Talk about science claims...

I drink almond milk for various reasons, among them that I think drinking dairy excessively isn't beneficial, I like the taste of the almond milk, and it's a little lower calorie than even skim milk.  (Note: I do eat other dairy and often order a cappuccino made with milk, and I generally drink my morning coffee with half-and-half, so I'm not adverse to milk or milk fat. Just in reasonable quantities.)

For me, it's primarily preference: I could drink soy milk or other dairy alternatives if it was all about being "healthy," but I think almond milk is pretty delicious and will drink it willingly and happily.

Diamond, the company who puts out this brand of almond milk, are clearly aware that some of their customers might be swayed for health reasons.  It what almost seems like parody after our discussions, Diamond has loaded the back of the carton with claim after claim after claim.  Let's look at all the buzz words: dairy-free, soy-free, lactose-free, cholesterol, and so on.  All natural! Calcium! Vitamins and minerals! REAL almonds! Low GI! Vegan!

It's almost as if they thought up every concern we have about milk and tacked it on the box and sprinkled some magic words like "all natural" and "low glycemic index" to give it a glow of health, all supported by those scientific studies we hear so much about.

How valid are these claims?  Most of them are simply marketing ploys.  Many consumers have  vague notion that vegans are healthy and that all natural and real almonds are good things, so perhaps almond milk is "healthier" than real milk.  To paraphrase on of my favorite nutritionists, Marion Nestle, food is food.  Almond milk may have nutritional advantages, but it is also heavily processed and fortified and made of more than almonds, where real milk is, well, just milk.  Drinking almond milk won't suddenly make me super fit and immune to diseases, just as drinking milk won't turn me into an overweight person who gets sick all the time.

Which is better?  That's not for me to say, but I'll keep drinking both because I can easily digest the lactose in my necessary-to-my-full-mental-functioning coffee (a science claim for another day), and I like drinking almond milk too.  But I'm on to you, Diamond, with your flashy health claims.  I'm on to you.

Summary and Outline Guidelines

Instead of just telling you what I would like to see for your blog post tomorrow, I thought I'd show you an example.  Modelling is always a good way to go, right?  (Plus, as promised, I'm posting alongside you!)

So, let's say that I'm going to write about "Broken Mirrors: A Theory of Autism" for the first paper.  What I would like you to post is a summary of your article and a brief outline.  That does not mean that this is your final outline that will be in your paper--it can be a rougher and more informal version--but I want you to start getting words down on paper so that you have a start on that first paper.  After this post, you will have a jump on your first paper assignment and will not have to dread the "blank page" syndrome faced by so many writers.  Ingenious, eh?  (I thought so).

Note how I give the authors and the title, information that may be removed from a summary in the final draft of my paper and put into the introduction instead.  Also pay attention to parenthetical citation.  The rule for citation for a summary is that if you are talking about the article in a general, global way, no need to cite, but if you use a bit of information that you can locate specifically within the article, you need to cite the page number(s).  Be sure to quote very sparingly--a summary is not the place for quotations (one or two at the very most).

All right, so here goes--feel free to interrogate, comment, and question.

My article (in MLA format.  Normally, there would be a hanging indent--the second line would be indented--but you can't do that very easily on the blog):

Ramachandran, Vilayanur and Lindsay Oberman.  "Broken Mirrors: A Theory of Autism." Scientific American Nov. 2006: 63-69.  Print.

***************************************
Summary:
In "Broken Mirrors: A Theory of Autism," Vilayanur Ramachandran and Lindsay Oberman propose that deficient mirror neurons may explain the causes of autism.  As they explain, mirror neurons help us empathize and understand other humans, and individuals with autism have trouble with these basic interactions (64).  They argue that while the other major theories seem to explain parts of the disorder, they also point out that there are gaps that must be addressed.  As they indicate, "What researchers need to identify are the brain mechanisms whose known functions match those that are disrupted in autism" (64), and for them that mechanism is mirror neurons.  To support their hypothesis, they measured the brain's mu waves in individuals with and without autism.  When a person moves her hand, for example, the mu wave is suppressed.  The mu wave is also suppressed when a normal individual observes someone else moving his or her hand; however, a person with autism has no observable suppression when observing someone else (65-7).  Ramachandran and Oberman cite this experiment and follow-up research as evidence to support their theory that autism can be explained by poorly functioning mirror neurons.  Mirror neurons do not account for all the symptoms, so the authors bring in the "salience landscape theory" as a complementary explanation.  Basically, a typical individual learns to connect cues in their environment with certain emotional and physical responses; however, individuals with autism have a skewed salience landscape that may explain why they may react in abnormal ways to what a non-autistic person perceives as trivial or not react appropriately in other situations (68-9).  Together, Ramachandran and Oberman argue that these two theories together fill in the gaps left by other theories and may help researchers better understand and treat autism.

Paper Outline:
I. Introduction
Thesis: audience for the article is an educated individual familiar with conventions in scientific and academic writing who is interested in science but not necessarily a scientist or science professional

II. Body
     A. Argumentative strategies used by the authors
          1.  Counterargument
          2.  Elements used in scientific writing
               a.) Multiple studies
               b.) methodology and repeatability
     B. Style and tone
          1. "Couched" language: uses of might, may, could, etc.
          2.  Informal language

III. Conclusion

**************************************
As you see, the summary and outline will help you get started with the paper. If you don't have as detailed  of an outline as mine, at least list some of the features/elements you think you might like to examine, and bring any questions you have about what would be "good points" to class tomorrow. Your thesis can just be a general statement--it doesn't have to be (and probably shouldn't be) your actual thesis statement. Have fun and good luck!  (Remember to post the blog by class time--I plan to read and respond to them right after class so that you can start working on your rough draft for Monday).