Public

Intellectual Series Project, pg. 1 of 16

Analytical Essay
Before looking at each of the individual pieces, I think it is important to
look at the rhetorical situation, as a whole, in order to get a broad idea of how all
of these pieces are meant to fit together. The context of this situation is an online
blog/magazine of rhetorics in relation to general topics, centered around the CU
student community. The reader within this context is the CU student body, made
up of a diverse group of individuals with diverse interests but with a common
groundthey wish to learn how rhetorics functions in a wide range of topics,
questions big and small. The text of this situation is the blog site itself, as well as
the advertisements that lead the reader there. It is a typical blog site with usual
online formatting for articles produced for consumption by the student body. The
writers are us, public intellectuals with expertise in a wide range of topics but with
a common background in rhetoric. My background: the rhetoric of scientific
discourse.
Beginning with the advertisement, the piece that is meant to bring the
reader to my articles and the blog as a whole, we see a construction based upon
many rhetorical assumptions that I have had to determine based on the situation.
The piece itself would occur as an advertisement on the side of any CU or
Boulder related webpage; the online location being the key as this is where our
audience and our publications exist. The picture used in the ad is made up of
several human shapes formed by numbersthey are the matrix people, which
is visually appealing and this audience can immediately associate with something
out of the ordinarycreating curiosity. The simple question, Are we living in a

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 2 of 16

simulation? is vague but will pique the interest of any younger individual who is
familiar with Science-Fiction and gaming. I promise to give an answer to this
question, all the reader has to do is follow the link and they are there. The
phrase, check it out, itll change your life, speaks directly to the relatively young
audience, guaranteeing they will not regret that click.
Now that I have brought readers to my blog, they will immediately be
immediately engage by my author photo and biotwo pieces that work in unison
to create the ethos I need to be persuasive as a public intellectual of rhetoric
speaking on scientific matter. The photo I chose was very deliberate as I saw the
need to appeal to the audiences general interests to make an immediate
connection. A love of nature, active lifestyle, youth were all common areas I
identified and could be used to form the necessary appeal. I need to connect with
the reader on a personal level but maintain the ethos of a public intellectual. To
accomplish this, I chose a picture in which I appeared somewhat serious,
trustworthy, and perhaps mature beyond my years. The bio works to reinforce
some of these features of personal connection while creating ethos. I present
myself as a student like everyone else in the audience but I make it very clear
that I have specialized in my studies and I know much more about the topic I will
write about, compared to the average student. For example, I say His main
focus is the analysis and deconstruction of public communication surrounding
scientific matters. This is largely true, albeit an exaggeration--the result being
that I create the strong ethos I need to be persuasive while maintaining the
ethical integrity for myself and fellow bloggers.

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 3 of 16

The reader is now convinced of my expertise and they have formed a
basic connection, built upon some common interests we have. They have
successfully been drawn to read my dissuasion piece. This piece is a systematic
dismantling of one philosophers argument surrounding my topic and I take him to
task. I immediately wreak havoc on his ethos and that of the paper in which he is
writing. Paraphrasing paragraph one, I say that he is a mere philosopher
publishing in a shock-philosophy magazine so he has no business discussing
scientific matters; He has overstepped his bounds. I take his two main (and only
points) and shut them down because they are irrelevant to the argument as it has
evolved. I make it clear that he is talking about something completely different
than what the argument has becomea classic argument by definition. An
important consideration for this writing context, especially because much of my
argument in hinged upon complex theoretical physics, is that I have to recognize
that the reader is not likely to understand things such as Quantum
Chromodynamics. I have to explain it in terms the reader will understand:
basically it is a framework for modeling small portions of the universe and proof
of this theory can be found in the limitations imposed by it. By leaving in enough
of the hard-to-understand bits, and exhibiting confidence while I do so, I help
support the ethos that comes with true expertise in this field. I rely heavily on
functions of pathos, for example, I offer the assertion that scientists are already
creating realistic simulations, albeit on a very small scale, but that it is inevitable
that they will become larger and more precise. The nail in the coffin for Silby
comes from my (fabricated) expert background in rhetoric and discourse,

