The article, “Vertical and horizontal movement patterns of scyphozoan jellyfish in a fjord-like estuary”, is a research paper studying the swimming patterns of two different species of jellyfish, the lion’s mane jellyfish, and the fried-egg jellyfish, located in Puget Sound, Washington. The tracking was done using acoustic transmitters attached to the jellies, which relay a signal after a set amount of time has passed back to a computer, which logs the distance. It was found that the lion’s mane jellies swam faster during the night, while fried egg jellies swam faster during the day. Both stayed below the pycnocline for a majority of the time, with the lion’s manes coming to the surface at night, with the fried egg jellies having no difference between day and night cycles.
The article has several purposes, while attempting to answer one question. Using visual and numerical data, the researchers sought out if there was a pattern in the movements of various jellies, as well as test the value in using acoustic transmitters in tracking organisms long-term, underwater, at various depths (some greater than 100 meters). The article relies greatly on logos to support the findings of the study, but also uses the idea of stasis, as very few studies have been done on jellies despite their plentiful numbers and high ecological impact. The context of the article, being published on May 30, 2012, was that this kind of study had never been done before. Very few people, within and outside of the Marine Biology community, care for jellies, and instead shift focus to marine mammals and fishes. The role of jellies as predators and prey species within the ecosystem, as well as their endurance in hypoxic waters, add to the ethos of the article, that these organisms are important, and worth studying in future studies. As more areas of the ocean become hypoxic, the jellies may be able to out compete fish and crustaceans, and further study can help in understanding the potential impact of large-scale jellyfish blooms. The discussion section adds more to these ideas of future study, such as more uses for acoustic tracking, as well as the potential flaws with the experiment, which is especially useful for establishing credibility, for no experiment is perfect in design or execution. Overall, as a scientific article, the paper is effective in delivering its findings and the importance of them. Source: http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m455p001.pdf
4 Comments
An ocean garden, by Josie Iselin, is an incredibly colorful book required for Introduction to Marine Phycology course offered at Roger Williams University. Iselin is a photographer, book designer, and writer, and had earned a BA in Visual and Environmental Studies. While never explicitly stated, the positive language and beautiful imagery imply that she had written the book to illustrate the beauty of algae, and change the negative regard most people hold it in. Iselin uses her photography to further compound her language, as the bright reds, purples, and greens of the macroalgae are all visually appealing, as are the many shapes and close-up images she uses to highlight their features. This combination of informal, easy to read language and attention-grabbing pictures aids in attracting people to a field that not many are interested in.
Even within the field of Marine Biology, the study of algae is often overlooked by more flashy topics, such as marine mammals and ichthyology. Iselin takes an informal approach to communicating her message to her audience, defining terms as she introduces them, yet does not include a glossary. Instead, she offers a section of recommended further reading, citing books that had inspire her to write her own on the subject. In her inspiration, she is incredibly biased towards the appreciation of seaweed, citing that those who do not find it appealing in some way simply do not understand it, or refuse to change their pre-made opinions. Additionally, the relatively jargon-free text does not provide for an in-depth analysis of the way the macroalgae function, and the fact that the book is mostly images that take up full pages limits the amount of depth Iselin can go into. The common and scientific name of each alga is given, so if the reader is curious, he or she may do further research on a particular species or group of algae. Overall, Iselin’s use of rhetoric is useful for convincing others outside the field of Marine Biology that algae are something to be appreciated, and the images and descriptions are a treat for those familiar with the field. However, the book is not meant as a scientific guidebook, and is rather meant to get the reader’s interests piqued, and their feet wet in the subject of algae. Rhetoric is the process of creating persuasive writing, with a clear goal or purpose behind its creation. Montgomery uses the term rhetoric in scientific writing as a way of putting across the purpose or importance of the study done. By using comprehensive arguments, supportive data, and reasoning as to the importance of the study, an author is using rhetoric to convince others of their work’s value. In chapter 2, page 23, Montgomery discusses Watson and Crick’s paper on DNA, and attributes its success to the flow of ideas and topics within the article, even if the paper betrayed the conventions of the time in terms of structure. Montgomery states that the bottle-necking of ideas, from general to specific, back to general, aids in easing the reader’s thought process and understanding of the paper, convincing the audience with the future importance of their own discovery, and its further applications and points of research.
Overall, I agree with Montgomery’s use of rhetoric in scientific writing. It is vital to understand rhetoric in science, and how to use it, to maximize the effectiveness in delivering the importance of one’s work. By using convincing arguments and explanations for data, as well as referencing other works, even those of “rival” scientists, one can give their paper more validity. No matter what the subject of the paper may be, so long as there is an importance to it, maybe a practical application for the results, or areas of further research, others will take interest. A paper can be eloquently written, or have groundbreaking results within it, but if that importance is not communicated or capitalized on, then nothing will come of it. Looking at science through a rhetorical lens allows for the reader to pick up the techniques necessary for writing successfully in their field, or to pick out articles that are sub-par and should be avoided. Scientific writing does not hinge on classic arguments, but proving or disproving a hypothesis takes support and reasoning, and by that logic, a basic understanding of rhetoric. |
Details
AuthorZachary Wagner Archives |