Evaluation of Rhetorical Sources

"Falsified Research?" 09/14/2011 via Wikimedia. Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg believed that “nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all.”  Yet few people seem to agree with him.  Most tend to have many opinions, some of which are very passionate, and some of which end up online.  And that is what we are taking a look at today: opinionated public speeches (in the field of engineering, of course).

Why Climate Engineering Won't Work

This article was written by Anders Levermann, a professor of physics and a climate scientist.  He received his education from the Potsdam University, and now conducts his research out of Berlin.  He has written multiple scientific journals that cover a wide range of climate topics, making him very knowledgeable on the subject.

Anders Levermann aims his paper at a very large group, and rightly so, since the controversy of global warming is a popular topic.  Levermann includes the scientific explanations behind his arguments so that those with prior climate knowledge can evaluate his reasoning.  At the same time, he simplifies his explanations so that the common reader can understand why he makes his claims.  Levermann knows that this topic is concerning to many and he therefore addresses as many people as he can.

The article was published in May 2015 online on the Huffington Post website.  This matches his intended audience as he is trying to reach as many people as possible, and the internet is the fastest way to achieve that.  Global warming has been an ongoing issue for many years now, so there are already fears and opinions that have been established by the general public long before the writing of this article.  This is seen in how the topic has turned into a political division.

How to Attract Female Engineers

Lina Nilsson (the author of this article) directly establishes her credibility within the text.  She shares that she has a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering, and therefore she has both knowledge of subject as well as a personal connection to the problem.  She previously worked at the UC Berkley biomedical engineering lab and is now the Innovation Director of the Blum Center for Developing Economies.  This shows that she has a lot of experience in addressing major issues such as the lack of female engineers.

Her paper seems to address two main audiences: engineering colleges/ companies and women.  The solution she provides deals greatly with the role of the engineering community reaching out to women in the different areas of engineering.  Nilsson also constantly uses the word “we” to establish a connection between herself and other women, so that they too will want change.

Nilsson addresses the staggering differences in numbers of male employees versus female employees in the engineering work force.  The article was written in April 2015 for the online New York Times.  By publishing the work in such a renowned newspaper, she establishes the seriousness of her topic.  Like global warming, sexism in the workforce is not a new topic.  People are already conditioned to the voices and opinions of many other advocates with whom Nilsson must compete.

Women and Science at Yale

The articles author, David Gelernter, is a computer scientist who founded Lifestreams, a company that redesigns computers to be more user friendly.  He is a professor of computer science at Yale.  He is the author of many books concerning the world of science and technology.  Due to public reaction from his previous books, he is used to dealing with criticism and affirming his beliefs.

Although the paper could be read and understood by anyone of the general public, Gelernter seems to be more focused on those who are accusing Yale of being sexist in the number of women scientists they enroll.  The many questions Gelernter throws out all seem to indicate that the paper is driven toward a specific group of people that have made accusations against Yale.

Thus, the paper has obviously been written in response to the criticism the school received for their supposed lack of female science students.  The article was written in 1999 in the Weekly Standard.  The date of the article plays a major factor in the opinions addressed and possibly the motivations behind them.  


Reflection:

After reading Jovanka Potkonjak's post and Michaela Webb's post, I realized how important it is to have an opinionated article or else there is often a lack of rhetoric devices to do analysis on.  I felt my evaluation of sources was very thorough as I spent time analyzing not only the author but also the contextual pieces that would have affected the article as well.  Seeing other's rhetoric situations reminded me how people can be the same "level" of opinionated but can come across on very different emotional levels.