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 4 of 16

describing his ontological and theistic argument as tired and irrelevant. This type
of categorization ensures that my audience believes me over the author I am
shutting down. Lastly, I inserted a critical piece that shows consideration for the
textthe online formattingwhich is a video allowing the reader to find out more.
This helps to create a buzz around the topic and reinforces my position by
showing that there are other knowledgeable people out there that believe the
same.
The dissuasion piece works well on its own, but now the reader is
overwhelmingly fascinated by this idea of a universe simulation and they want to
find out if it is actually true, so they move on to my persuasion piece. Here I really
get into the rhetoric of scientific discourse, hinging my argument on a rhetorician
called S.M. Halloran, who I present as an expert that can extricate deep meaning
from publications, and by using his methods, I can do the same. I compare the
prominent scientific publication on Simulation Hypothesis to Watson and Cricks
popular piece on the DNA model. Using an argument by definition, I convince the
reader that these papers are exactly the same. I go as far as picking out three
blatant commonalitiesthe beauty of the model, the explanatory power, and the
consistencyto show that these papers should be treated as equals. By
comparing the paper that is important to my topic to one that has revolutionized
another field of science, I convince the reader that we are perhaps at the
beginning of a new revolution. I carefully support the ethos of the authors of this
paper, describing them as prominent theoretical physicists working out of a
respectable university. I utilize some functions of logos when I demonstrate how

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 5 of 16

quickly and how incredible technology is in our era (supercomputers in our
pockets) and suggest that, given enough time, one should logically assume that
anything is possible. Again, when discussing complex matters of physics, I find
myself having to simplify my points in order to reach my audience. For example, I
have to refrain from pointing out the specific quirks of our universe (quantum
interdeterminancy, GZK limit, Heisenbergian uncertainty, etc.) that could be
explained by this hypothesis, and rather, just say that this model explains a lot of
the unknowns we have in physics. Again, I link to a video (a useful addition in this
type of text) so that the reader can quickly and easily get some more details of
the argument, which I have had to leave out to save space in my blog entry.
All of these considerations for Context, Reader, Writer, and Textfor each
of the pieces I have created that stand with one another and with the rest of the
material produced by my fellow bloggers--demonstrate that I have carefully and
effectively analyzed the rhetorical situation for the Public Intellectual Series.

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 6 of 16

Reflection

The most useful benefit I derived from the workshops was gaining a better
idea of the true nature of the audience within this particular rhetorical situation.
Our audience is the CU student body so I can make some decent assumptions of
the individual readers perspective and knowledge because I am a member of
this community, but only by workshopping with other students could I gain a truly
accurate analysis. This was especially relevant in my dissuasion and persuasion
piece because I had to be careful to present the scientific side of my topic in a
way the majority of CU students could understand. Prior to workshops, I falsely
assumed that most students would have a basic grasp of physics and computers
because I understand some of this stuff and Ive only taken a couple of physics
course. The workshops showed me that practically no one is knowledgeable in
physics. The workshops demonstrated that my main focus, in order to reach the
audience I was writing to, was that I needed to simplify, clarify, or otherwise
rework certain portions of my argument to meet their needs. I recognized that, for
example, I had to steer away form the topics of quantum computing, Quantum
Chromodynamics, interdeterminancy, and hiesenbergian principle because these
would not help me create a persuasive argument for my particular audience.
Simply put, I wasnt talking to my audience until I saw the disconnect during the
workshop portions of this series.
Another major benefit of the workshops was that I was forced to think
outside the box by examining other topics. I think I was so focused on my own

