Emotions Effect on Scientific Progress

Emotion is one of the most powerful human feelings. It can blind someone to the facts because they develop such a passion for a topic. They can go blind to others' opinions and lose all reasoning. Because of this I believe that emotion should be kept to a minimum in civil discourse. Emotion is necessary, but it can't be to the point where it overwhelms the individual. People need to keep an open and clear mind so that civil discourse can be as beneficial for society as possible. In the Rhetorical Traditions, Emotions, and Modern Discourse article it says that the classical thinkers thought "Nonetheless, all were apprehensive about possible systematic exploitation of audience emotions by opportunistic or self‐serving speakers". The creators of rhetoric identified that pathos needs to be included as a method of persuasion but it can be easily abused and used to exploit people. Pathos can be used to convince people to go against logic just because of how strong emotions can be.

Pathos influence on science can be seen in the article from my third blog post. It is about the ethical and moral issues with doing genetic engineering on human embryos. People sympathize with the unborn embryos and think of what they can become. They feel emotional attachment because they are the first stage of human life. The scientists are trying to repair defective genomes. Repairs would allow the embryos to survive and eventually grow and be born. However peoples' love of religion and the embryos causes them to question the methods and slows down the process of science without looking at the possible benefits that could come.

http://www.scienceboard.net/content/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Should-we-ever-Germline-Genome-720x720.png

Should We Genetically Modify Human Embryos?

http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378


The article is about an experiment that some Chinese scientists did where they attempted to genetically modify and fix embryos with lethal defects in their genetic code. The article then raises the question whether this type of experiments are ethically acceptable to be done on human embryos.

Frats Will be Frats?

        The comment section of articles is a modern debate arena. People from all over the world are given the opportunity to debate their ideas over an article with anyone. It also offers the ability to be anonymous which provides some with a peace of mind which allows them to say what ever they believe.
         An article that I recently read in The Atlantic is "Crass Frat Boys at Old Dominion" (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/crass-frat-boys-at-old-dominion/402226/#disqus_thread). The article deals with the recent fraternity scandal at Old Dominion University where a fraternity hung vulgar banners saying phrases such as "Freshman Daughter Drop Off". These banners were vulgar and made people feel uncomfortable, but I understand that it was a joke. I don't believe they were intending to cause any harm. The fraternity was just joking around and trying to have some fun. I recently rushed and experienced being in fraternity houses and saw their relationships with each other. These relationships are very relaxed. They constantly joke and prank each other. However I don't think that they are appropriate to have hung. Especially with the bad reputation fraternities have had with rape culture. Fraternities have to be careful because there are people out there who only want to punish and get rid of fraternities for any little mistake they make.
         While looking at the comments I noticed that the main rhetorical device used is logos. The first comment brought up Title IX laws and the first amendment. This allowed me to trust the comment more because they were referencing the laws. For this comment they were defending the fraternity. However there is a mixture of defending comments and attacking comments. One comment that lost all credibility for the writer said " Frat boys dish out fire but can't take it. Cool". This comment was more of a statement and didn't really mean anything to me.
         After reading all of the comments my opinion on the matter hadn't changed. Many of the comments deal with freedom of speech which doesn't affect my beliefs. Others go on tangents about LGBT rights which I don't believe has many connections to the article. Often the people writing the comments feel very strongly on the issues and allow their emotions to influence what they write. This can cause them to lose sight and stray from the truth and make wild assumptions so because of that I don't put too much value on the comments but they can be pretty fun to read.

   

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/876/493/ODU82415.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Rhetoric Comparison

        The three situations that we discussed in class were trying to persuade someone to go on a date with you, trying to get an employer to hire you, and trying to convince someone to become your roommate.
        In all three we were trying to convince someone to do something, however the words used for each were different. The way we distinguished between them was based on what type of words were used. For trying to get a job the words tended to be more formal, professional, and conveyed a strong work ethic or dependability. Convincing a roommate and trying to get a date were more similar but the difference was convincing a date tended to have more romantic words while the words for getting a roommate tended to convey cleanliness.
        A recent situation where I used rhetoric was when I was rushing.  The audience of my situation was the fraternity members. The purpose was to try and get them to offer me a bid. The context is that I had to flirt with dudes and try to persuade them to let me into their fraternity. I was semi-effective in I received a bid, however it was not to a house that I liked.