ESA Proposal Notes

Here are my founding notes of which i will compose my proposal with. I am still uncertain exactly what my main focus is, at least how that would become in context of this class. I have a series of questions at the top of the page that have guided my research and are how i am currently planning on designing my final paper.

Endangered Species Act

What is it?
How does it work?
How and Why are species placed on the list?
How and Why are they removed from the list?
Arguments in support of the ESA
Arguments opposed to the ESA
An animal example: Brown Pelican?

What is the ESA?

A federal law which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss.” Does not “effectively address the problem of exotic species…[it] provides no protection to a species until that species is in serious danger of extinction.” “Rather than protecting species or ecosystems when they are healthy, the ESA waits until a species is on the brink of extinction.” Was passed into law in 1973 and signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon.

Purposes [of the ESA] – “The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.”

How does it Work?

“The Secretary shall by regulation…determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence…”

“Two federal agencies split administrative responsibilities under the ESA. The Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of the Interior is responsible for protecting terrestrial and avian species and freshwater fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce takes responsibility for maritime species, including anadromous fish such as salmon.”

Listing Process

“The ESA protects only those species that the FWS lists as either endangered or threatened. A species is endangered if the FWS finds that it is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A species is threatened if it is :likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.” “

“Under section 4 of the ESA, the FWS can decide to list a species on its own initiative, or an individual or organization can petition to list the species. In deciding whether to list a species, the FWS sometimes must decide what a species is. If a flower is very similar to a known species but the flower appears to have slightly smaller petals, for example, is the flower a separate species? If two separate plant species combine to reproduce, is the resulting plant a new and distinct species or merely a hybrid? Unfortunately, the ESA does not define the term “species” or address these issues.”

“The ESA tries to keep economic and political considerations out of listing decisions. Under the ESA, FWS must determine within 90 days of receiving a listing petition whether the petition presents sufficient evidence to pursue a full review of the species’ status and must decide within a year of that determination whether to list a species.”

Delisting Process

The purpose of the ESA is, ultimately, not to just list endangered species but to restore endangered populations so they can be taken off the list. “As of mid-2006, only 42 species had been “delisted.” Nine of these species, moreover, were delisted because they are now extinct. Another 18 were delisted because of taxonomic revisions, new information, or changes in the ESA. The FWS and NMFS had delisted only 15 species because the species had sufficiently recovered to be removed from protection.”

Arguments supporting the ESA

“Under some biocentric views of nature, species have an intrinsic right to exist and thrive, and humans have an obligation to respect that right. Many religions, moreover, believe that humans have an ethical obligation to be careful stewards of nature.” There have been motivations in preserving species for potential genetic value – the hope that through research of these present species drugs and treatments may be derived to cure human ailments.

Of greater value, “biodiversity (which constitutes the overall community of organisms within a habitat and the physical conditions under which they live) provides a wide range of “ecosystem services” of immense importance to humans. These services include detoxification and decomposition of wastes, purification of air and water, generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility, pollination of crops and natural vegetation, control of harmful agricultural pests, support of cultural activities, and provision of aesthetic beauty and pleasure.

Arguments opposing the ESA

“Policy makers attack the ESA for restricting new land development, angering property owners and local governments. In the western USA, the ESA has reduced the amount of water that farmers and cities can divert from rivers and other waterways. The ESA also constrains the federal government’s freedom to build dams and freeways, to develop timber, petroleum, and other natural resources, and to take a variety of other actions of importance to various political constituencies.”

“should the ESA balance the benefits of preserving a species against the economic costs of preservation. Where habitat is located on private land, property owners cannot use their land in a way that would appreciably reduce the likelihood that the species will survive and recover, no matter how valuable the land use.”