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 7 of 16

topic that I left little space for creativity in my argument. By looking at others
arguments, and seeing the way they created their categories and argument by
definition, and how they propped up the ethos of themselves and the writers they
were discussing, I was able to bring some of that creativity to my own argument.
This was especially useful for my persuasion piece, which is heavily reliant upon
my categorization and rhetorical analysis of two scientific papers from different
fields. The idea of comparing the paper relevant to my topic directly to another
scientific paperand focusing in on the language within each piece--hadnt really
crossed my mind until a workshop with XXXXX. His writings on the Syrian Civil
War showed clearly how language and discourse have been very powerful
mechanism in allowing the conflict to propagate an continue. I took his assertions
that language is power and used them directly in my article. The same way that
language has impacted matters of life and death in Syria, it has also impacted
matters of acceptance of science among the public.
Some other direct feedback proved beneficial, especially in this style of
text that has limited space. Prior to workshops, I spent way too much time,
words, and space explaining the argument itselfI was essentially regurgitating
what the original philosopher had said. Feedback from workshops convinced me
that by focusing so heavily on all of the complex arguments within the
hypothesis, I was crowding out my main point. The result of this feedback is
readily apparent; I give just enough information on the origins and main points of
the hypothesis that the reader knows what Im talking about, but I still leave
plenty of room to argue why the opposition is wrong and why I am right.

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 8 of 16

Workshops made it readily apparent that we were all under certain constraints for
these pieces and we must use that to our advantage.

Sources:

Crick, F., & Watson, J. (1953). A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171,
737-738.

Halloran, S. M. (1997). The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical
criticism of scientific discourse. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of
science: Case studies (pp. 39-53). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press.

Silas R. Beane, Martin J. Savage (2012) Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical
Simulation. Institute for Nuclear Theory, Box 351550, Seattle, WA, USA

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 9 of 16

XXXXX is a student of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado

at Boulder. He was born and raised in the suburbs of Denver, Colorado
where he developed a fondness for the outdoors and all things physical.
His academic work examines the disconnect between the scientific
community and public perception, and the way politics, economics, and
culture impact our environment. His main focus is the analysis and
deconstruction of public communication surrounding scientific matters.
XXXXX hopes to help build a future in which science is integrated into
public policy and information literacy is shared by all.

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 10 of 16

Dissuasion Piece
Philosophers Run Amuck
The Simulated Universe, by popular philosophy writer Brent Silby, offers a
very basic understanding of the Simulation Hypothesisthe idea that everything
in our universe is the product of a massive computer simulation, running on
hyper-advanced supercomputers. Silby uses the platform of the Philosophy Now
magazine, which "aims to corrupt innocent citizens by convincing them that
philosophy can be exciting, worthwhile and comprehensible, and also to provide
some light and enjoyable reading matter for those already ensnared by the muse,
such as philosophy students and academics." He certainly accomplishes those
goals but it becomes abundantly clear that he is overstepping his bounds. Ill
admit, he presents a good outline for the philosophical argument surrounding this
issue but fails to bring the argument fully into the realm of physics, a field of study
in which it has gained considerable traction (and one in which it ultimately
belongs).
He proceeds to discredit the theory based solely on two philosophical
principals, which he calls an argument of ontological economy:
1. Future simulators would have superior morals, which would prevent
them from running simulations that allow for the suffering we see in our world and
2. It does not explain how the original universe came about, specifically, it
does not explain who created these Gods we are describing who created us
By failing to present the entire body of evidence and areas of promising
study, and relying on over-simplified ontological arguments, Silby comes to an
unjustified conclusion, refuting the simulation hypothesis.
Lets back up a bit, these are some heavy ideas and Id hate for you to just
brush them off like Mr. Silby has done. Simulation hypothesis, an argument
presented initially by Nick Bostrom in 2003, relied almost entirely upon his three
philosophical principles and essentially stated we are statistically more likely to
be simulants rather than true physical beings. The idea quickly spread into the
world of physics, an area in which scientists are always looking for an answer to
explain the peculiar things we see in the universe. Some have argued that the
presence of glitches in our universe could be caused by errors in the simulation
or due to the need to compress the data the simulation utilizes, much like music
and video data is compressed, causing a loss of fidelity. These arguments arent
particularly convincing as they are reliant upon wild assumptions and
speculation, but this is not all of the story.
The feature of this topic that Silby conveniently leaves out is Silas Beanes
work with Quantum Chromodynamics. Quantum Chromodynamics is an
incredibly complex field of theoretical physics, but basically, it attempts to model

