Presentation Day 1

All three topics from the presentations today were very interesting. I found this first topic of Nuclear Power plants to be interesting because for one i did not even know much about them. However, ive heard they are dangerous. His presentation was explaining all the misconceptions of them and it really gave me good information. The second one about Bipolar Disorders was also very interesting. Ive know what the disorder is, i just did not know there were so many people that had it. It was cool to see the celebrities that were diagnosed with this disorder to get a better insight! The last presentation about antibiotics gave me insight on the ones i take. I am a big antibiotics taker because i like feeling better faster. However, i realized his point that our bodies can become immune and not work. So i have been trying to let my throat sickness go away naturally with some hot tea to see if this theory works! All in al, each presentation was very enjoyable and i learned a lot from each of them!

Science Writing Reflection

Before taking this class, if someone would have asked me what "science writing" was, i would basically say its about science. Any article that has a science related subject would be seen that way. However, the topic has very little to do with it. An article can be about a science related subject but not have a science writing format. The articles can have different types of jargon, a certain layout, and just the flow can help disitinguis the two. Science writing is focus on a certain audienc that relates specifically to information rather than entertainment. The author uses words retaining to the subject without definining them, assuming the reader will know what the words mean. The author will tend to also use words like "may" or "theory", and use charts to promote their information. They will give details of any experiment conducted without trying to use entertainment. Science writing causes arguments because authors cant hint that what they are trying to get across is fact. Any theory is open for discussion and argument because a theory is not a proven fact and can be changed. This has changed the way i read articles so that i can determine if its popular or scientific. This will allow me to know if what i am reading will be facts or just theories. For example, If soemone tells me "tornadoes will never form around mountainous areas", verses saying "tornadoes may not form around moutainous areas", i can tell the difference in the styles of writing and determine if what is being said is true, or just a scientific theory.

Revision Reflection

I feel like a dig a really big revision of Paper One, possibly more than what i should have had to do. I know it did not quite understand exactly what was required to include in the paper. I summarized more than look at the audience it was focused on. Also, when i tried to depict the audience it was difficult for me to do as well. The article was published in a newspaper, so it should be straight forward to tell that it was for a general audience. However, the writing seemed to be scientific as well since it was about meteorology. It wasnt until i found my second article and realized it was way more scientific to distinguish the big difference. I basically had to change the whole layout of my paper and reorganize it to focus just on a general audience instead of anything to do with scientific. For Paper Two, i did a lot better on what is was supposed to be focused on but had to change the purpose from audience to just comparing the two papers. The second one seemed easier to wrtie, just tried to include a lot more quotes. For the next assignment I hope to get other people to read it first before i submit it so i get another point of view.

Paper 2 Outline

My first paper's article is a from a newspaper and is focused towards the general public. It describes stories of past tornadoes and talks about the historic events and disasters. It also gives information on well known Meteorologists and what they have given in research of tornadoes. It then goes on to tell the plans for future warning systems. While this article is in an informal tone, the article for Paper 2 is in a formal tone. It also talks about warning systems but is more scientific in the writing. It uses technical words that are focused towards the meteorology subject.

Paper 2 Outline

Intro- Talk about the tone of the paper and a short comparison of them both

Summary- Summarize the new article. Give examples of how both articles differ. Use more quotes than the last paper and more examples.

Body- Talk more in detail about the tone of the article with quotes and examples
Body 2- Explain the different jargin thats used towards the audience and why its more scientific
Body 3- Use of graphs, images, and pictures to help differ the articles tone
Body 4- Compare the 2 articles in more detail and examples from both that deal with the same scenarios

Conclusion- Answer the thesis statement, end with a question, end summary

Paper One

If i had the chance to go back in time and re-do my paper, i definately would! It took me a while to find a PDF article for this assignment, and frustrated me to the point where i felt like i wasnt going to be able to do well on the paper. When i first started the paper, i had legitimate writers block. It's been 2 years since ive had to write a paper after graduating highschool. Once i caught back into the writing routine it seemed easier for me. I know i loved to write in highschool and did very well. As for college, i tend to think i do well and then get my grade and obviously i need practice. I would have made a more thorough outline so i could start my paper easier. I also found myself trying to think of more topics to bring up to make it the 4 page length. The more detailed outline would have helped. I would have also started it sooner. Quite honestly, its normal to be a procrastinator in our generation. Let's be honest here. However, starting the paper sooner than i did would have given me more time to make it better. Within the second half of my rough draft, i decided it would be a good idea to do my paper with a football game one and surrounded by a bunch of friends. That was a big mistake. I felt like i wrote random sentences. Therefore, my rough draft was literally "rough". With the weather change, having a head cold tempted me to miss a class to go over the rough draft, so i didnt get the necessary help i wish i could have gotten. The last small mistake, that i didnt realize, was typing my paper in a note pad instead of using Microsoft Word. My paper ended up being a lot shorter and the spacing was not similar, so i didnt meet the 4 page requirement. Lesson learned, that th generic NotePad will not allow you to pass a writing class. All in all, more effort in making sure the paper is perfect. In my opinion at least.

Research Paper Outline

I chose an article about tornadoes an their warning sytems from a news paper from 1951. I thought it was interesting to see the layout of the article from that time period and how they used certain language in the article. It was more lengthy and told as a story unlike today's news paper articles, which seem a lot shorter and to the point. It was also interesting to read how the research for tornadoes is similar and different to today's research.
Introduction- Talk about the basis of the article and explain that it was written in 1951 and the differences
Body 1- The story behind the tornado that sparked the article and the stle used
Body 2- The similarities and differences behind storm spotting today and back then, and the audience it was written for
Body 3- Combine both Body paragraphs and give more detail about the language, audience, and style of the article
Conclusion- Mention how articles about tornado research may be different today, considering they are more frequent and less talked about. Research is still being done, however it's not going out to the public in similar ways. Example: the show "Storm Chasers" on discovery.

“106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney”

If I have to be forced to read an article I'd say this would be a good choice. So props to Ms. Mallette on this one. It was pretty interesting to read, and that's coming from someone that hates reading. The two more interesting points that i read was about the spam emails and the "gluten free" yeast. I thought the spam emails were funny. Every time i read emails that are similar to what he was talking about, i get the same thoughts. I always wonder who reads them and actually follows through with the ad. Basically the more self conscious, gullible type to be obvious. The other was the ad about "gluten free" yeast, and his point that yeast is always "gluten free". It made me realize that most advertisements probably use this technique more than we think. It's like a jar of peanut butter that says "made with peanuts." Well duh. However; maybe placing that ad on the jar makes people think that some peanut butter brands may be artificially flavored and this one is actually made with peanuts. Go figure. The two questions that the article brought to mind was about ad agencies not being able to lie but they can slur the truth. Really, whats the difference? No wonder people are still getting fat. It says "no trans fats" but that doesn't mean its healthy. Another question is, what would happen to the world if agencies were forced to be absolutely truthful in advertisements? This may not be a literal question, but more rhetoric. Either way, its a question to make you think about. Makes you wonder if it would work, and everyone will make smart food choices for once or eat something they know for a fact is bad for you, but not care. Or if every company would die. Makes you think about how much advertisements rule society. They really are a "Truckful of Baloney".