For this post, I tried to increase reader interaction. I mentioned memorized facts because I aimed to stress how certain facts stick with the mind after years of other experiences and facts memorized. My mention to Mosha Bar’s article was to establish a sense of ethos, or validity, to my point; anyone can blog about short-term memorization, (anyone can also reference an article 🙂 ) but referencing an outside source indicates that the ideas can be new but also grounded.
After referencing Bar’s article, I quoted and challenged him on an idea he had for why humans retain their memories. I felt as if the quote supported my point to a fault, and I aimed to ameliorate any discrepancies between my idea and his idea, referring back to my original idea, within this post, that an outside source can strengthen a point but also leave room for innovation.
I challenged the quote with personal memories that some Virginia natives might have:
“What about familial memories, like that time you were a child, picking apples on Carter Mountain with your grandparents?”
Unconsciously, my mind (and probably the mind of the reader) will search for memories relating to gradnparents despite the lack of an approaching event that will test their knowledge of apple-picking.
I then went on to finalize my idea and thoughtvector; only certain memories and ideas can be extended through devices while being able to sustain their emotional prowess. To wrap my nugget post up, I formulated an analogous cute.
To begin my first research post, I needed to establish my topic’s relevancy to the reader. What better way to establish importance than to suggest lack of existence without the topic, the Higgs Field?
I could have been lying to the reader, of course, about the lack of existence without my topic, but I assured the reader, that he or she would indeed cease to exist without my topic, by referencing a quote and video of a well-established professor, Alex Read of the University of Oslo.
Once I captured the reader’s attention, I tried to produce an eloquent analogy that further stressed the significance of my topic. Once I have the reader questioning and thinking critically about my quote, he or she is in the best position to read, analyze, and critique my main topic. As a result, I begin truly discussing my main topic, and yet, I need to introduce the Higgs Field such that anyone without a physics degree can understand.
By inserting rhetorical questions, I can establish a connection with the reader who might pose the same questions to me. Also, I can use the questions as good fencing to guide the reader through my article, and perhaps the question could spur challenging, new questions from the reader. Clearly, the use of rhetorical questions is advantageous to the blogger, as they offer many uses that go beyond the formulaic approach.
To solve the questions and clarify my topic, I take advantage of an easy-to-understand story told by many CERN scientists to help explain what it is they do. To further enhance understanding of the material, I inserted pictures guiding the reader in the story. In order for my purpose to be understood, I stressed certain words to create a conceptual network within the reader’s mind, each word meticulously emphasized and placed in a location within the sentence, paragraph, and post.
Throughout the story aspect of my post, I answered the questions I posed. However, if I failed to answer either the questions I posed or the question the reader has, I encouraged him or her to view external sources that might explain the concept better than I did. I also posted those sources to show the scope of my research for the post, as I extracted certain pieces of information from each source and compiled them into the post.
The Higgs Boson post required a plethora of skills, sources, and tricks in order for my readers to understand the true purpose of my post.
To begin my second concept experience, I began with an obvious statement:
Nothing can travel through space faster than light.
One of the reasons for why I chose the statement rested in the fact that I knew the answer would contain mathematical calculation, an area that I adore greatly. I had to establish a good sense of logos within my post, combined with a transparent approach, in order to successfully answer the question.
I’ll admit it, I cut corners by using dictionary.com, but there are a large amount of veritable scientific dictionaries that differ in their explanation of a concept. Using Dictionary.com was a clean-cut answer for a definition, but the definition was not truly encompassing of the complexity of my statement. I left the reader thinking that my statement was thoughtless from the beginning!
Although I approached Dictionary.com and Yourdictionary.com, I still managed to insert a reference to a credible source, establishing a sense of ethos. If the reader read between the lines, and kept up, he or she would have seen that I wove in 2 of the 3 modes of persuasion, with pathos (appealing to the reader’s emotions) left out. Establishing a strong sense of ethos and logos is imperative in conveying a perspective in the scientific community, as “logic” and “credibility” are quite difficult to refute.
The mathematical calculation of my post, or Why is nothing faster than light?, hit the nail on the logos aspect of my perspective, or argument. There are very few cases in mathematics where a solution is subjective or dependant on “emotional/personal perspective.” Therefore, establishing logos with mathematics creates a strong solution for readers to understand agree on.
The final aspect of my post discusses a more personal tone in comparison with the rest of my post. I reflected on the operations of my post, hopefully innovating myself or the reader to view technology not only as a formulaic, computational machine, but also a metamedium.