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 11 of 16

how forces within the atoms that make up our universe hold together subatomic
particles. These researchers have successfully modeled subatomic particle
interactions on a femtometer scale (1.0 x 1015 meters). Such simulations are so
elementary, so fundamental to the construction of the universe, that it is basically
a simulation of the universe itself, albeit on an incomprehensibly small scale.
(Dillow, 2012). Beane and his colleagues are looking at these simulations for the
ultimate clue that will answer this simulation hypothesis-- the Greisen-ZatsepinKuzmin cutoff. Basically, anything simulated by a computer with have constraints,
in this case, 3-D space is constructed on a minute framework that sets limits
like the GZK cutoff. If Beane and his team are correct, we can measure the
energy of cosmic ray particles, to see if they have this constraint placed upon
them as they would under the constraints of this type of computer simulation. If
we found that the cosmic waves behave in a particular way, we would basically
be able to see the construction of the minute simulation framework--and confirm
that we are indeed living in a computer simulation (Dillow, 2012).
Sidestepping this critical area in simulation researcher, Silby goes on to
refute the hypothesis with largely irrelevant philosophical arguments. His main
problem with simulation hypothesis is that he cannot fathom that such an
advanced species would be so morally depraved that they would wish to create a
simulation in which intelligent beings are made to suffer. He expects that
technological evolution would coincide with moral evolutionas the former
progresses towards perfection, so does the latter. This idea is simply absurd
when looking at our history of progress and moral development thus far. We are
a species in which war, competition, selfishness, and fear drives technological
progress. Vastly different cultures of humans, possessing vastly different levels
of technological capability, are all governed by the same features of humanity
self-preservation, self-indulgence, and desire for control. These features have
ensured survival and driven human progress for a few million years and theres
no reason to believe they cannot last another few million years.
Silbys other main argument is that everything that exists has a cause, the
universe exists so it must have a causethe basic Cosmological Argument,
normally applied to theism. He shoots down the simulation hypothesis because it
assumes a cause, but does not explain the cause, or the origin, of the parent
universethe real universe. This argument is irrelevant because the simulation
hypothesis never claims to explain the origins of the parent universe or
universes; rather, it only attempts to explain the origin and workings of the one in
which we exist. Whether you believe our universe is real or simulated, you face
the same problem trying to explain how everything was started at the very
beginning.
Silbys article serves only as a distraction. His rejection of the simulation
hypothesis is based off of an incomplete understanding of the argument as a
whole and off of irrelevant ontological arguments. He bases his rejection on
ontological economybasically because, in his opinion, the hypothesis creates

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 12 of 16

an overly cluttered worldview. He sees the simpler explanation of one universe
as more compelling only because it is simpler. Silby recklessly makes grand
assumptions about the progress of morality, which he asserts would prevent any
advanced species from creating a simulation of suffering. He compares the
simulation argument to tradition theological arguments supporting the existence
of God, stating that since you cannot prove the existence of God, you cannot
explain the presence of the simulators (God-like)a false equivocation. Im not
saying we are definitely living in a simulation, but Im going to keep an open mind
until science sorts it out.
To learn more about the Simulation go to: Are We Living In A Simulation?

Persuasion Piece
Universe Simulation: The DNA of Our Future
It is April 2013 and those of us lucky enough to be living in this era are
seeing technological advancement move at a pace unseen in all of human
history. In our pockets we carry supercomputers that can connect with anyone on
Earth in a matter of secondsand we think nothing of it. It appears that in the
realm of scientific and technological progress, the sky is the limit. What can we
expect in our lifetimes? What can we expect in a few centuries? How about a
million years? Philosophers and scientists have been asking these questions-curiosities that have sparked some very interesting discussions. These sorts of
discussions have the power to turn the world upside down as they suggest
alternate ways for interacting with the world and challenge reality itself. One of
the most interesting publications put forth in regards to unstoppable progress
presents Nick Bostroms assertion that we are almost certainly living in a
computer simulation. More on that later.
Before we delve into the mind-bending discussion surrounding what has
been deemed Simulation Hypothesis, it is useful to look at the discussion
surrounding another scientific revolutionone that happened during the era of
our grandparents. Imagine a time when world-class biologists were baffled by
how genetic information passed from parent to offspring. They could see the
results of this passing of information but they could not explain the mechanism
how information could be physically stored in a biological molecule. Cut to
exactly 60 years ago this month. This is when Watson and Crick published their
game-changing paper, A Structure For Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Their DNA
model would revolutionize the scientific world and has been heralded as the birth
of molecular biology. It set the stage for a level of scientific understanding and
inquiry, the likes of which have never been seen in human history.
Watson and Cricks earth-shattering paper is somewhat unique in its
heavy use of specific rhetorical techniques, generally avoided in scientific

