Can You Define That Please?

Sure Webster’s Dictionary is a convenient tool to get an widely accepted formal definition, but its definitions aren’t the final say-so when it comes to defining words. Language is a rather complex subject and one concrete definition per word just won’t cut it in a world where everyone has different opinions about what a certain word means to them. Chapter 8 of Everything’s An Argument pointed out just that when it explained that making a claim of definition is a valid way to formulate an argument.

Arguments of definition can arise in just about any situation. In Chapter 10 of Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, Kingsolver questions the definition of the word local when used in relation to the “local” food she was eating at a diner. In her situation, the owner of the diner she was eating at clarified  that local strictly meant “an hour’s drive.” In other cases, local may mean straight from the neighborhood, or even within the boundaries of an entire state. I feel that it’s safe to say that finding the “right” definition of a word depends primarily on the situation.

In Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, an argument of definition was also brought up when dteremining the meaning of the word organic.  In this case, Pollan concluded that the word organic was rendered meaningless. Organic, like so many other words, can take on a wide variety of meanings. Pollan was more intent on defining organic as a way of producing vegetation or live stock in a manner that was free from pesticides, commodity corn, antibiotics, environmental damage, or rather anything unnatural. Large scale industrial organic producers would be more likely to define organic as abiding by the minimal requirements and guidelines set by the USDA.  As you can see, the word organic can be stretched to mean just about anything. Webster’s Dictionary defines organic as “Of or relating to, or derived from living organisms.”  (That seems to clear everything right up.) I have nothing against Webster’s or anything, but I feel that it should be used primarily to get an idea of a word meaning rather than a solid definition or you’ll find yourself on one end of an argument of definition.

Gimme the Facts

Chapter 7 of Everything’s An Argument presented us with the topic of arguments of fact. These arguments are aimed at making a sound claim and are driven by loads of hard facts and supporting evidence. This past week in class we were faced with arguments of fact in both, You Are What You Grow and King Corn.

Michael Pollan seems to have a knack at making me cringe with his words. Omnivores Dilemma didn’t exactly make me get up and make a ham sandwich after discovering that my slice of ham most likely had a horrifyingly depressing life. Besides the gruesome details that Pollan speaks of, I wondered what exactly it is about his book and article that really make me believe just about anything he’ll put out there. It’s the hard facts; just give me the facts and if they’re credible I’m here to listen.

In You Are What You Grow, Pollan presents his argument to inform the public and supports it with lots of hard facts in the form of statistics and sound nutritional facts. In my opinion, he was definitely successful in getting his point across smoothly without any question from his audience; me. I was glued to the computer screen reading that article. Fact after fact I learned the truth about the Farm Bill and how it only grants subsidies to growers of commodity crops like corn and soybeans. I was deeply saddened to find out that a lot of the corn ends up processed into food that is being fed to school children.

King Corn is another example of an argument of fact with a different set up for presenting evidence.  King Corn seemed to have a greater effect on me than Pollan’s article and that was probably due of the striking visuals used in the movie. Visual facts are much more memorable and sometimes more influential because many people tend to believe what they see. The images in King Corn gave a more extrememe picture of everything Pollan described with his words. King Corn actually allowed me to see the massive golden mountains of corns and to look into the sad eyes of the cows which it was being shoved into, in some form or another.

Both pieces of material presented in class opened up a horrifying new world to me by using facts to support an argument.  Now I will forever have the thoughts of pigs gnawing on each others tails and the image of a cow with a large gaping hole etched into my mind.

Blog 3: Toulmin Argument presented in Ch. 9

Our group was asked to analyze the aspects of Toulmin argument used in chapter 9.

Claim: Modern use of the word “organic” has been rendered meaningless.

Grounds:  Pollan gives anecdotes, starting on page 144, describing his trip to Cascadian Farm and Earthbound Farm to support his claim with evidence that organic farms are not truly as they are depicted by the labels on their products.

Pollan also finds hard facts to support his claim and states, “…The USDA…in 1997….allowed for the use of genetically modified crops an irradiation and sewage sludge in organic food production.” Pg 154

Warrant: “It would also be a mistake to assume that the word “organic” on a label automatically signifies healthfulness, especially when that label appears on heavily processed and long-distance foods that have probably had much of their nutritional value, not to mention flavor, beaten out of them long before they arrive on our tables.” Pg 181

Backing:  “But perhaps most discouraging of all, my industrial organic meal is nearly as drenched in fossil fuel as its conventional counterpart.” “An industrial organic meal…does leave deep footprints on our world.” Pg 182

Qualifier: (When speaking of “industrial organic”, Pollan states), “Of course it is possible to live with contradictions, at least for a time, and sometimes it is necessary or worthwhile.” Pg 181

Rebuttal: In part 5 of Ch.9 “My Organic Meal” Pollan buys Organic food items for dinner and compares them to conventionally produced food items in order to address the counter arguments that organic may indeed be better. In response to the question of whether organic is better for taste Pollan states,”…Very likely, at least in the case of produce–but not necessarily.” In response to the question of better for his health, Pollan remarks, “ The answer, again, is probably—but not automatically.” Pg 177