Argument as Conversation Summary and Response

In Stuart Greene’s 2001 article, Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument, many different suggestions are given regarding how to successfully convey an argument in writing. Greene states that when people sit down to write about a topic of interest to them, they are never actually the first people to write about a certain topic. He quotes a passage from Kenneth Burke which discusses how writing is like entering a parlor where a heated discussion is going on, and has been going on for quite some time. After listening for a while and hearing other points people are making, you decide to enter in your opinion. The discussion grows more heated, but you must eventually leave. This is how Greene sees writing- as a dialogue. He states that in order to enter a conversation, one must understand the topics that have been discussed, identify a problem, find evidence to persuade people to see their way, think about possible objections or opposing views people may have, and notify why this topic is important. In order to convey a point in the best way, Greene says,the writer must know all sides of the argument. In order to have a convincing argument the writer must identify an issue and the situation, states Greene. When the writer has identified these, they must frame a good question to guide their writing. To Greene, framing is an essential part of the writing and researching process, because it allows the writer to organize their thoughts, clearly state their position on a certain topic, inform the reader about the topic, and allows for conversation to stem from it. Framing is essential for the writer to have the reader focus on what they want them to. In the end, Greene states that inquiry and research are extraordinarily important in ultimately changing the way the world sees things.

In the first discussion question, it asks what role Greene thinks reading plays in the kinds of writing students will be asked to do in college. Greene believes that there are different types of reading one can do in school, and the two are very different, but equally important. There is reading as inquiry versus reading as a search or information.  In order to inquire on a deeper level, you must have the information you need. You always want to convey your writing as educated, thoughtful, and accurate, all which come from these two reading processes. In an academic setting, it is expected that your writing will further a scholarly conversation and not copy or state ideas that have been brought up by other people. This is why reading for information, in order to better inquire about a topic, is critical. The second discussion question asks, “Explain the concept of framing. What metaphor underlies it? Why is the concept important for Greene? What does framing allow a writer to do?” Framing is necessary to Greene because it allows the writer to come up with and organize different, and sometimes opposing, views that will ultimately help their argument. He compares framing to photography when he says, “Framing is a metaphor for describing the lens, or perspective, from which writers present they arguments. Writers want us to the see the world in one way as opposed to another, not unlike the way a photographer manipulates a camera lens  to frame a picture.” Framing is essential for getting your audience to focus on one topic rather than another, and getting them to perceive things the way you do. Greene says that there are four things framing allows you to do. Framing encourages the writer to clearly state their position on the topic they are writing about, makes them explain or define certain ideas regarding their topic so the reader is informed, makes your argument appear clearer and allows for conversation, and creates an opportunity for organizing thoughts.

The Case for Teaching Ignorance Summary and Response

Jamie Holmes 2015 article, The Case for Teaching Ignorance, explains the importance of ignorance in learning. Holmes tells the stories of Dr. Marlys H. Witte, a University of Arizona surgery professor, and Dr. Stuart Firestein, a Columbia University professor and neuroscientist, who both longed to teach courses regarding knowledge and ignorance. They wanted to teach students the importance of questions and the limits of knowledge. Holmes uses these story to highlight the importance of curiosity and not knowing the answers to everything. Holmes mentions that Firestein specifically was astonished that his students felt that scientists knew everything because he knew that science is always being revised and questioned- facts aren’t solid things. In addition, Holmes highlights the idea that the more people know, the more questions come about. In his own words he says, “The ever-expanding shoreline, where questions are born of answers, is terrain characterized by vague and conflicting information.” This uncertainty can sometimes confuse and frustrate people, however. He mentions a point made by Gary P. Pisano who explains that once people, particularly businesses, use something that works, they are too afraid to try anything new and uncertain. He calls this “learning mode” which can be a problem. Holmes concludes that although the study of Agnotology is still new, it is extraordinarily significant for fostering curiosity, growth, and knowledge amongst the younger generation.