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 13 of 16

literature. See, scientists publishing in journals that perhaps only other scientists
will review wish to be persuasive just like you would in your big literature thesis;
the difference, though, is that in scientific communities persuasion is entirely
reliant upon empirical evidence. Or is it? Watson and Crick outlined and
published a seriously persuasive model, which turned out to be spot-on, with very
little if any empirical backing. The authors present themselves as experts in the
field, creating a persona and a tone that is more reminiscent of a person-toperson interaction, rather than a scientist speaking. (Halloran, 1997) According to
S.M. Halloran, a prominent expert in the field of the rhetoric of scientific
discourse, the paper is understated and the rhetorical effect is to communicate a
sense of supreme confidence. In essence, Watson and Crick are not describing
the structure of DNA, they are selling their idea of the structure of DNA, which
they admit themselves is largely a product of their imagination. These methods
are used almost identically in the scientific paper on Simulation Hypothesis that
has caused a media and pop-culture firestorm: Constraints of the Universe As a
Numerical Simulation, by Bean and Savage. In this landslide paper, theoretical
physicists out of Washington University aim to determine the plausibility of the
universe actually being a simulation and attempt to find some observations that
could prove this theory one way or the other. Their conclusion: there is a very
real possibility we are living in an advanced computer simulation and this would
actually help to explain many of the anomalies seen in the universe across
different scales.
The language, tone, and generally non-scientific rational of these
publications is what has given them the power that they possesshelping to
draw support from scientist and laymen alike. We can extricate three main
arguments from Watson and Cricks paper that are identical to Bean and
Savages offering:
1.
The great elegance of the model
Watson simply suggests: a structure this pretty just had to exist. (W & C, 1953)
Similarly, Bean and Savage suggest current simulations, only able to function on
a subatomic scale but will certainly be expanded in coming years, yield the most
realistic predictions of nuclear interactions. Our computers can already
accurately and realistically simulate a universe on a femto scale (1.0 x 1015
meters). To them, larger and more accurate simulation is inevitable.
2.
The explanatory power of the model
Watson and Crick argue: the proposed model provides a very precise theoretical
explanation for what before had been simply a curious fact the observed ratios
of adenine to thymine and guanine to cytosine. This is reminiscent of Beane and
Savages suggestion that describes simulation hypothesis as a perfect
explanation for numerous quirks in the universe such as a particle existing in
multiple states until it is observed and the existence of universal constants,
among others.

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 14 of 16

3.
The consistency of the model with empirical data
Watson and Crick offer a negative argument, stating that their model is not
inconsistent with any experimental data. Beane and Savage use the same
mechanism stating that, due to limits in the pixilation of current simulations, the
theory holds plausibility and that only when finer scales are developed and some
fundamental elements of nature are discovered will we be able to even attempt to
refute the claim. Basically, it works within the framework of physics as we know
it.
So there we have it. Two scientific publications, sixty years apart, each
attempting to sell an idea that is certain to revolutionize the way we view the
world. Language is power, even in the rigid world of science. Watson and Cricks
discovery has stood the test of time and their model has become fact as
observation has turned the idea into certainty. The pair went on two win the
Noble Peace Prize for their work solving the DNA conundrum and have become
two of the most well know scientists in the world. What does that mean for the
strickingly similar paper that outlines the Simulation Modelsimilar in tone,
similar in argument, similar in weight of evidence, but possessing vastly more
game-changing potential? Are we on the brink of some incomprehensible shift in
understanding? Only time will tell, but one thing is for certain the Simulation
Hypothesis should not be taken lightly, it should not be relegated to the
imagination of some sci-fi writer. It should be on the mind of anyone wishing to
understand the true nature of the universe in which we live.
To learn more about the Simulation go to: Are We Living In A Simulation?

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 15 of 16

Online Blog Advertisement

Public Intellectual Series Project, pg. 16 of 16