The Impact of Technology on human relationship
For our final paper, we’ll be returning to the Toulmin Method and using that to examine a technology. To do this, we’ll have to look at technology critically; thus, different uses of the same technology don’t count as “new technology” (creating another game, or media platform, or other “app” – no matter how popular it is – isn’t creating a new technology; it’s merely repurposing known technologies.
It might be interesting to compare “new” and “old” technologies. For example, it’s clearly the case that email will arrive much faster than snail mail, but if the contents aren’t “time sensitive” is it really any better (and if it is, then we’ll have to come up with some reasons for it outside the “time it takes”).
Alternatively, maybe we want to look at “useless technology” (and we might be able to have some fun here)? Heated toilet seats might be nice, but they don’t seem “necessary” in any way (more of a luxury item, and, since we’re not talking about outhouses, how cold do you keep the bathroom?).
A third way to approach the topic might be to look at how the “advance of technology” seems to have resulted in the “regression of individual skills”. For example, not many people seem to know phone numbers anymore (their phones “remember for them), and twitter feeds (aside from the usual crappy sentences) seem to be all about expressing emotions (without actually thinking about the subject matter at all).
Hilary Putnam once said, “Anything that can be put into a nutshell deserves to stay there.” To update that a little bit, we’d probably end up with (if he were still alive), “Anything that can be stated in 144 or 288 characters doesn’t deserve to be read.” Why? Because there’s not enough information there to make the case one way or the other.
Give it some thought; we’re still going to need a counterclaim (“technology is not making us dumber,” for example); so, we’ll want to make sure that we have a good thesis to argue in favor of our point.
The basic format for the Toulmin Method is as follows.
Claim: The overall thesis the writer will argue for.
Data: Evidence gathered to support the claim.
Warrant (also referred to as a bridge): Explanation of why or how the data supports the claim, the underlying assumption that connects your data to your claim.
Backing (also referred to as the foundation): Additional logic or reasoning that may be necessary to support the warrant.
Counterclaim: A claim that negates or disagrees with the thesis/claim.
Rebuttal: Evidence that negates or disagrees with the counterclaim.