The Case for Teaching Ignorance highlights some very important ideas in a very short article. A line that really resonated with me was when Jamie Holmes mentions Marlys H. Witte's idea for a new class she wanted to teach titled, Introduction to Medical and Other Ignorance. Holmes mentions that Witte, “wanted her students to recognize the limits of knowledge and to appreciate that questions often deserve as much attention as answers do.” This quote was really important to me because it shows that an educator, someone who is helping to mold the minds of our next generation of doctors, politicians, etc., understands how students typically perceive knowledge, and wanted to change something about it. Rarely do teachers design a class that completely shifts the way we view thinking, hence the negative reaction Witte faced from an official who refused to support her class. Witte did not back down, which I commend, and continued to believe that this class was necessary for understanding knowledge and research in a more thorough way. She understood that classes typically focus only on knowledge, but not how to grow and develop more from what we know. I believe questioning what we know and how we know it is essential in the learning process, and Witte understood that.
    The quote that really felt troublesome was when Holmes quoted Gary P. Pisano who said,, “The center of the island, by contrast, is safe and comforting, which may explain why businesses struggle to stay innovative. When things go well, companies drop out of ‘learning mode.’” While I do not disagree with this quote, I do feel that it applies to more than just businesses. As students, we tend to stick to what is comfortable and familiar- that would be knowledge. Because this goes well, we quite often do not search further and really question what we know, or rather, what we don’t. We learn things, we spit out this information on exams and in papers, and try to apply what we learn in the real world. But do we ever question it? Do we ever look for a deeper meaning? How do we know that we cannot change things or come up with something more accurate? Why do we believe that every bit of knowledge is set in stone? This is a problem. We stick to “learning mode” when we shouldn’t.

Pursuit of Ignorance Summary and Response

In neuroscientist and Columbia professor Stuart Firestein’s Ted Talk, The Pursuit of Ignorance, the idea of science being about knowing everything is discussed. Firestein says there is a common misconception among students, and everyone else who looks at science, that scientists know everything. Science is seen as something that is an efficient mechanism that retrieves and organizes data. What Firestein says is often forgotten about is the ignorance surrounding science. He emphasizes the idea that scientists do not discuss everything that they know, but rather everything that they do not. Science, to Firestein, is about asking questions and acknowledging the gap of knowledge in the scientific community. Science keeps growing, and with that growth comes more people don’t know. There may be a great deal of things the world of science knows, but there is more that they do not know. Firestein states, “Knowledge generates ignorance.” Firestein acknowledges that there is a great deal of ignorance in education. In the age of technology, he says the secondary school system needs to change because facts are so readily available now due to sites like Google and Wikipedia. Firestein believes that educators and scientists jobs are to push students past these boundaries and look outside of the facts. A contributing problem to the lack of interest in doing so, Firestein states, is the current testing system in America. He says that when children are young they are fascinated by science, but as they grow older this curiosity almost vanishes. The reason for this is something Firestein’s colleague calls The Bulimic Method of Education, which involves shoving a huge amount of information down the throats of students and then they throw it back up into tests. In the end, Firestein encourages people to try harder to keep the interest in science alive in the minds of students everywhere, and help them realize no one knows it all.



In Sturart Firestein’s Ted Talk, the Pursuit of Ignorance, he makes several comments about our current education system and the lack of interest in science many students have today. Stuart suggests several things we can do to get students to step outside of the boundaries of facts. He starts off his speech saying that in one of the classes he used to teach, Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience 1, he presented his students with the required text; a 1,414 page book created by three of the top neuroscientists. Firestein said he eventually realized that the way he was presenting this information to his students was causing some problems, particularly making them believe that scientists only collected facts and data, and put them into books. This gave them the impression that scientists know everything. He also accuses the current testing system we have as a main reason for students not wanting to go looking further. Firestein says that because facts are so readily available due to sources like Google and Wikipedia, students don’t search for more. He also credits the current testing system we have in America as a cause for students lack of interest in pursuing science. What educators need to do is edit the way they present information, and emphasize that while there is so much that scientists do know, there is so much more that they don’t. Acknowledging ignorance is important. I agree that knowledge is almost always portrayed as something set in stone, something that everyone knows. It is in the classes where I am asked to question what I know that I learn more, and grow as a student. We need to fuel this curiosity in students, Firestein says, and make them realize how exhilarating the unknown can be.

I Don't Want to Be Right Summary and Response

In Maria Konnikova’s 2014 article, I Don’t Want to be Right, the way people’s beliefs affect the way they interpret information is discussed in detail. Konnikova states that many people have false beliefs, and that people in power have to try and figure out a better way to present information in a way that is less threatening. She claims that people often feel threatened when something that is extraordinarily important to them is contradicted. When people have a strong belief, they will do their best to get rid of the information that question how they view things. However, if people do not feel as strongly about something, they will easily change their viewpoint. She questions why this is so, and discusses a variety of studies that prove her point on how people perceive information. Her conclusion was that people’s views depend on their identity, not how they view politics. She brings up a theory created by Claude Steele which states, “when people feel their sense of self threatened by the outside world, they are strongly motivated to correct the misperception, be it by reasoning away the inconsistency or by modifying their behavior.” Konnikova’s conclusions is that presenting people with constant facts and science will never be effective. However, presenting things in a non-ideological way that removes broader notions, would be more effective. This will be a challenge, Konnikova says, due to the way prominent figures who do not have any medical expertise state their opinion. While it is a work in progress, Konnikova believes that it is possible to change people’s perceptions on things like Climate Change, race, and vaccinations.

