The Orchestration of Argument

By now, I'm sure you've gathered that EMC is a really big part of my life. But another thing that I enjoy doing is playing the violin and the other day, in orchestra rehearsal, I noticed something about the way we practice the music. Our conductor Mrs. Curro, lets us run through a sight read of the piece which really just means we play the entire thing without stopping for botched intonation or rhythmic errors. Then, the next rehearsal, she comes in with her score filled with little yellow post-it notes marking the most severe of our errors. We work through those spots for about two rehearsals, and then, we repeat the process. We run through the entire piece without stopping and the next time, Mrs. Curro comes ready and armed with her newest set of post-it notes. And this cycle continues to repeat itself until we've refined the piece as much as possible and we're ready for the concert.

As I was sitting in orchestra a couple rehearsals ago and we were focusing on this really fast but also really involved section with special flats and sharps not in the key signature, I thought, this method really works. First, you take a large survey of the most pronounced problems - the ones that could make or break your project - and you fix those. Then, as you get to know your project more and you figure out how you want it to look, what purpose you would like it to serve, you start to hone in on the smaller details that will create that message you are trying to convey. You will know which elements need emphasis and which ones you can maybe leave behind if they are not serving their purpose. But I think the key aspect that I appreciated when coming to this realization about orchestra rehearsal is that you don't only take that large survey once at the beginning. It's something that happens consistently and I think that would be helpful in a project like mine because it's certainly quite easy to get caught up in the small details and making sure every small thing is just right. But then, it is absolutely vital to return to the larger picture and make sure that all of those perfected details fit together as they are supposed to.

I'm kind of in a reflecting mood because I just finished my emc reflection form for October but there is one thing that remains unclear to me and that is how does my project become an argument? I didn't really write about this in my reflection mostly because there was not really a place for it but I think something like that is important. I mean, arguments happen all the time between scientists - over various theories, patents - as you may learn in a future second podcast attempt, they cause brilliant colleagues to part ways. But I guess my issue is that I don't know how my thesis could be turned into an argument. I understand that throughout the defense of my paper, I am arguing that the data I collected supports the conclusions I arrive to but if I have the adequate data and requisite sourcing, then how does my claim become disputable? I also know though that scientists differ from one another all the time and that there is always going to be an experimental design loophole for someone to say well you only really got this data because you manipulated something else. So I think I understand the two things; what I'm doing and how arguments/defenses usually take place in the science world but I'm confused as to where and how they connect.

I think this kind of brings me to something I was able to include in my reflection - being challenged. I feel like people; my committee members, others in emc, are trusting me too much and I want someone to challenge me. I want someone to say well how can you explain the plaque buildup if there are two seemingly opposite mutations? That was a bad example, but I feel that although I'm doing my best to make sure I'm asking good, insightful questions, I definitely need outsider perspective to say that does not make sense. Or explain this more, or explain why scientist x believes the complete opposite of scientist y - what is the cause of their dispute and why haven't they been able to come to agreement.

You see, it almost seems as if science doesn't lend itself to argument because there are always facts and quantitative data that should settle the differing opinions, decide who's right. But that doesn't really seem to be the case. I know this is not a goal post but I think I'm going to try and find others, possibly students or teachers who are willing to go through my journals and all that I've written and challenge me. I think it will be good for me to be doubted.