Putting aside the obvious logical fallacy of this theory for now, I want to concentrate instead on how The Future of Reading is (and is not) scientific. In order to prove and disprove this analysis, I will use Ramage’s Rhetoric and Persuasion II: The Stases and Toulmin. The six questions are ‘what is this thing (definition)’, ‘how much is this thing like/unlike that thing (comparison)’, ‘why did this thing happen (casual)’, ‘how good or bad is this thing (evaluative)’, ‘is this good (ethically)’, and ‘what should we do about this thing (proposal)’ (Ramage, 102-120).
Lehrer does not use all of these questions in his article. He first ignores the definitional stasis and does not define what he means by “reading”. To an English student, reading, at the most basic level is the exchange and absorption of information. To a neuroscientist, reading can be seen as the ability to recognize written characters on a page. Because Lehrer does not define what he means by reading, his hypothesis is unclear. He does answer the resemblance question when he goes to state how like/unlike a book is to an e-reader. To Lehrer, books are solid, old, and harder to read. E-readers are small, new, and “bright and clear” (Lehrer, 1). He also answers the casual question of why e-readers were invented; with the advancement of technology and HD screens, e-readers were inevitable.
As for the next question, the evaluative question, he seems to answer it, but because he failed to answer the definitive question, it seems superficial and incomplete. He claims that e-readers are bad because they make content clearer and therefore forgettable (if we use our ventral pathways), but since he failed to define what reading is, I cannot rely on his definition of bad and good. He vaguely touches on the ethical question, “we’ll become so used to the mindless clarity of e-ink…that the technology will feedback onto the content, making us less willing to endure harder texts” (Lehrer, 2). He does answer the proposal question, but half-heartedly. He says that bad handwriting is the only way to exercise our use of the dorsal path and “perhaps we need to alter the fonts, or reduce the contrast, or invert the monochrome color screen” (Lehrer, 2).
Overall, Lehrer’s article falls just short of being scientific because with his failure to define what reading or deep reading is, I cannot follow the rest of his arguments well. One stasis question leads to another, and if the first question is unanswered, the rest are just ink on a page. As for his proposal that making text less clear would make people concentrate harder, it’s completely unfounded and ridiculous. If this theory were true, reading would have died out with the invention of the printing press, or the word processor. Ramage makes a comment on how in ethical arguments, consequences are also taken into account and some “consenquentialists” only look at consequences, such as “the drinking of caffeinated beverages…will lead to heroin addiction” (Ramage, 116). With his hypothesis that making text clearer will make reading less memorable, Lehrer can now be seen as a consequetialist.
Bibliography
Lehrer, Jonah. “The Future of Reading.” The Frontal Cortext Science Blog.
Ramage, John D. “Rhetoric and Persuasion II: The Stases and Toulmin.” In Rhetoric: A User’s Guide. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2006. 102-120 (excerpts).
Shelli, I appreciate that you took this stance of Lehrer's article. I too wrote about this topic and although I did not dispute his conclusion, I am glad someone exposed how ridiculous he sounded by stating that poor text quality will rid our society of its attention deficit. Obviously there are many outlying factors to why no one can pay attention anymore, but the fact that he chose this reason is beyond my comprehension. I like that you were able to find an example so basic to refute his entire article. Saying that if his theory made sense, reading would have died out with the printing press or the word processor. (Hey, maybe I should change this font so you can understand what I am saying).
ReplyDelete"Lehrer does not use all of these questions in his article. He first ignores the definitional stasis and does not define what he means by “reading”. To an English student, reading, at the most basic level is the exchange and absorption of information. To a neuroscientist, reading can be seen as the ability to recognize written characters on a page. Because Lehrer does not define what he means by reading, his hypothesis is unclear."
ReplyDeleteNow would be a good time to point out that the very first important step of the scientific method is "the hypothesis." He is doing his work and all of his readers a tremendous disservice if this isn't laid out properly. Good work.
Shelli,
ReplyDeleteI wrote about the same topic and would say I agree with you. You make an excellent point about how to a neuroscientist that not all information is clear or the same for every person. That was good. But, I would have to wonder about with the issues you have with his argument. Lehrer clearly is a complete avid book reader, as we all are as English majors. But, why do think that not having the Kindle or an iPad would be a bad thing? Do you think maybe he wants students to read a definition or think critically as opposed to pulling it up on Wikipedia? What are your thoughts?
Shelli
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, using Ramage's concept and the basic questions of stases, not having the definitive question seems as the text is ungrounded. I wrote my SA on this text as well, and I focused on the arrangement or the choice of these general questions of stasis. He first states his value, his opinion then defines reading in a brain anatomical perspective. I just might be naive, but I felt that defining terms such as reading can be done in an infinite number of ways and Lehrer's way was one of them. Therefore, I concluded that he did have a definitive component in his stases. His style of stasis was interesting because he chose to go from higher stases to lower, in order to seek value within the audience. I used Fahnestock and Secor, not Ramage. Therefore your ideas are well thought out in this essay and I agree from the perspective that you have guided me through this assignment. Good Job!
I am curious to see what you think about why Lehrer may have left out the definition question and the questions that Fahnstock/Secor decide are basic and fact-based - if we assume that Lehrer's main topic is e-readers, why might he have left out answering the "what," "who uses," "how extensive is use" type question. I think these questions are roughly equivalent to Ramage's definition and resemblance questions. It's particularly interesting to consider this question in the context of his audience. Lehrer is definitely writing to a tech-savvy audience who probably know the answers to these questions about e-texts already.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that just because a writer leaves out one of the series of stases questions, the rest of the argument is shot, or cannot be considered "scientific." We really have to look hard at WHY a certain questions was left out. Otherwise, we fall into the same category of narrowly defining scientific rhetoric and relegating it to one form of writing (similar to the writers who insist that Baconian induction is the only way to write reputably about science).