat women with equality as well. In fact, although women were discriminated in the s, theynwere discriminated as much. He focuses on the discrimination of other minority groups. It shows the readers that she can see what the discriminated groups have to go through, but in a sarcastic manner.
This would stregthen his argument because although she may have been right, he disproves her statement with more than just factual information. He said that the inaccuracy of the information given outweighs anything since there is validity.
He also uses them all to show the pro and the cons. He brings up the point that when you get older, diseases come upon more likely, decreasing the size of a brain. Also, Gould says that brain size is determined based off of weight and height. Hensays that other minorities were also being discriminated because of this.
He explains this so elaborately to show the relationship that they have within each other and that they have tomfight together for equality. His criticism shows that either gender would fix results to have the larger brain size and none of it would actually be valid. He goes in-depth with a lot of the topics that he talks about so that his readers or audience could understand.
He is right in writing that Gould is looking for universal equality not just the equality of women. It is a multifaceted front on which the battle for equality rages and the womanly front is just one which tends to be the point of Gould in this quote. I disagree with 12 because normal people is not specific enough. Elaborate more on what they believe and what social background they belong to.
I agree with your answer for number 4. He is talking about all minority groups who are disenfranchised. He is not talking about a certain or specific group. Gould means that while women had to not only fight for their own cause, they also fought for the causes of such groups as the African Americans and their fight for voting rights during the Civil Rights Movement. Therefore, the evidence can also be transferred over gender, sex, race, or any other quality which differentiates and discriminates.
Gould does this to sarcastically introduce his argument to the readers. Gould is saying that numbers by themselves specify nothing. He strengthens his argument by disproving Broca.
Gould uses the two groups as opposite viewpoints to each other. He also uses a one writer from each group to agree with and one to disagree with so as to strengthen his argument. Gould only adds to his credibility by disproving a scientist by showing how women continue to go through adversity and turmoil even in the modern world.
Gould develops his argument by starting small then working up to his final argument that Broca might have been entirely wrong. Gould does this because he is showing how discrimination is also being expanded to other groups outside of women, and he is also telling the reader that Broca would be wrong in his data about these groups. This questioning is an effective strategy because Gould limits the idea of bias in the mind of the reader as Gould shows how test results can be skewed by both sides of an argument.
Gould appeals to Pathos by commenting on the conclusions of scientists who are ignoring the actual reality which leads to women being hurt and the reader are then meant to feel this consequential pain. Gould is not only writing for the common misogynist, but more specifically, those in the scientific world. His research is meant to show these biased scientists that research needs to purely objective and any subjectivity completely makes the argument of any such scientists irrelevant.
I think you need to elaborate on 3, Gould questions the methods Broca used to gather information, rather than the findings themselves. Your interpretation of the specific quote focuses more on the passage as a whole not the individual quote.
On your answer to question 2, I believe that the women were grouped together with people of different races because of the lack of information of their brains. He refers to Eliot because it shows how difficult a women life can truly be but also shows the wit of women. He questions the scientific method with the way Broca collected his data and his choices such as using 7 male skulls and 6 female skulls. He weaves the sources together to show how the male brain is larger but this does not lead to males being smarter.
Brocaias and Le Bon already have bias to male brains being lager while Anouvrier and Montessori are do not believe that women are inferior to men. These differing points are used to by him to agree with his viewpoint and also to give him something to refute and show his counterarguments.
This is not written for the people who he uses as sources as they have bias already and it is not written in a scientific proving tone, he does use science but not for the entirety of his argument or for the tone. In question 8, yes he proved he was non-biased, however, it was to show that no matter what gender, people will change the data to fit the their side.
It further demonstrated that the information given was not viable. Gould means that women were the only group that was denigrated by this study, but that there were other groups not tested that were considered of lesser intelligence, such as African Americans. In this way, women were surrogates, or stand-ins, for these other groups.
This does bring about a degree of bias, and that would contribute to the undermining of his credibility. Gould most certainly was not focusing specifically on women. To establish your ethos, go beyond your official credentials: share concrete achievements, and encourages a sense of cohesion with the audience.
