11/18 documentary analysis

the doc i watched was "flock of dodos". its primary purpose is an analysis of the intelligent design v. evolution argument and a charting of its genesis as creationism into a weapon of "scientific theory". within this is a singular argument, followed by a few sub-arguments. the argument: intelligent design is nothing more than an idea. it is not science, it is purely faith and is being posited as science in order for a few ultra-conservative/religious members of some school boards to avoid teaching scientific method. it further posits that evolution is under this kind of attack due to failures of communication among biologists. rather than speak as human beings, they speak in scientific jargon and it becomes difficult to follow the sheer amount of data proving evolution.

HOWEVER: the film does not demonize proponents of intelligent design. it meets with several school board members pro-intelligent design (or more accurately, against evolution) as well as some of the major national figures in the pro-intelligent design community. the filmmaker, former marine/molecular biologist-turned-filmmaker randy olson, goes to great pains in order to explicitly state that these people are not bad people, many of them are in fact great people who are merely uneducated and the onus is on the scientific community to change their discourse in order to accurately convey the truth of the theory in evolution. he furthermore states, through wonderful graphic representations, the importance of education in "filling the gaps of knowledge" in order to know the universe.

Olson's primary technique is humour: the title "flock of dodos" is a self-deprecating statement which can refer to his own scientific school (destined for extinction) or later in the film to the failures of intelligent design (famously defeated in 2004). he employs very few talking head-style interviews, instead focusing on human interviews with experts, lay-people, and his own mother's perspective. this is interspersed with humorous animations and historical footage on the subject.

it succeeds in its endeavours through that humor. it doesn't aim to preach to the intelligent-design masses, merely to point out that they can't participate in scientific discourse as-is simply because their "theory" is not a theory by the rules they claim to play by...it is instead a mere idea, untested and untestable other than by fallacy. the film also places a lot of blame on the over-intellecualization of evolutionary theorists, people who truly know what they're doing but are unable/unwilling to speak to the "common" man.

based on this film is the student activity of examination of argument. documentaries tend to have an interesting perspective because they often seek what is seen as a "wrong" and make an argument as to why it ought to be otherwise. errol morris' "thin blue line" or joe berlinger's "paradise lost" do this famously: they spot what they see as a social injustice (the wrongly-convicted) and make an argument in favor of release. my activity, therefore, is simple:

find an argument. in a documentary of the student's choice (or depending on context, among a list designated by the teacher) and state what the argument is, and how it follows the basic principles of communication. this activity would be prefaced on the basics of argumentation as a communication tool and the students would be provided with the characteristics of an argument. the student would then be required to go down this list of characteristics:

1. an inferential leap
2. a perceived rationale for the leap
3. a choice among competing claims
4. willingness to confront
5. an optimally shared frame of reference

within the film chosen, the student will be asked to go through these characteristics and show where/if these characteristics are present. from here, in groups of three, the students share their results: what are the common arguments they see? what characteristics seem to be shown? is the argument one of persuasion?