Konnikova and Mooney share various ideas regarding the way people perceive facts. Money’s concept of Confirmation and Disconfirmation bias is represented in Konnikova’s article when she mentions that when peoples ideas are threatened, they will naturally discard the information that is contradicting them. Both authors believe that people reject what could undermine their beliefs that are important to them. They also both state that information should be presented to people in different ways so they do not become defensive. Mooney, however, emphasizes doing so with presenting values to people, while Konnikova urges us to stop trying to mention peoples identities and values. Unlike Mooney, Konnikova mentions the self-affirmation theory, something created by Claude Steele. This theory states that, “when people feel their sense of self threatened by the outside world, they are strongly motivated to correct the misperception, be it by reasoning away the inconsistency or by modifying their behavior…Steele proposes an exercise in self-affirmation: either write down or say aloud positive moments from your past that reaffirm your sense of self and are related to the threat in question.” By reminding yourself of good things, we become more broad-minded. It allows people’s attitudes to become more accurate. While both authors make strong points, it is clear that we need to start portraying knowledge and information in a different way because people often feel threatened by things that are unfamiliar and perhaps oppose their ideas.

Belief System Response

Growing up, my parents constantly told me I could be anything and anyone, and that nothing could hold me back. I was raised to be a strong and independent person, which made me believe I could do anything just as well as anyone else, even men, as long as I made an effort. As I got older however, I realized that these views I grew up with, were not universal. This completely shocked me. I had not realized that we lived in a patriarchal society because I grew up a tad sheltered, and this topic was never discussed in my school. I began to realize that women faced some very difficult challenges from society. As I delved more into the subject of sexism in college, I realized I never noticed how often women are misrepresented in the media (or not represented at all), treated inferiorly to men, how common it was for women to feel unsafe or objectified, how women are lacking in STEM/political fields, and how I had even experienced sexism in my life, but never realized it. I also never noticed the sexism that men dealt with. While this was incredibly new and intense information, I began educating myself more about Sexism and Feminism so I could understand them better. I eventually became comfortable with calling myself a Feminist because I believe not only in equality of the sexes, but equality for everyone. I became more vocal about my experiences with sexism (ex: times I have been objectified by men on campus, people telling me I do not understand certain topics as well as men), and how I plan to play a role in changing things for both women and men. We as a society need to stop putting people into a box and reinforcing these ancient, predetermined ideas about who someone should be, what should be important to them, and how they should live their lives. While I still believe that no one can stop me from being happy, successful, ad independent, I acknowledge that there are very sexist views in the world that can be obstacles in the way of peoples success. This feminist view not only opened my eyes to the lack of equality between the sexes, but the lack of equality, and equity, in the world, specifically when it comes to race and disability. I never realized how sheltered I was back in my hometown to so many hugely significant issues, but now I am a vocal proponent of social change and making the world a more equitable place. 

The Melancholy of Anatomy: Summary and Response

The negative aspects of science and capitalism are confronted in Wendell Berry’s 2008 article, The Melancholy of Anatomy. In his article, Berry clearly states that he understands how science can be useful, but feels that it is mostly narrow-minded and damaging to the impressionable public. Berry argues that the vast field of science provides the people with knowledge that is not “adequate to the sustenance of human life or the health of the ecosphere.” (Berry, 11) Berry states that things should not be looked at in parts, but as a whole, and uses several passages forth Bible to support his ideas. He makes statements regarding the role science and the market have on people and the earth. The Industrial Revolution, in Berry’s opinion, has vastly changed the world because science now plays a huge part in our economy. Berry believes scientists capitalize on the innocent, scared, and worried public, as well as the defenseless earth. Once certain areas can provide people with money, that becomes its sole purpose. He believes that humans no longer sympathize with people or other creatures on the planet because materialist and capitalist ways have blinded them. In the end, Berry argues that people need to stop learning a little bit about small parts, and start critiquing the whole. He believes there are too many weaknesses in the current revolution, and that people put science on a pedestal, when in reality they should question it. In Berry’s opinion, scientists have been overcome with greed and profit off of the public’s fears, concerns, and naivety, and this is something that should be amended. 

