Week 2: Class Discussion Q 3

I really enjoyed this first chapter in the book because it gave you great insight on how communication studies came about and who the main rhetoricians where in the development of communication and public speaking. One area that rally grabbed my attention was the talk of the more scientific study of communication or the “scientific method”. Throughout the chapter it goes into detail of what we all commonly know or have been taught in communication study of Ethos, Pathos and Logos as well as the Five Canons of Rhetoric’s and so on. Even though we may not have known in as the Five canons of Rhetoric’s, these 5 methods are something we typically tend to do in our public speaking with out even knowing it. But the scientific method peaked my interest because I know for myself I do not typically break communication down scientifically. I like that they would isolate a certain phenomenon and then break it into smaller parts, pose questions and hypothesis then put it into action. The one example they used to study was if a women had the same “source credibility” when talking on a female issue as they did when talking on a male issue. They then set up a situation where they had a female talk to an audience on the different issues. They could then use that information to answer their questions and see if their hypothesis held true and so on. You can then use this information in many situations and areas. Using the scientific method can really help public speakers to become better because they develop research and hard facts on topics to help back their speech. For example if a female public speaker has to talk on a male issue she can take the research done on a females source credibility on a “male issue” and use that information and the feedback done in the research to help with her speech. I just personally found this interesting and think it could be useful.