Greene's Argument as Conversation Summary

SUMMARY:
 The main point that I took away after reading Stuart Greene's Argument as Conversation was the specific ways in which arguments can guide a conversation. For a lot of people, arguments can be seen as a negative aspect if it were to happen between people during a conversation, but Greene eloquently articulated the ways in which arguments can be used to inform and educate people. Greene also brings up questions for people to think about when entering a conversation in which you're developing an argument. Greene brought up three key points that are crucial when developing an argument, such as being able to identify the issue, identify the situation, and frame a good question that's specific enough to "guide inquiry" (13). These three topics presented by Greene are important because they're all building blocks towards developing your point. If you can identify the issue, that leads to being able to identify the situation, which can then lead to helping you frame a good question. The article also goes into detail about being able to frame, where Greene describes framing as a metaphor in relation to perspective for the writers to present their arguments.

QUESTIONS:
1.) What role, according to Greene, does reading play in the kind of writing you will be asked to do in college?

The role that reading plays in the kind of writing we're asked to do in college is rather significant according to Greene because learning how to write a research argument is viewed as a process of learning how to enter conversations that are already going on in written form. He talks about how the the concept of writing in dialogue is important, not only between the author and reader, but for being able to take that concept into real life conversation. For writers, they want the stuff they're writing to be in conversation format because it makes the reader feel more engaged.

2.) Explain the concept of framing. What metaphor underlies it? Why is the concept important for Greene? What does framing allow writers to do?

Greene goes into great detail about the concept of framing. Framing is a metaphor for describing the lens or perspective from which writers present their arguments. Greene uses the metaphor of taking a picture and blurring out the unimportant details, emphasizing a specific moment he wanted to capture. Greene says that framing really plays a significant role in writing and helps develop ideas, along with providing important details on what's being written. This concept of framing is crucial for writers because it allows them to get their message across to an audience, in a way that they feel should be done.

Summary of Intertextuality: How Texts Rely on Other Texts

A key point the Bazerman made in this article was the concept of intertextuality, which refers to the relation each text has to the texts surrounding. I've usually had an understanding of what type of information I should use in my arguments to help back up my points, and the concept of intertextuality goes well with that. Bazerman also goes on to talk about how ideas are similar to a web of connections and how there can be a bunch of thoughts moving around your head. Bazerman goes on to discuss the techniques of intertextual representation, discussing topics such as direct and indirect quotations used in text.

Socrates Quotes/General Ignorance and TED Talk Pursuit of Ignorance

 Socrates Quotes
 The Socrates quote, "The unexamined life is not worth living" has always been one that was intriguing to me because of the significance it has in such few words. The tone of the language behind the words, "not worth living" is what mainly stands out for me because it raised the question of whether or not a certain type of lifestyle is one that's not worth living? I feel that the only way we can thoroughly answer this quote by Socrates would be by looking at life through our own thoughts and ideas, and not anyone else's. It's about reflecting upon and evaluating our own personal thoughts, beliefs, and perspectives because it's those core values that shape each and every person. To look at life through another person's lens would be extremely difficult because who are we to to judge other people's practices and evaluate their lives? There's a lot more to people than we can see through our eyes, and it does society no help by judging everybody.

The next quote by Socrates, "To know, is to know that you know nothing", is one that also stood out to me. In my opinion, what Socrates meant by this quote is that the only way we can be true learners is by opening up our minds and realizing when we're wrong, so that we can learn from our mistakes. There's no way that we can learn if we think that we know everything already, which is absolutely impossible. Instead of holding ourselves to such a high standard of being an so called 'expert' on every topic, a wise person would admit that he or she doesn't know something, therefore allowing themselves to be educated.

General Ignorance and TED Talk Pursuit of Ignorance
According to Firestein, we can get students to step outside the boundaries of facts by putting into their minds that those who are able to get comfortable with uncomfortable topics will be the ones who reap the biggest benefits. The reasons why students don't always step outside the boundaries of facts is because they're afraid to challenge those thoughts and ideas. A lot of students don't feel comfortable stepping outside those boundaries of facts because facts are usually what drives beliefs.
For students to pursuit ignorance, they can't be afraid to ask the questions that go against the facts that are presented in everyone's daily lives. According to Lloyd, experts, specialists, and institutions are nervous about admitting ignorance because higher ups in the world don't want to be associated with ignorance. We can get people to deal with difficult or troubling ideas that challenge our beliefs by first identifying the belief and then searching for ways in which we can challenge it. A quote that stood out for me from the Firestein video was the one by Marie Curie where she said, "One never notices what has been done, one can only see what remains to be done..." This stood out to me because when you look at the notion of challenging others ideas and beliefs, you can only achieve that goal if you look at what has to be done in order to get your point across. When Lloyd says information is always challenging, that doesn't necessarily mean that we can never really know anything because information can always be challenged. We can always go against information presented to us because that's what really allows us to be educated.

