1- How do scientists and interpretive scholars differ in their answers to the

question ‘What is truth’? Which perspective do you find more satisfying?

Scientists believe truth is objective, and the interpretive scholar thinks that truth is
subjective. (In a scientific approach, it is more realistic and based on nothing more than
facts and credible theories. Interpretative, on the other hand, is over-thought, and can,
sometimes, be overwhelming. This approach is based more on assumptions.
[opinionated] The scientific approach is much more realistic for me in comparison to the
interpretative. For example, Glen (the scientific/objective approach), said that
Mastercard's strategy was "Football Star + commercial = more customers." He
supported this observation by using source credibility theory and identification theory.
Marty (interpretative) instead believed that Mastercard was trying to show the message
that, "Tough guys are equivalent to money or success.")

How do scientists and interpretive scholars differ in their answers to the question What is truth? Which
perspective do you find more satisfying?

Scientists and interpretive scholars differ in their answer to the question “What is truth” because of the
approaches. Scientists take on the objective stance and image theory of a mirror. By believing that truth
is singular, scientists are highly based on proven evidence and once testable and proven, they stand by it
without question. There is only one reality. The interpretive scholar takes the obvious interpretive
approach by believing there are multiple truths therefor different perspectives. Truth is not singular but
in fact very subjective. I find the interpretive scholar’s definition to be more satisfying. ‘Truth’ in it self is
so broad and therefore must be subjective and full of question. The world is so vast with more to unveil.
The approach of only believing evidence cannot be adequate enough. The more perspectives, the more
ideas, the closer we are to unveiling the truths of the world.

Scientific Method → a search for the truth through accurate observation and interpretation of fact

• Logic of the scientific method is quite simple, but its application in the real world is rather complicated
• If applied to systems that are well-isolated, stationary and recurrent (= rare) o Problems with trying to
study repeated observations b/c no two audiences, individuals, new stories are the same

o Can put them in a laboratory, but then the environment is not realistic (people don’t grow up in
laboratories)

Scientists assume that Truth is singular. They see a single, timeless reality “out there” that’s not
dependent on local conditions. It’s waiting to be discovered through the five senses of sight, sound,
touch, taste, and smell. Since the raw sensory data of the world is accessible to any competent observer,
science seeks to be bias-free, with no ax to grind. The evidence speaks for itself. As Galileo observed,
anyone could see through his telescope. Of course, no one person can know it all, so individual
researchers pool their findings and build a collective body of knowledge about how the world works.

Scientists consider good theories to be those that are faithful representations of an underlying reality—
mirrors of nature. They are confi dent that once a principle is discovered and validated, it will continue
to hold true as long as conditions remain relatively the same. That’s why Glenn believes the credibility of
a message source can explain why other media messages succeed or fail. Interpretive scholars seek truth
as well, but many interpreters regard that truth as socially constructed through communication. They
believe language creates social realities that are always in flux rather than revealing or representing
fixed principles or relationships in a world that doesn’t change. Knowledge is always viewed from a
particular standpoint. A word, a gesture, or an act may have constancy within a given community, but
it’s dangerous to assume that interpretations can cross lines of time and space. Texts never interpret
themselves. Most of these scholars, in fact, hold that truth is largely subjective—that meaning is highly
interpretive. But rhetorical critics like Marty are not relativists, arbitrarily assigning meaning on a whim.
They do maintain, however, that objectivity is a myth; we can never entirely separate the knower from
the known. Convinced that meaning is in the mind rather than in the verbal sign, interpreters are
comfortable with the notion that a text may have multiple meanings. Rhetorical critics are successful
when they get others to view a text through their interpretive lens—to adopt a new perspective on the
world. For example, did Marty convince you that the MasterCard ad was an attempt to equate
manliness with money? As Anderson notes, “Truth is a struggle, not a status.”

Ans 2

MCLUHAN: UNDERSTANDING MEDIA

• Explained his vision of the implications of the spread of electronic media:

o the medium is the message (and massage) → new forms of media transform (massage) our experience
of ourselves and our society, and this influence is ultimately more important than the content of specific
messages

o Global village → new form of social organization emerging as instantaneous electronic media tie the
entire world into one great social, political, and cultural system

o The Extensions of Man → media literally extend sight, hearing, and touch through time and space

• McLuhan became one of the first pop culture gurus of the 1960s

• Academic criticism however – found his ideas too diverse and inconsistent McLuhanism

Strengths:

Is comprehensive

• Is macroscopic

• Resonated with the general public in the 1960s and 1970s

• Elevates cultural value of popular media content

• Anticipates a future in which media play a central role in fostering community

• Enjoys longevity as a result of introduction of new electronic media

Weaknesses:

• Can’t be verified by effects research

• Is overly optimistic about technology’s influence

• Ignores important effects issues

• Calls for nonlinear thinking, the value of which is questioned

• Is overly apologetic of electronic media

• Questions the value of literacy and argues for its inevitable decline