Since both Biology and Chemistry have been introduced in this blog, I'd like to draw a connection between the two. During the first few days of class, Mrs. Ericson found it difficult for us to grasp the idea of bond strengths. We, as a class, were almost determined that ionic bonds were stronger than covalent bonds. Mrs. Ericson was worried by this seemingly general assumption by the class and consulted Mr. Lo on the matter.
In Chemistry, we had learned that an ionic bond's energy was greater than that of a covalent one. However, this is only applicable to its crystalline, solid form. In biology, where most reactions occur in aqueous solutions, ionic bonds are weaker due to their separation into ions upon being dissolved.
Mrs. Ericson concluded that all learning is based on semantics; the environment in which we are located has a great effect upon our learning and intake of knowledge. She then made sure to warn us that in our future courses, we would be foolish to flatly dispose of a principle due to past lessons without a thorough explanation of the circumstances within which the bond exists, for example.
Just an interesting anecdote.
(Sam Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
In continuation of this discussion regarding our science classes, I will add a few thoughts that come to mind.
I, too, was present when Mrs. Ericson's acknowledged that much of how we learn is based on semantics. I remember that she informed the class a few days ago that we should define our terms when we write our essays, because different readers may interpret certain words in different ways.
I also recall Mrs. Ericson's frustration when she could not get the class to stop focusing on semantics, because this was preventing us from understanding the larger biological concepts.
This has led me to believe that Mrs. Ericson's class serves as an example of an important principle we have begun to realize over the past few weeks: while definitions often constitute important foundations (as Emily noted in her last post), we must not limit ourselves solely to arguing over the validity of such definitions. Otherwise, we may find ourselves chasing one another in circles rather than achieving potential progress through our Toulmin-modeled arguments.
As many of us have reminded ourselves, "widespread intraspecific cooperation through the use of language is the fundamental mechanism of human survival"(Hayakawa 12).
Thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
I agree with Janet completely. No tasks could be accomplished if we argue about each and every word that we use. If it is possible to agree on definitions for the things we are arguing about the arguments can be simplified and will probably progress much faster. There are some cases however, in which definitional agreement would be impossible since it stands at the base of many argument (ie. abortion -> what is life?) so although it may be easier, it is unlikely we can avoid bickering about terms. We must argue about definitions, because if they are not established and agreed on there is no point in argument, as common ground will never be reached.
A quick question.
Would defining terms, while helpful for cooperation and the advancement of argumentation, limit the scope of the issue at hand? For example, when McCain stated that the fundamentals of the economy were sound, we defined fundamental as the workers (or something along those lines). In doing so, he ignored the other (unmentioned) fundamentals--land, labor, capital, human capital, firms, households etc.
When we define, do we lose the ability to consider the various contexts?
To your mentioning of McCain’s fundamentals of our economy, I don’t think we, the people, understood the term ‘fundamentals’ = workers. McCain redefined the term so he can avoid all the arguments which will criticize his lack of understanding of what was going to happen in the economy(the whole stock crash thingy).
By defining terms, as in debate, we do limit the scope of issue. However, I think it’s vital to do so because if everyone was to start an argument based on his/her own definition of the words, the range of arguments would be so broad that it would take forever to come to a reasonable ending of the conflicts.
When we define, we do not lose the ability to consider the various contexts, however, we enable ourselves to find appropriate contexts in which we can substantiate our claims from the wide, endless pool of definitions.
(Jennifer Park)
I think there is a fine line between being too caught up in the importance of definitions and ignoring definitions altogether. We must remember that definitions are fundamental in any argument, but, in many cases, even though arguments may boil down to how we define things, the definitions themselves are not what we're arguing about. We must be able to put definitions together to make an argument (if that makes any sense) and broaden our scope and reach common ground.