Endangered Me List

As much as I had wanted to pursue writing a paper about the relationship between rhetoric and sign language, or the deaf community I have decided to write about the Endangered Species Act. When I made attempts at discovering resource material for what I may want to write about regarding sign language and rhetoric I wasn't able to find anything that really seemed useful or interesting.  For awhile, I thought that my idea was so unique, so brilliant that I was the first person to have thought to investigate how rhetoric applies toward the deaf community, or if it even does. There is a lack of acknowledgement from previous generations regarding minority forms of communication -- Aristotle certainly hadn't considered rhetoric anything but an oral or written exercise.  There still is a divide between speaking culture and the silent culture of the deaf.  I thought for sure that this would be a successful endeavor -- fertile ground for exploration, yet I could find nothing that directly dealt with sign language and the study of rhetoric.  I don't feel qualified to begin writing a massive aper in less than a semester piecing together a quilt or mosaic of information to tell a story or impart some information, certainly without having any personal experience to rely on.

I was able to find more information about endangered species and the Endangered Species Act. I believe that I can find more suitable information easier and therefore helped make my decision.  I don't yet have a thesis, but I am hoping to have one soon.  That will help me sort through the resource material wiser and with a more critical eye.

Deduction By Inductive Scientific Theory

Holy balls, this was messed up. My efiin' brain melted and my head exploded....there were swans and pasta on the wall....

Empirical sciences are characterized by the fact that they use 'inductive methods.'

The problem of induction is that "The Problem of Induction' is so darn hard to read/understand. Man, oh, man i feel like reading Aristotle went better.  One thing that helps is that key sentences are underlined. For fun's sake, here is a sample sentence: "A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form." It goes on like this for, like, ever -- sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph. Nonetheless, let me try to talk about what Sir Karl Popper is writing about.

"A scientist puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step. Within empirical science he constructs hypotheses, or systems of theories, and tests them against experience by observation and experiment. Popper argues that the role of the logic of scientific discovery is to provide a logical analysis of the method of the empirical sciences."

"Now I hold that scientific theories are never fully justifiable or verifiable." Dude, basically, so it seems to me, this Popper guy has issues with everything that scientists do from a philosophical or communicative manner. There are "Fundamental Problems" galore. He approves of philosophers like Kant, et al who have a strong sense of meta operations/considerations. Now, I am having such a hard time following this chapter and digesting everything, sort of how Aristotle just packs so much information, or at least words/ideas, that it's fair to say that i don't know squat. I am going to assume that Sir Mr. Popper is right but like a lot of theory i have read or experienced throughout college i have to wonder why it's important if it is not vital to institute; to employ in an effort to reform.

These scientists of all kinds are, apparently, not capable of grasping the multiple layers and dimensions of the words of their statements and theories and their larger, philosophical and practical effects. If the statements that Popper speaks of are not testable then how is anything understood or accomplished at all? How do toasters even exist? Can anyone explain that to me? Math seems to be translatable without much trouble.  Equations are universal and testable. The answer is the answer which is a right or wrong answer. Thus, voila!, somehow we get to measure or view the atom, or the DNA model. Oh well, i guess Popper fears for us. Something bad is gonna happen -- I've deduced it inductively.

When Pity and Indignation Collide

My notes for Aristotle book 2 chapters 9 & 12

Aristotle, Book 2

Chapter 9 & 12 Notes

Chapter 9: To Nemesan, or Being Indignant

Definition of Being Indignant and its Relation to Other Emotions

[1] Pity and indignation both arise from the same moral character, both are of good character. Indignation is most opposed to pity. It is the counter to eliminating feelings of pity from an audience.

[2] It is right to sympathize with and pity those who suffer undeservedly. It is right to feel indignation towards those who undeservedly fare well. Whatever is contrary to deserts is unjust.

[3] Envy seems like indignation, in that it opposes pity it is different. Because it is agitated pain and directed at success of an equal and a like not of someone who is unworthy.

[4] The opposite emotional reaction is true when good things happen to those who deserve it it is right to rejoice just as it is right to rejoice when bad things happen to those who deserve it.

[5] Understanding emotions well and all of the circumstances and motivations behind them will help the rhetor counteract feelings of pity or whatever contrary emotion.

Those Toward Whom Indignation is Felt and its Causes

[6] What is being indignant? Explain

[7] Indignant equals "being distressed at the evidence of unworthy success." Which means that it is impossible to be indignant at all good things.

[8] No one will feel indignation if someone is just or brave the deserve good things.

[9] New money vs. old money argument. Old money might become indignant towards new money.

[10] More thoughts on the justice of new money having increased benefits from their newly acquired status, etc. old money is more natural and right.

[11]Indignation arises when someone who is good does not attain what is fitting, example: distinguished marriages fit the wellborn, not the newly rich.

[12] Indignation arises when someone feels someone who I not their equal has attained similar or the same advantages.

[13] Indignation arises when virtuous and serious persons witness unjust things.

[14] Indignation arises when ambitious and desirous persons desire things not worthy for others.

[15] The servile, the worthless, and the unambitious are not given to indignation because they don't regard themselves as worthy.

Chapter 12: Introduction; the Character of the Young

In this chapter Aristotle gives the stereotypical Greek view of young men as pleasure-loving, and optimistic.

Discussion on kinds of character, in terms of emotions (anger, desire, etc.) habits (virtues, vices) age of life (youth, prime, and old age) and fortune (good birth, wealth, powers, their opposites, good fortune and misfortune).

[3] The young are prone to desires and inclined to do whatever they desire especially sex

[4] The young are changeable and fickle and are quickly satisfied for they desire sharply not massively.

[5] The young are impulsive and quick-tempered, unable to resist their impulses become indignant if they feel like they've been done a wrong.

[6] Youth long for superiority. Victory over honor, they do not want for money.

[7] Basically, youth are inexperienced. They are guileless not cynical, and trusting

[8] Youth are filled with hopes, live for hope for it is the future and are easily deceived

[9] Youth are more courageous they're too young to have fear, etc.

[10] Sensitive to shame because they have been educated by convention.

[11] Youth are magnanimous for they have not yet been worn down by life think themselves worthy of great things.

[12] Youth do fine things rather than things advantageous to themselves.

[13] Youth are fond of friends and socializing they do not judge based on advantage.

[14] Youth act on excess and vehemence.  [15] Youth commit wrongs from insolence not maliciousness

inventio to the rescue

I've re-discovered old rhetoric notes from a book of mine called "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student" by Edward P.J. Corbett. I wrote out nice notes on Word and this much that I am posting seems like it would be helpful as yet another perspective.

Classical Rhetoric For The Modern Student

Pg. 16
Classical rhetoric was associated primarily with persuasive discourse. Its end was to convince or persuade an audience to think in a certain way or to act in a certain way. Later, the principles of rhetoric were extended to apply to informative or expository modes of discourse, but in the beginning, they were applied almost exclusively to the persuasive modes of discourse. ….the four forms of discourse: Argumentation, Exposition, Description, and Narration.

Pg. 17
By the time Cicero came to write his treatises on rhetoric, the study of rhetoric was divided, mainly for pedagogical convenience, into five parts: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronuntiatio.

Pg. 17-23
The Five Canons of Rhetoric
Inventio is the Latin term (heuresis was the equivalent Greek term) for “invention” or “discovery.” Theoretically, orators could talk on any subject, because rhetoric, as such, had no proper subject matter. In practice, however, each speech that orators undertook presented a unique challenge. They had to find arguments that would support whatever case or point of view they were espousing. …Inventio was concerned with a system or method for finding arguments. ….

Aristotle recognized two kinds of arguments or means of persuasion namely, non-artistic or non-technical and artistic. These modes of persuasion were not really part of the art of rhetoric; they came from outside the art. Orators did not have to invent these; they merely had to use them. He identified five kinds of non-artistic proofs: laws, witnesses, contracts, tortures, oaths. The second general mode of persuasion was artistic proof – “artistic” in the sense that they fell within the province of the art of rhetoric: rational appeal (logos), emotional appeal (pathos), and ethical appeal (ethos).

The method that the classical rhetoricians devised to aid the speaker in discovering matter for the three modes of appeal was the topics. In rhetoric, a topic was a place or store or thesaurus to which one resorted to find something to say on a given subject. Aristotle distinguished two kinds of topics: (I) the special topics; (II) the common topics. The special topics were those classes of argument appropriate to particular kinds of discourse. In other words, arguments used exclusively in law courts; others confined to public forum; others appearing only in ceremonial addresses. The common topics were a limited stock of arguments that could be used for any occasion or type of speech.
Aristotle named four common topics: (1) more and less (the topic of degree); (2) the possible and the impossible; (3) past fact and future fact; (4) greatness and smallness (the topic of size as distinguished from the topic of degree.

The second part of rhetoric was dispositio (Greek, taxis), which may be translated as “disposition,” “arrangement,” “organization.” This was the division of rhetoric concerned with the effective and orderly arrangement of the parts of a written or spoken discourse.

The third part of rhetoric was elocutio (Greek, lexis or hermeneia or phrases). For the classical rhetorician, elocutio meant “style.” Style is a difficult concept to define, although most of us feel we know what it is. The classification of styles yielded great discussions deriving various terms for kinds of style, but there was a fundamental agreement of three levels of style. There was low or plain style (attenuata, subtile); the middle or forcible style (mediocris, robusta); and the high or florid style (gravis, florida). The plain style was most appropriate for instructing (docendi); the middle for moving (movendi); and the high for charming (delectandi).

The fourth part of rhetoric was memoria (Greek, mneme), concerned with memorizing speech. The fifth division of rhetoric was pronuntiatio (Greek, hypokrisis) or delivery.

Pg. 23-24
The Three Kinds of Persuasive Discourse
All rhetoricians distinguished three kinds of orations, and this tripartite classification is well-nigh exhaustive. First there was deliberative oratory, also known as political, hortative, and advisory, in which one deliberated about public affairs, about anything that had to do with politics. More generally, however, deliberative discourse is that in which we seek to persuade someone to do something or to accept our point of view. Aristotle maintained that political oratory was always concerned about the future (the point at issue is something that we will or will not do); its special topics were the expedient and the inexpedient; and its means were exhortation and dehortation.

Second, there was forensic oratory, sometimes known as legal or judicial oratory. This was oratory of lawyers in the courtroom, but it can be extended to cover any kind of discourse in which someone seeks to defend or condemn someone’s actions. Forensic oratory, according to Aristotle, was concerned with past time (like court trials); its special topics were justice and injustice; and its means were accusation and defense.


Third, there was epideictic oratory aka demonstrative, declamatory, panegyrical, ceremonial. It is the oratory of display, as exemplified by the Gettysburg Address. In this kind of discourse, one is not so much concerned with persuading an audience as with pleasing it or inspiring it. Ceremonial discourse is concerned primarily with the present and its special topics were honor and dishonor and its means were praise and blame.

II
Discovery of Arguments
Pg. 27-31
Formulating a Thesis
The beginning of all discourse is a topic, a question, a problem, an issue (these can be said to be the subject of the discourse). The subject must be converted into a thesis; it must to use a term from logic, be stated in the form of a proposition, a complete sentence that asserts or denies something about the subject. For example, “A democracy cannot function effectively if its citizens are illiterate.” Now we have a theme or a thesis to write about – a precise notion of what we are going to say about the subject of “democracy.”

The Latin rhetoricians used a formula, referred to as status or stasis, for determining the point issue in a court trial, a formula that might help students decide on a thesis. The formula consisted of three questions that were asked about the subject of dispute or discussion:
An sit (whether a thing is) – a question of fact
Quid sit (what is it?) – a question of definition
Quale sit (what kind is it?) – a question of quality


Pg. 31-38
The Three Modes Of Persuasion
Aristotle said that we persuade others by three means: (1) by the appeal to their reason (logos); by the appeal to their emotions (pathos); (3) by the appeal of our personality or character (ethos). We may use one of these means exclusively or predominantly, or we may use all three.

Principles of Definition
Exposition and argumentation often turn on definition. Exposition, in fact, is a form of definition. In order to explain something, we have to tell what a thing is or describe it or enumerate its parts or demonstrate its operation. …..An essential definition is one that designates that which makes a thing what it is and distinguishes that thing from all other things; in other words it is one that spells out a thing’s fundamental nature. ….One of the tests by which we can determine whether we have arrived at an essential definition is to see whether we can convert the proposition – that is, interchange the subject and predicate terms without destroying the truth of the proposition. For example, the proposition “A man is a rational animal” is true. When we convert it to “A rational animal is man,” this also is true. Another test, “Man is a biped animal” is true, as well, but when we convert it to “A biped animal is man” we find this to be false, because, wherein man is bipedal there are numerous other bipedal animals. In an essential definition, the subject and predicate are equivalent terms.

Aristotle has shown us how to formulate an essential definition. We put the “thing to be defined” (the definiendum) into a genus or general class and then give the differentiae or the specific differences that distinguish this thing from every other thing comprehended in the same general class. Examples: “Man is a rational animal;” “animal” is the genus, and “rational” is the differentiae. “An automobile is a vehicle that runs on four wheels,” “vehicle” (genus), “runs on four wheels” (differntiae), but obviously this differentiae is not sufficient to distinguish an automobile from other vehicles that run on four wheels.

Other Methods of Definition

Synonyms
We often resort to this method in the case of adjectives, nouns, and verbs. Although a synonym can illuminate the meaning of a strange word, it does not really inform us about the mode of being of that word.

Etymology
Closely allied to definition by synonyms is definition by reference to etymology. A study of etymology can throw light on the meaning of words, can suggest subtle shades of meaning, and can serve as a mnemonic device – especially for those who have knowledge of the parent languages.

Description
Another method of definition, frequently used to convey a notion of a complex organization or mechanism, is the extended description. These descriptions often mention the genus and several of the properties and accidents of the thing to be defined, but the definition is presented in discursive prose rather than in the tight, unitary phrases that a dictionary uses. Comparisons analogies, metaphors, and similes are frequently employed to facilitate definitions by description.

Example
A method especially useful in defining abstractions is giving an example. The dubious syntax, “Honesty is when…” is usually a signal that we are about to get a definition by this method.

Here are three rules that should govern our attempts to define terms:

The defining terms should be clearer and more familiar than the term to be defined.
The definition should not repeat the term to be defined or use synonymous derivative terms.
The definition, wherever possible, should be stated positively, not negatively.

Pg. 38-39
The Syllogism

The syllogism was a schematic device that Aristotle invented to analyze and test deductive reasoning. The syllogism reasons from statements or propositions called premises. The square of opposition presents schematically the four kinds of categorical propositions – that is, propositions that either assert or deny something, without conditions or alternatives proposed.

The A-proposition (All men are mortal beings) is a universal affirmative
The E-proposition (No men are mortal beings) is a universal negative
The I-proposition (Some men are mortal beings) is a particular affirmative
The O-proposition (Some men are not mortal beings) is a particular negative

When we ask about the quantity of a proposition, we are seeking to determine whether the proposition is universal or particular – that is, whether a statement is being made about a whole class or about only part of a class. When we ask about the quality of a proposition is affirmative or negative – that is, whether the predicate asserts something about the subject or denies something about the subject.

Pg. 42
The following syllogism has become Exhibit A in almost every elementary book of logic:
All men are mortal beings.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal being.

The syllogism is made up of three categorical propositions, the first two of them being called premises, the last one being the conclusion drawn from the premises. The categorical syllogism is built on three terms: a major term, a minor term, and a middle term. Here are the simple criteria for picking out these terms:

The major term is the predicative term of the conclusion (“mortal beings”).
The minor term is the subject term of the conclusion (“Socrates”).
The middle term is the term that appears in both of the premises but does not appear in the conclusion (“men” and its singular form “man”).

The syllogism is made of three propositions: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The major premise is the proposition that contains the major term. The minor premise is the proposition that contains the minor term. The conclusion is difficult to define – it just is the conclusion.

Newman, Aristotle, and Me

It seems a logical pursuit for Sarah Newman to discover the relationship between Aristotle's 'On Rhetoric' and Scientific and Technical Communication. Aristotle's rhetorical theory expresses "effective communication is a systematic tekhne/art," Which provides a classical base for contemporary students to explore the relationship between theory and practice. This might be more interesting if we were able to discern the importance of knowing whether or not rhetoric, as Aristotle believed it to be, is an art, therefore, systematic and teachable, and Scientific and Technical Communication can be viewed this same way.

Newman explores such questions as: "is Scientific and Technical Communication a systematic and teachable ability to respond individually to each contingent communicative situation? In what sense...are the various kinds of technical documents persuasive?" I found her example of how she goes about exploring these questions with her students using 'On Rhetoric' interesting. She uses an example of working with warning labels and instructions -- written documents that are very important for people to understand, and trying to figure out if Aristotle would agree with the class assessment that if a problem occurred that the fault (morally, etc.) would lie with those who used it, designed it, or the company who produced the product with the label or instructions. For me, this helped provide me with something concrete; some perspective to assist my reading of Aristotle and rhetoric as he saw it to be.

Aristotle is breaking things down into a framework for how to apply rhetoric, or how to understand what and how rhetoric is. His listing of logos/evidence (proofs/appeals), pathos/emotions, ethos/character and the additional considerations of arrangement and choice of language helps Newman relate the process of Aristotle's rhetoric with the scientific approach, and subject matter of her class.

Ultimately, I can see how Aristotle's writing on rhetoric can remain relevant today. There is room for it and its theories in a number of academic disciplines including: Scientific and technical Communication, composition, philosophy, rhetoric among others. Yet, it may not be the best, or only text in which to consult for whatever related subject matter. It is much too dense and, perhaps, incomplete -- it certainly didn't help Newman write a clear, easy to understand article, nor is it clear-cut in its overall usefulness or direct application towards the subject matter, whatever it may be. It might be best used as an interesting guide or supplemental piece.

Aristotle Notes

Aristotle, Chapter 10 Notes

Chapter 10: Topics About Wrongdoing for Use in Judicial Rhetoric

When it comes to judicial rhetoric he presumes the presence of two arguments: accusations and defense.  These elements are derived from a set of arguments: "first, for what, and how many, purposes people do wrong; second, how these persons are [mentally] disposed; third, what kind of persons they wrong and what these persons are like."

Wrongdoing: def. doing harm willingly in a contravention of the law.

(Contravention: def. an act of contravening; action counter to something; violation or opposition).

"Law is either specific or common."

"I call specific the written law under which people live in a polis and common whatever, though unwritten, seems to be agreed to among all."

Alright, so what is the definition or explanation of 'willingly'? Aristotle explains that, "People, "willingly" do whatever they do knowingly and unforced. Now everything they do willingly they do not do by deliberate choice, but whatever they do by deliberate choice they do knowingly; for no one is ignorant of what he has chosen." So, you got all that?

Summary: When it pertains to the law or justice in a sense one needs to understand the difference between written laws and common law -- like in England. The rhetor needs to understand all of the available reasons a person would commit a wrongdoing, their mental state, i.e. were they 'crazy,' the stature of the person(s) who were wronged -- it seems the law favors the upper class. (Has anything changed since then?) Then he goes on the explain what 'willingly' is, which he essentially says that willingly means that ones does so with full knowledge of their actions and the consequences and is not coerced, that is not to say that it is a decision that they want to make.

Vice and weakness are the causes of wrongdoing. He gives examples such as: being ungenerous with money, ambitious for honor, acting cowardly in dangers, and short-tempered through anger.

"let us define what people long for and what they are avoiding when they try to do wrong; for it is clear that the prosecutor should consider, as they apply to the opponents, the number and nature of the things that all desire when they do wrong to their neighbors, and the defendant should consider what and how many of thee do not apply."

People do things either by their own initiative or not by their own initiative. "Of those done not on their own initiative they do some by chance, some by necessity; and of those by necessity, some by nature." What is done of their own initiative is done by habit or by desire (either rational desire or irrational).

"Thus, necessarily, people do everything they do for seven causes: through chance, through nature, through compulsion, through habit, through reason, through anger, through longing."