Last Post

Of all things we covered in class, the element of it I believe stuck with me the most came from State of Fear, of all places. If you had told me at the beginning of the semester that I was going to claim a Michael Crichton novel to be the facet of this class that impacted me that most, I would have laughed, and then would have been seriously concerned over my future state of being.

But it wasn’t actually the novel itself that got to me – the plot and characters were all typical to the genre. The novel became of such importance because it demonstrated the power that is found in how one frames issues, a topic that can was proved to be important in each unit of this class. The novel drove home the fact that even facts, meaning hard concrete pieces of information that we trust to be correct, can be transformed into “facts”. Even things we believe to be unquestionable can be altered to fit a particular side of an argument. Before I would have considered this only something that opinions had the power to do. But through a look into State of Fear, as well as food advertising – be in HFCS or PETA, and Glenn Beck, it became totally apparent that rhetoric and presentation matter.

In the last week of class we had a discussion a bit like this, and presented the question of whether one can really twist “facts” to their advantage. The argument was brought up that 2 + 2 will always equal 4, and no one will dispute that claim. So yes, there are certain truths that are indisputable. But the difference between this and the “facts” presented by Michael Crichton are vast. A fact such as an easy math problem is simply to comprehend by all. It does not need representation or explanation. When you bring these two necessities in to the problem, and have a fact that is not so easy to stomach, all of a sudden these are needed. That is what Crichton, as one example as when this was applied in our class, took advantage of. Facts become “facts” when they are confusing, and unfortunately for us in today’s world, most facts come from specialists, and are things that need to be spelled out for us. Especially when it comes to science. There is a reason that I took this class when I was in the mood for something “science-y” rather than a class in the BIO department. I just don’t get hard science. Even when I try, it goes one ear and out the other. I am one of those people that necessitate the explanation to comprehend the issue. And that’s a little unsettling to me.

I don’t think it’s possible to leave all one’s opinions at the door before explaining an issue, even if that issue is fact. The presentation of that fact matters, which is influenced by the person doing the presenting and the ideas that they stand for. It will influence the rhetoric that they use to explain it to me. It will have an impact on how they angle the issue, and thus it will then impact the impression that it leaves on me.

In a way, this all goes back to Descartes, as well. While this is not a split between mind and body, it is a split within a person that science has forced us to make. It’s a more modern day split that I don’t think is any more possible that separating the body from the mind, either. But this one is forcing to split between presenting fact and emotional attachments to those facts. People, like Michael Crichton exemplified when writing State of Fear, cannot have one without the other. They are constantly going to influence each other and it is naïve to think that one is above that.

have a good summer, everyone!