Great storytellers are usually skilled masters of this mode of persuasion. In fact, a lack of subtlety may hurt your argument. Instead, you can evoke pathos through an emotional tone, an uplifting story, and by using meaningful language, such as metaphors.
It is more likely people will care about what you have to say if you seem to care. Using the concepts of duty and service taps into the sense of responsibility of the audience.
As you can see, focusing on the vocabulary you use—adding an implied level of meaning—can have a profound effect on the resulting narrative. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest—quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality.
You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.
In order to work, pathos needs to be used sparingly, where it has the strongest impact, and in a way that feels natural. If forced, pathos can have the opposite effect, making people distance themselves to avoid the awkwardness of your emotional outpouring. Finally, you obviously need for your message to make sense—or at least to seem logical.
Unfortunately, it is possible to use the three modes of persuasion to convince an audience of something wrong. Logos is the way you present your arguments in a logical order, which must feel so straightforward and rational that no other alternative can be conceived by your audience.
Ideally, these steps should follow each other so naturally that your audience arrives at the logical conclusion just before you announce it yourself, giving them the feeling of figuring it all out themselves—which is intellectually gratifying. While facts are important, a lot of the power you will get from logos lies in how you connect these facts. One creates social connection, the other social distance. Deference is a way for the author to signal respect for others, and personal humility.
The writer can demonstrate deference by using phrases such as in my opinion , or through the use of adjectives e. For example:. The thoughtful research conducted by Jane Doe et al.
Echoing the calls of others [ 1 ], we contend that this work should be extended to also consider the role of fellow learners as potential contributors to resident experiences of burnout. In this sentence, the author does not present Jane Doe and colleagues as weak researchers, nor as developing findings that should be rejected. Instead, it shows deference to these researchers by acknowledging the quality of their research and a willingness to build on the foundation provided by their findings.
Readers pick up on the respect authors pay to other researchers. Being rude or unkind in our writing rarely achieves anything except reflecting poorly on the writer. They help the writer make honey, not gravel. Logos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the argument being presented by the author.
It is an appeal to rationality, referring to the clarity and logical integrity of the argument. Do the findings logically connect to support the conclusion being drawn? Logical fallacies will undercut the persuasive power of a manuscript. However, logos is not merely contained in the logic of the argument itself. Signposting is often accomplished via words e. Consider the following sentence from one of my own manuscripts. This is the last sentence in the Introduction [ 3 ]:.
This study addresses these gaps by investigating the following questions:. The reader can now expect that the manuscript will address each of these questions, in this order. I could also use large-scale signposting, such as sub-headings in the Results, to organize the reading of data related to each of these questions.
In the Discussion, I can use small-scale signpost terms and phrases i. I must offer one word of caution here: be sure to use your signposts precisely. If not, your writing will not be logically developed and you will weaken the logos at work in the manuscript. For instance, however signposts a contrasting or contradicting idea:. I enjoy working with residents; however , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports. If the writer uses the wrong signpost, the meaning of the sentence falls apart, and so does the logos:.
I enjoy working with residents; alternatively , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports. Alternatively indicates a different option or possibility. This sentence does not present two different alternatives; it presents two contrasting ideas.
Using alternatively confuses the meaning of the sentence, and thus impairs logos. With clear and precise signposting, the reader will easily follow your argument across the manuscript. This supports the logos you develop as you guide the reader to your conclusions. Pathos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the reader.
Pathos refers to the emotions that are stirred in the reader while reading the manuscript. The author should seek to trigger specific emotional reactions in their writing.
And, yes, there is room for emotions in scientific research articles. Another example is found in Bonfire red titles. To use an analogy from card games e. God-terms like freedom, justice, and duty call on shared human values, trumping contradictory feelings. By alluding to God-terms in our research, we increase the emotional appeal of our writing. Let us reconsider the example from above:. While burnout continues to plague our residents, medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem.
Here, the author reminds the reader that residents will be in service as physicians for their lifetime, and that we have a duty i. It is important not to overplay pathos in a scientific research paper—i.
Consider this variation on the previous example:. While burnout continues to ruin the lives of our residents, medical educators have neglected to identify the root causes of this problem.
0コメント