The point of this page is to write about science (in fact my teacher mandated it, so I really have no choice). And what better way to learn about science than to examine how other people write about science? That seems like a good idea. But I have an even better idea. What I am going to do here for the next few-hundred word is examine blog posts that are examining how others are writing about science. Inception.
The first post I will be writing about is called “Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience: How to Tell the Difference”. As expected, the piece explains how to examine a scientific study or finding and come to a conclusion on whether it is to be trusted. In a blog about scientific studies, such information would be valuable to have, so I will be exploring how the writer presents such an important topic.
The second post is called “The Illusory Truth Effect”, and it is more of a psychological blog on why humans believe so-called “Fake News” and propaganda. I chose this for two reasons: first of all, it is similar to the other post, so it will be easier to discuss them both at once, but also because if I am to write about information that I will find on the internet, I am sure to come across some sort of fake news eventually, so why not learn about it? Anyway, enjoy my rhetorical analysis on the two blog posts.
Intended Readers
The first item on the agenda is to try to determine who these posts are written for, as it is always important to find an intended audience for any piece of writing. The intended readers for “Good Science, Bad Science” becomes clear in the first sentence, which reads, “Unless you’ve studied it, most of us are never taught how to evaluate science or how to parse the good from the bad”. The author is writing this piece in order to inform people who are not well versed in a particular science how to find reliable information. This includes non-scientists or scientists who are reading something outside their field, as they both read information about science that they do not fully understand yet need to know what to believe.
“The Illusory Truth Effect” has less of a concrete audience. The best fit would seem to be readers who are simply interested in learning more about the human brain and why the phenomenon of misinformation is successful. Unlike the other blog post, there isn’t really anything concrete to gain from reading the article, it is just cool information that explains why fake news and propaganda work in society.
Types of Evidence
Both blogs have one main source of evidence: scientific studies, however they use them in different ways. “Good Science, Bad Science” demonstrates bad science by describing studies such as the “Power Posing” study to demonstrate flawed studies and how to recognize them. The other post uses the results of past studies to demonstrate why misinformation can spread simply through repetition. Each of the studies are explained and the results are given, and they all relate to different aspects of the phenomenon and serve to inform the reader about the topic of the post.
Ethos, Pathos, Logos
By using examples of scientific studies as described above, both blogs use mainly logos in order to establish credibility. “Good Science, Bad Science” describes the studies, then uses logic to describe why the study was flawed. “The Illusory Truth Effect” uses the logos developed in each of the discussed studies in order to inform the reader about the effect. However, this post has an element of pathos as well. The post states that “When a “fact” tastes good and is repeated enough, we tend to believe it”, so it is therefore using logos to explain a phenomenon that is primarily due to pathos.
In my own blog, I would like to use a mix of ethos, pathos, and logos. I would like to describe studies in a manner similar to the blogs I examined earlier, but I would also like to keep my posts more lighthearted by introducing an element of humor or other emotions wherever possible. In my rhetorical analysis, I discovered how to properly present information found in studies, but I also learned that I would like to keep my blog more lighthearted by introducing pathos.
Thaiss, Christopher J. Writing Science in the Twenty-First Century. Broadview Press, 2019.
Site Title 