Wendell Berry makes some very interesting points in his article, some of which I agree with, and others I strongly oppose. On page 14 of his article, Berry says, “We have accumulated a massive collection of ‘information’ to which we may have ‘access.’ But this information does not become knowledge by being accessible.” What Berry is attempting to say is that we so blindly take everything we hear or are able to learn as information, just because it is being presented to us in an accessible way. We never stop to question this information, and think that maybe we do not have as much access to actual important information. We must find a deeper meaning to things. One of the points Berry repeatedly brings up is how markets, research, and knowledge are interconnected. He claims that people who look highly upon science do not realize how negatively it is involved with the Industrial Revolution. This science that Berry says we all emulate, has really committed many wrongdoings, specifically by creating marketable products that range “from refined fuels to nuclear bombs to computers to poisons to pills.” (Berry, 14) He claims science is based on things like greed, fear, and suffering. We instill this fear into the public and profit tremendously off of it. For those scientists who do not involve themselves with these practices, they are often overlooked because they oppose the majority. Berry is making a point regarding how the public believes everything scientists say, and do not question this knowledge. The public is fed information that seems very convincing, so they do not search further and see if there are things they should not believe. In conclusion Berry is advocating that we stop being passive consumers who do not question things, something we were taught to be, and turn ourselves into informed critics who actively search for more answers. By examining how healthy the context is, Berry says we, “would reveal the health of the work.”

The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science: Summary and Response

In the 2012 article, The Science of Why We Don’t Believe In Science, author Chris Mooney discusses how people choose to believe in certain ideas regardless of the information provided to them. Mooney quotes psychologist Leon Festinger in page 1 of his article saying, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” Mooney agrees with the ideas in this quote and makes a point regarding how when people passionately believe something, they will respond negatively to anything that says otherwise. This in turn makes people want to believe in their cause even more, especially when they find evidence and arguments that agree with them. This relates directly to the concept of confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias. Mooney states that people who have strong convictions regarding certain subjects have a natural tendency to support arguments and evidence that support what they so strongly believe in, and find flaws in ideas that oppose their beliefs. Mooney emphasizes that people, particularly Conservatives, act this way regarding significant and controversial topics such as climate change, vaccinations, and the death penalty. Things such as religion, views on morality, and business very powerfully steer people into thinking a certain way. People reject what could undermine what they so strongly believe to be true. People are consumers of information, and since technology plays such a large role in how we acquire it, it is very simple to find information you agree with, or to misinterpret information. Mooney comes to the conclusion that people should start presenting knowledge in friendlier, less argumentative ways, so people do not become defensive. Instead of trying to convince people with facts, everyone should start presenting information with a focus on values.

Mooney explains that all reasoning is connected deeply with emotion, which is called, affect. Our conscious thoughts arise much more slowly than our feelings about certain people or ideas. This is related to our natural fight-or-flight response which makes us push information that alarm us away, while pulling the information we respond favorably to, closer. This connects directly to Confirmation and Disconformation bias. Confirmation Bias says we tend pay more attention to evidence or arguments that support our convictions, while we also spend a great deal of time trying to disprove opposing ideas that we disagree with, which is Disconfirmation Bias. These things have a huge effect on how we perceive important, yet controversial, topics such as vaccinations or climate change. Knowledge is so accessible in today’s society due to the internet, meaning that any views regarding any topic, can be found. There will always be people who misinterpret information or try to disprove it because it contradicts their beliefs. This is because we are now acquiring knowledge not just from professionals, but from people we know personally and trust. I think if we educated people more on these controversial issues at a young age, it could potentially shape the way they view knowledge and make them more aware of how to interpret things. Like Mooney states, we cannot always persuade people through evidence and argument. Perhaps education on certain topics will allow people to make more informed conclusions. This is most definitely a challenge however because of how large of a role exterior influences like religion play in people’s lives. Mooney claims these things play a huge role in how Conservatives view science. He states that if they are not receiving information from a business or religious leader, they will not respond well. Mooney says that Conservatives are focused on, “defending the status quo” (Mooney, 4), and even brings up the fact that researchers believe there are psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. This all may be true, especially the statement Mooney makes about how conservatives tend to listen to big businesses and religious leaders. Religion and Capitalism, while not bad things, can have a huge effect on the mindset of politicians, and steer their decisions in detrimental directions.