The article "Show Me the Honey" by Taylor Hengen is posted on Popsci.com. According to the website, it was launched in 1999 in association with the popular magazine Popular Science, which has been in print since 1972. The publication boasts itself as the leading informant in science and technology, so it can be assumed that the they only publish reliable scientific documents. The bee article is well written, and stays true to Baconian form. The difference between this article and other scientific language is its use of popular rhetortic. This post will work to demonstrate how the article uses the principles of Baconian and if the language choices strengthen or weaken the article.
First, the article begins with an introduction to the problem. The article is written to raise awareness to a problem in the bee community. The bees suffer from colony collapse disorder, or CDC. The problem is described as possibly being caused by pesticides at the beginning, but by the end of the article the author seems sure that his or her hypothesis is correct. Hengen follows the Baconian format by presenting information, providing methods and materials for research, and presenting the results. Hengen does not pinpoint one scientific study, but he does refer to several different results, especially those presented by Penn State through their ice cream company grant.
It is interesting that Hengen ends up supporting the introductory "theory" by the end of the article because Gross predicted this in his book The Rhetoric of Science (92). Hengen urges readers to move to organic farming and plants flowers when the "theory" has not even been fully proved as is stated in the beginning. This realization makes it important to read the article with a critical eye because the format is very convincing. By using the Baconian format, by the end of reading the article it is easy to believe the information because evidence has been presented and discussed "thoroughly." It may have been better to start the article with a definite statement about bees and pesticides or simply base the article on the harmful affects of pesticides on nature.
A part of this article that did not seem to fit into scientific discourse were the lax language choices. The article used words like "er" and the title "Show Me the Honey" all try to draw on popular language rather than scientific language. The publication may or may not be written by someone with scientific knowledge, but the language choices seem like it is written more by someone who has been given the facts instead of someone who went out and collected all the facts. This may work as a better piece of scientific discourse, but the article is taking into consideration the type of audience it is catering to on the internet. The site is written for the general public and people interested in pop-science, and not written for researchers and scientists. Researchers and scientists may still enjoy reading it, but they are not the intended audience.
The article is interesting and informative about problems with bees. The article definitely follows certain conventions of scientific discourse and ignores others. The language choices at times seem out of place compared to the rest of the article, but that does not mean it is poorly written. The article had an intended audience, and based on the comments following the article it was able to satisfy its readers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I like the fact that you discussed the article in relation to Baconian form. Also, I loved that you commented on the comments that were at the bottom of the actual article! I read them, but did not think to include them in my assignment. It was a very nice concluding statement. Do you think the Baconian form was more influencing on the audience than Hengen's obvious use of the stasis?
Post a Comment