(Emily Thompson)
I agree with what Emily said to an extent, but I think it depends on the type of argument you are having that affects the importance of definitions. In my own experience, a number of policy debates I have been involved in have been almost exclusively about definitions and the different parties pushing their own version. The argument was won or lost depending on who argued the case for their definition better. The scope of the argument really depends on the topic/type of argument the parties are prepared to argue.
(Steve Szumski)
i forgot to sign my name the second comment was mine (Molly Dunbar)
I think that we can all agree that the informative definition of a word is important, yet is it not the affective connotation that stirs emotion within us? Is it not this emotion that is used to rekindle the embers of the fire which we call debate? In fact, as Hayakawa states, "There are many words that exist more for their affective connotation rather than for their informative value" (45).
One person may be described by many onlookers as an imbecile, a gentleman, a sexist, a perfectionist, or a slob. All of these give a different affective connotation, yet in essence, they are all desribing the SAME person. Thus, I find affective connotations to be more useful in heated debates when all pressures are at their peak.
If there is any dispute pertaining to the straight informative definition, it may be easily clarified. Yet affective connotations are not so simply swayed..sometimes opinion proves more dogmatic than straightforward understanding (in terms of direct definitions out of a dictionary, per se).
(Sam Maliha)
Sam brings up an important point: much of the language we use to argue is comprised of AFFECTIVE connotations.
If so, then I have a really brief question: when we try to agree upon definitions of certain words, are we trying to agree solely upon the INFORMATIVE connotations of those words rather than their affective connotations? Or are we trying to agree upon both?
(Janet Lee)
Janet, I believe that policy debate consists of the defining of informative terms because it sets one half of the matter straight. Due to the confusion that may take place during the debate, setting down a concrete set of informative defintions may save the risk of exposing the debaters to unnecessary quarrels. Enough disagreement will be found concerning affective connotations, so why not simplify the lives of many and use universal agreement where possible?
We are neither trying to agree nor disagree on both: the goal is to lead the opposing side into a trap, forcing them to abide by YOUR regulations/beliefs/ideas/etc...
I hope I succeeded in answering your question :).
(Sam Maliha)
Janet, as Sam mentioned, we define the informative definition of the word before we start a debate.
It is quite difficult to 'define' the affective connotation of a word for the affective connotation is the aura of personal feelings it arouses. Therefore, everyone can understand a word's affective connotation differently. In a debate, such biases should be avoided to conclude it with an effective, reasonable resolution.
(Jennifer Park)
I find Grace's question (from a few posts up) very intriguing: "When we define, do we lose the ability to consider the various contexts?"
Even though I can't say I have an adequate answer to this question, I think it lies in how generally/specifically we choose to define our terms. For example, McCain's definition of the "fundamentals" of the economy being the workers is very specific, and leaves out some other things that are fundamental to the economy which would probably appear if he defined "fudamental" more broadly. The broader a definition becomes, the more contexts it will most likely fit. (I hope that makes sense...)
(Emily T.)
There will always be a somewhat infinte number of contexts into which a word or phrase may be placed. As Mr. Lazarow explained today, his former collegiate colleague succeeded in using "celibacy" in practically every one of his sentences. The mind is susceptible to any thought. Thus, even if the defining of terms limited the number of contextual environments possible for a word to fit into, language is broad and dynamic enough to still encompass the word in other arenas of speech and writing. I feel that a big component is dependent upon the imagination of the speaker..
(Sam Maliha)
"I feel that a big component is dependent upon the imagination of the speaker.."
I have to add that the imagination of the audience would also be a big component, would it not? When listening to a speech, isn't it up to the audience to be able to come up with the meaning of all the words that are being spoken? Even if they do not know the word, isn't it up to them to be imaginative enough with the context the word is surrounded by in order to obtain it's meaning?
It seems that in the end, it really is all up to cooperation.
You're right; I failed to mention the audience.
Don't you all find it rather ironic that the base of argumentation lies within cooperation? Rather odd.. How do you think such a contradiction is able to function so effectively?
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment