Anne Trubek’s View on Twitter

Anne Trubek believes that Twitter should not be used for people who feel that they should tweet, but for those who actually want to tweet. She compares these people who feel that they should tweet, as “bad guests” and that “twitter does not need more like them.” She compares these people to guests who comes to parties and zone out other talks but engages in conversation only when the conversation turns back to himself. Nowadays people feel the obligation to use this type of social networking because everyone else is doing it and also “further their careers”. Twitter should be something one wants to do because of all the benefits that Twitter offers. Trubek claims that tweeting will improve one’s writing although they don’t really know it. Every time a person tweets, they are forced to choose their words more carefully. They are to use more clear and concise writing due to the limited amount of letters you can use in your tweet. Anne Trubek, a professor at Oberlin College and also a writer and blogger, really opened my mind to Twitter. I never thought of using twitter until this writing class but now after reading her view on Twitter, I can honestly say that I am more open to the idea of using this type of social networking.

Orwell’s Interesting View on Science

A British critic and novelist in the 20^th century, George Orwell questions the idea of a scientific movement towards education and politics. According to J. Stewart Cook, society will be better-rounded if everyone is “scientifically educated.” Science is needed to make technological advances that have the potential to improve everyone’s life. However, the hoi polloi define science as only common subjects such as biology, chemistry, and physics when there are in fact, two definitions. Orwell defines science’s second definition as “a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact.” Sure, one can agree that the younger generation needs to be more scientifically educated for the benefit of the society, but is it a good idea to implement a heavy load of science in the curriculum? Before asking that question, Orwell believes it is important to define science accurately and understand its context because the generic meaning of science is often shadowed by the second definition.

In the article, Orwell talks about how people tend to believe that a person with more knowledge in science subjects is more intelligent. A scientist’s words are higher valued because of his scientific knowledge. However, scientists just like every other human, make poor judgments and decisions. From the Holocaust to the creation of the atomic bomb, Orwell emphasizes the tragedies that scientists have caused in the past to show the possibility that scientists can also be detrimental to society.

Orwell does not reject the idea to teach more science to the general public. By definition, anyone can be a scientist. Science is a way of thinking in life and scientists are no different than any other human. However, Scientists lack ethical values because their job focuses primarily on facts, formulas, and equations. They don’t have much real life experiences and morals to connect with society. How can scientists can take part in any human affairs if they don’t know the importance of social behavior?

George Orwell’s “What is Science?”

“What is Science?” According to prolific novelist and social critic Eric Arthur Blair, pen name George Orwell, science is more than just the stereotypical image of “something that happens in a laboratory”. Orwell addresses the need to do more than just state something must be done, as J. Stewart Cook merely suggests. Over the years science has boiled down to common topics such as chemistry, physics and biology leaving no recognition for the other half of this definition. According to Orwell, years of scientific prejudice has left adults oblivious to the fact that economics and sociology are also “branches of science”. It seems as though society has elevated ‘scientists’ to such a degree that in the field of politics, ‘scientists’’ opinions are of far more value than those educated in other fields of study.

During Hitler’s time in power, German science was said to have diminished, however “without them the German war machine could never have been built up” leading reason to believe these ‘scientists’ were engulfed in “the monstrosity of ‘racial science.’” Orwell came to the assumption that there were countless writers and journalists who were either prosecuted or exiled than scientists. Not too far away in England men of science are depicted are prestigious nobles, granted their high ranking status by those who are not familiar with ‘science’. Having such illustrious titles such as knight and peerage only leaves room for dishonesty among the ‘scientists’ of noble status.

In Orwell’s opinion, the hackneyed thoughts as to what science is, just facts, facts and more facts. Both ‘scientists’ and writers have imagined what either side are like using demeaning phrases to describe what the other does. Orwell suggests “scientists themselves would benefit by a little education” creating more “sane men in the middle of a world of lunatics.”

By informing his audience about the true meaning of science, Orwell hopes to educate people on what science really is, potentially bettering society as a whole. Orwell addresses all people from different occupational and historic backgrounds with the intent of teaching the general public how important all types of sciences are. Sarcasm, humor and most importantly the sense of urgency contribute to the overall theme of this article. The reader is captivated by both the historic relevance and exaggerated opinions of ‘scientists’ and writers Orwell provides. In all truth Orwell was captivating in trying to relate to the reader. There are a plethora of science majors who could learn a thing or two from this article. Without a solid background in not only ‘science’ but the other half of the spectrum, Orwell feels human beings will be doomed to a life of bloodshed if they cannot come to an understanding of what there is besides their present knowledge.

As a reader, I found this article right on the money as to what ‘science’ really is and how dangerous ignorance can be for people who only know ‘science’. I am a science major, although it has taught me that I must educate myself on the other side of the spectrum or suffer becoming a victim of a stereotype.

Click to access Orwell.pdf

What is Science?

Throughout George Orwell’s essay on the concept of “what is science,” he proclaims that scientists would benefit from a more developed and less narrow minded education, limited to just the scientific subjects. By having this narrow minded attitude, scientists lose sight of the interpretative and opinionated way the world works, and instead focuses solely on facts. Orwell strongly emphasizes that individuals of the scientific community, who are uneducated on subjects such as the arts, literature, or philosophy, have narrow and restricted thoughts that can be considered less intelligent compared to the “illiterate peasants” thoughts. But because of the term “scientist,” Orwell believes that ordinary individuals and popular culture consider scientists and their opinions as gold. They are highly regarded in the communities in which they live, and are more apt to be more intellectual than the philosopher or journalist of the same community. Orwell states that individuals should treat the term science as “a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact.” His definition more broadly defines the term science, compared to the narrow sense of the word meaning the topics of chemistry or biology. Orwell desires that the everyday individual be scientifically educated, in pursuance of a well-versed mind on the multitude of topics concerning that time period. The educated mind will be able to formulate thoughts, not only factually, but rationally, skeptically, and experimentally. If an individual is able to attain this type of mind, they can be regarded as someone equal to the celebrated biologist.

Today, compared to Orwell’s time period, scientists are still somewhat more highly regarded than the common poet or artist. However, scientists today are expected to be knowledgeable of the interpretive subjects, such as philosophy, and literature. Orwell’s belief that everyone should be scientifically educated still applies to today’s society.

Response to Orwell “What is Science?”

Eric Arthur Blair, also known as George Orwell in this essay “What is Science?”, asks what is science and the different meanings of it.  George Orwell who was a novelist and critic, through out his essay tries to help us create our own definition of science. Some consider him one of the most influential voices of the century because of his critical political essays. In “What Is Science?”, he says there are many definitions and one could think it is a method of thinking or a collection of knowledge. That is up to us to decide.  Orwell stresses the importance of scientists becoming more outspoken so more people should be scientifically educated. He even states the world would be better off with a scientist in charge since he considers then smarter. He mentions other writers such as: Sagan, Krauss, and Ehrenreich, that have asked this very question and have essays that each add a little more knowledge to what science could be. He not only talks about the definition of science but also how science is socially impacted. Surprisingly, he also says there is a lot of culture involved in science. But in the end he want us to come up with our definition, to read and reflect and decide what is science is to us. Today, scientists are more outspoken like Orwell wanted and I do believe every one is more scientifically aware. While the exact definition of science isn’t exact yet, his essay still stands because there still is confusion over the meaning. His concerns are still relevant today because science is still being defined as well as new types of sciences being discovered.

Response to George Orwell’s “What Is Science?”

    In the article ” What is Science” written by George Orwell, he defines “Science” as two meanings. one is “the exact sciences, such as chemistry”, the other one is logical thinking from facts.Ironically, scientists think the second one is science, while others agree with the first one. As author argues over this confusion of meaning, the true definition of science get revealed. According to author, “Science means a way of looking at the world, and not simply a body of knowledge. To prove this, he shows readers that science ” is no guarantee of a humane or sceptical outlook”, using Hitler and the events of World War II.

    Today, almost 70 years after the essay was published,  author’s difinition still stands up. However, the problem he proposed may not be a big concern any longer. As living in a world of enormous information and knowledge whcih can be acquired so easily that what we need to do is just clicking mouses, people are not living independently any more and people gain knowledge not only initiatively but passively as well. It is not usual or practical for a modern person to think problems in a purely scientifical way.

Some Views About Anne Trubek “Why tweet? (And How to Do It)”

Anne Trubek is an associate professor of Rhetoric& Composition and English. She teaches Rhetoric & Composition in Oberlin College since 1997. I read her article which is called “Why tweet (How to do it)” today and found it is really interesting.The goal of this article is to persuade people who has wrong attitude towards twitter to change their mind. Anne wants to tell people who are too weary to tweet:tweet is not our duty. Why we tweet is that we are interested in tweeting. Anne also wants to tell people who resist not to use twitter: twitter either is an useful tool for people to absorb new knowledge and provides a  good environment for people to communicate and exchange opinions. We may not waste our time when using twitter.

http://annetrubek.com/2011/11/why-tweet-and-how-to-do-it/

Work Cited: http://new.oberlin.edu/arts-and-sciences/departments/rhetoric/faculty_detail.dot?id=21249

 

 

Anne Trubek “Why we Tweet and how to do it”

Anne Trubek, who is she and what does twitter mean for her? An Associate Professor of Rhetoric and Composition at Oberlin College, Trubek utilizes her of rheotric in her article “Why we Tweet and how to do it” to persuade her reader that Twitter is more than just a place to talk about everyday life. Trubek transforms the social media site into an outlet for improving her writing along with a way to gather information and network. Instead of appealing to a specific audience, Trubek welcomes newcomers to Twitter by providing valuable information on how to Tweet. For any newcomer who considers making a Twitter account he or she must be prepared for a 140 character limit. In Trubek’s opinion, the limit proves beneficial in helping to rewrite sentences in a clear coherent manor, while building upon one’s vocabulary. Successful Tweets are broken down into four categories: “headline, questions, self-contained quips and comments.” In writing this article, Trubek considers everyone a writer whether it be newcomers or veterans of the social media site by encouraging beginners to sign up and proposing ways to Tweet effectively. By talking about her past experience on Twitter, Trubek forms a relationship with her reader through her open minded viewpoints. As a fellow reader, the article was both inspirational and successful in conveying what Twitter can provide for various groups of people.

http://annetrubek.com/2011/11/why-tweet-and-how-to-do-it/

Work Cited: http://new.oberlin.edu/arts-and-sciences/departments/rhetoric/faculty_detail.dot?id=21249

Anne Trubek on Tweeting

As a writer, professor, and blogger, Anne Trubek finds Twitter as an excellent tool to connect people from every part of the world. In her blog, Trubek specifically pinpoints the advantages of tweeting. The use of social media is prevalent in today’s society. It reports news, give answers, and gets people involved. Twitter has the ability to fulfill all those duties. However, Trubek feels that people should not be forced to tweet. No one will take pleasure in anything if he/she is forced to do something. Twitter should be a hobby, not a chore. With that being said, Trubek then goes on and explains how Twitter works. This gives the readers an idea of how the Twitter functions and if its a fit for them. Twitter has many advantages. However, if hashtags, headline tweets, or social media does not sound enjoyable, then Twitter is probably not for you.

Anne Trubek’s View of the “Twitterverse”

Anne Trubek, an associate professor of rhetoric and composition at Oberlin College, has a thing or two to say about Twitter and how one could really use it effectively.  Although she doesn’t feel that the social networking site is a must for all, she is quick to say that by using Twitter you can really enhance the way you write.  On Twitter you are limited to a 140 character count per “tweet,” and managing to fit something that will catch someone’s attention in the limited space is what can make or break you.  Trubek recounts a time when she was forced to refine her writing within a tweet until it met the maximum character count and how she realized after that we often fall victim of using filler words.  For those new to the site she suggests that you post tweets within four major categories: headlines, questions, self-contained quips, and comments.  After reading through the description of each of these, a new tweeter should feel fairly confident in their ability to post something to the world.  In her piece “Why Tweet? (And How To Do It)” she speaks to the masses and thinks that anyone within reach of a computer could greatly benefit from creating an account on Twitter.  It’s hard to believe that something that many use to paraphrase and create slang terms on could be beneficial to the dying art of writing, but in an ever changing world perhaps a different point of view is what’s needed to turn the bad into good.