Example Of Essay On Close Reading: Empirical Reasoning

The first Stinkymeat Project is a visual exploration of the decomposition of various meats, to see just how quickly they decompose as compared to their price. The goal, ostensibly, was to see exactly what would happen when these meats were left to decompose out in the open air for two weeks or more. Among the subjects was a pound of ground beef, a pack of eight preservative-laden hot dogs, and a fresh steak. The meat was taken out of its packaging, set on a plate, and set in a neighbor’s yard clandestinely, the researcher taking pictures of it every day and reporting on its consistency. The experiment lasted about 18 days, as the meat itself continued to decompose and become food for maggots and other creatures, until the specimen was disposed of by the neighbors in question. While the Stinky Meat experiment is an entertaining one, and the researchers employ a wry sense of humor to make the proceedings palatable, there are some steps they likely could have taken to ensure that the experiment was performed more empirically and scientifically.
The design of the experiment is fairly simple and straightforward, with some concessions made for the sake of convenience and safety. The use of the neighbor’s backyard to house the specimen is at once an interesting idea (as well as a source of tension, always suspicious that the neighbors would take it away), and a severely limiting factor in the experiment. Because of the risk incurred in using the neighbor’s yard, the researcher could not have taken accurate readings or had the time to really look at the specimen up close; what’s more, as the meat decomposed, it became difficult for the researcher to even approach the specimen without help. While I understand it was to keep the smell (and health hazards) away from his own yard, it prevented a controlled environment from being established. Critters were shown to have taken away most of the hot dogs (which barely decomposed), and the experiment was stopped prematurely by the neighbors.
That being said, the thought behind the experiment showed a great degree of empirical reasoning. The researcher’s essential thesis was that, if left out to the elements, fresh meat would decompose and attract insects and other creatures. Furthermore, he had the idea that processed meat would have a different life cycle than fresh meat, and even then fresh cuts of meat would also react differently to the elements than ground meat. This is a clear case of inductive reasoning, which he showcases in other parts of the experiment (when he surmises that the white pods on top of the meat are maggots). Still, it would have been helpful to have had experts on hand to help identify what was happening to the meat/identify the insect and animal life that was working on the meat, so that more accurate readings could have been taken. He also self-corrected whenever he was proven wrong, changing his identification of creatures (and his assumptions) when someone else piped in with a proper ID (as in the case of the ‘black’ stage of maggot-hood).
If I were to change any aspects of this experiment, I would find a way to be in total control of observing the environment I placed the meat in, clearly labeled each piece of meat when it first began, and took pictures from the exact same angle each time (possibly with a mounted camera). I would also have looked up some literature on the way meats break down and decompose to see if these meats followed the stages.