Blogging assesment

1) Comparing these blogging assignments to traditional essays, I’d have to say I found these blogs easier for me. We still were required to think and use what we had learned throughout the semester but we were given topics that we could choose ourselves. This made it a bit easier because we could pick a topic that we each found relative to us. It also seemed a bit easier because we could have fun with it and use hyperlinks to show what we were talking about and integrated the internet with our assignments. Given the choice between writing a traditional essay and doing one of these blogs I would definitely choose the blog.
2) The blog assignments did relate very well to the class topics and what we were covering in our classes. Because we were given so many topics to choose from we could really take the assignments and cover what we felt like. If we thought one thing was more important over another then we could pick that topic and try to convey why we thought that topic was more important than the others. This way everyone could connect to something on a personal level. Not only did the topics relate to the class they also related to the individual doing the blog.
3) The non-text elements did contribute to learning over the semester. Like one of our assignments put forward, “a picture is worth a thousand words”. These non-text elements could show your audience what you were trying to say. In this way they were not only looking at your words and taking your words as fact, they could also look at the videos or sights and draw their own conclusions. If you read something that’s one thing, but seeing something is a totally different thing. Seeing is believing.

What Words Can't Describe

Is a picture really worth a thousand words? Yes I believe it is. Many times you can look at a picture and it tells a lot more than you can try to describe in words. Like we discussed in class, you can try and convince someone that pit bulls are good dogs and would never hurt anyone if trained right, but unless they have visual proof it’s going to be really hard to make them truly believe that. Pictures appeal to most everyone’s emotions and they can gather from a picture things that you wouldn’t be able to tell in writing. They will connect the picture to certain aspects of their life that you wouldn’t know about if you were writing about something. As an example if I were to try and tell you about all the atrocities Hitler committed and you had never heard of him or knew anything about what he’d done, it would take me a very long time to try and tell you everything I knew. I could however show you pictures of the things he had done and you would understand very quickly that he was in fact evil. It would take much more than a thousand words to describe his brand of evil, but it would take only one picture to show it. The good thing about photo’s it that now matter what language you speak or where you call home, if you see a picture of something you can understand it. You can take a picture of something and it allows people to draw their own assumptions, it won’t usually be bias. In closing I most certainly believe that pictures are worth a thousand words, at least a thousand words. Some pictures are worth more word than you would ever be able to come up with.

Authority Figures

How does someone become an expert? Well in my opinion to become an expert you must spend most of your time doing what it is you say you’re an expert in. If you say you’re an expert in cooking then you had better be a chef. If you’re an expert in rocket science you better work for NASA. One person I consider an expert is exhibition shooter Tom Knapp. He is and Expert in shooting guns. This man has spent his life perfecting the technique of shooting a gun, whether he is using a shotgun, or a .22 caliber rifle. He has set the world record for most hand thrown clay pigeons hit with a shotgun at ten. This is an amazing feat that not many people in all of the world could accomplish.
What I feel Tom Knapp is an expert in is the use of his shotgun. He knows everything there is to know about those guns and that is what makes and expert. The definition of expert according to Merriam-Webster is having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience. According to this definition Tom Knapp is indeed an expert. Don’t take my word for it look at him in action. I love shooting clay pigeon and if I ever had a question about something and he was standing by I would definitely ask him the question. Whatever he told me I would believe him without a doubt. You can be taught to be an expert, or you can teach yourself to be an expert in any field. He shoots thousands of rounds of ammunition a year to keep up his ability to do what he does. He is an expert shot. If he one day just all together stops shooting then maybe he wouldn’t be considered an expert in the field anymore. But as of right now this man is most definitely an expert.

To Argue or Not to Argue

What is the difference between reasoning cogently and being right in fact? The difference in reasoning cogently and being right in fact is that when you argue cogently you make a good convencing argument about something you don’t know for sure is correct. People can argue all day about whether taking guns away from people would make crime go up or down. A good cogent argument would be a winning argument in this case. Here is a stance against guns, here is one for guns. Both of these show good arguments but which is right? They both have great points. Being right in fact is what it says, you know for a fact, 100% that what your saying is true and there is no other possible answer. Two plus two is four, this is a fact that can’t be wrong.
Which is better, to reason incorrectly to a true conclusion or to reason well to a false conclusion? I can see where both have their ups and downs. The first point you know what your arguing about is true and you are right, but you just don’t know how to argue and the way you present it is bad. The up side to this one is that your right in the end but a big down is that you made yourself look ignorant about the subject. If a person could combine the two of these elements that would be key. The other way is just as bad, but in the totally opposite way. You made a great argument but you were completely wrong and what you said has no truth to it. This kind of thing happens every day. People can make what they say sound peachy but it is a bald face lie. This type of argument can be dangerous, it can sway peoples thoughts and make them believe the speaker. Politicians do this all the time. Make a great speech but there is no truth to it.
In closing I believe that if a person can argue correctly and to a point that is supported by fact then that person will be in a lot better shape than a person that just does one or the other. People everyday argue, from little topics, to topics that could change the course of history. How you argue has a big impact on everything you stand for. As the great poet Aaron Tippin said “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything”.

Technology in modern medicine

One way technology has affected society for the better is in modern medicine. Today it is possible for doctors in one country, to perform surgeries on a person in another by using robotics. This is good thing because doctors in your country might not be as advanced, or as reliable as doctors in another country, and the use of robotics means more precision, and better results.

Another reason robotics in medicine are a good thing is because they are less invasive than if a person is cutting on you. There is less bleeding, less pain and shorter hospital stays (see here). An operation that would have kept you in the hospital for a week, now will keep you there for a day.

The actual robot is more like a video game. The doctor sits at controls, in the room or across the world, and uses joysticks that can move as much or as little as the doctor decides. Some critics to the idea of robots in medicine say that the robot might get out of hand and really do some damage to the person that is being worked on, this just isn’t true. The robot cannot be preprogrammed or set on “cruise” so everything that is happening the doctor is doing his or herself. If something happens for the wrong it is the doctors fault not the machines.

In closing I think that as a whole the technology in medicine has help society out a lot. We can help people now that before were left with lower standards and might not have faired so well. Today's technology has increased the life expectancy of people, and has helped in many more ways that I can’t even begin to list. I hope that in the years to come more advances, like the Da Vinci robot, come about to help out human kind.