Of course, as Socrates demonstrated in his own life (and death) being fully human (in the sense sketched above) can be extremely challenging. In a world of abiding uncertainty and complexity one can recognise a certain attraction in not examining too much, for too long in life. - See more at: http://www.newphilosopher.com/articles/being-fully-human/#sthash.f7Hv1IWP.dpuf

Of course, as Socrates demonstrated in his own life (and death) being fully human (in the sense sketched above) can be extremely challenging. In a world of abiding uncertainty and complexity one can recognise a certain attraction in not examining too much, for too long in life. - See more at: http://www.newphilosopher.com/articles/being-fully-human/#sthash.f7Hv1IWP.dpuf

Of course, as Socrates demonstrated in his own life (and death) being fully human (in the sense sketched above) can be extremely challenging. In a world of abiding uncertainty and complexity one can recognise a certain attraction in not examining too much, for too long in life. - See more at: http://www.newphilosopher.com/articles/being-fully-human/#sthash.f7Hv1IWP.dpuf

"TThe unexamined life is not worth living

Konnikova's I Don't Want to Be Right

In Maria Konnikova's article, "I Don't Want to Be Right", she discusses how people should get a message across to others without calling into question one's integrity, similar to the points that Mooney made in his article. The idea of self-affirmation refers to when people feel their sense of self threatened by the outside world and that they are strongly motivated to correct the misperception, whether it's by reasoning away the inconsistency or by modifying their behavior. The theory of self-affirmation fights different types of prejudices that are presented to us and even suggests that you should 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. When people feel like they are threatened, this can be a great building block in putting someone in an even state of mind because usually when you're threatened, they're more likely to speak up. There's been debate as to whether this is the right thing to do, but nonetheless, people will correct something that's misinterpreted when they feel threatened. Konnikova also talks about how beliefs can be very difficult to change in people because beliefs tend to be what people stand by the most. When you look at facts, those are instances where people won't necessarily feel threatened because facts are plain and simple. They're things that can rarely be debated, which is why people don't really change their minds. People usually have to be emotionally invested for specific things for people to speak up about certain topics.

Emotional Fight or Flight Response

I am usually very open minded to knew ideas and beliefs that are presented to me, but there are times when I feel that I should speak up and point out when people are just blatantly wrong. This usually happens when I'm discussing sports with my friends, and I can't think of a specific instance because it tends to happen a lot. I'm very opinionated when it comes to sports topics that I feel I have a good background on because sports are my favorite topic to talk about. I was raised my parents to know when to speak up about things I care about and it just so happens to be sports. Whenever I get the opportunity to talk sports with people, I usually try to back up what I'm saying with facts and try to present them in a way that can be convincing to other people, similar to what was described by Mooney in our last article. There have been times where I've been wrong about a specific topic, and I usually just accept the fact that I'm wrong if it happens and try to use that knew found knowledge to use in another debate or conversation.

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

SUMMARY:

In the article "The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science" by Chris Mooney, he talks about how we're making discoveries in psychology and neuroscience, but they've demonstrated our preexisting beliefs and overshadowing the facts before we reach a precise conclusion in our research. Throughout this article Mooney used different examples to prove his thesis, as he discussed how reasoning can go hand in hand with emotions, and that sometimes our emotions can makes us biased. He talks about the different types of biases, such as "confrontation bias", which refers to how we can look at information that only supports our beliefs. Mooney also talks about how we can get information from reliable sources to back up our beliefs, but we can be too stubborn to look at information presented from the other side of the argument and that can be a downside to it. Mooney finishes his article by telling the readers to not lead with the facts, but to lead with the values that can be presented from both sides to allow for a more clear and concise presentation so things aren't taken out of context.

RESPONSE:
I agree with Mooney in this article because our emotions tend to come first and then our reasoning comes into play for a lot of things, and that's just human instinct. When we're put into a tough position, we usually rebuttal someone else's facts with what we already know. We would do anything to prove what we believe is right or wrong. Conformation and disconformation bias' factor into shaping our beliefs because they shape our beliefs into what we want them to be, refuting the facts. Weinberger's argument that knowledge is the network and that it's not easily swayed by compelling facts is true because we believe what we want to believe. It's human nature to have beliefs that can't be easily swayed by facts because our beliefs make us who we are. I always knew that our emotions played a role onto certain things, but what I never knew was that nearly everything around that is impacted on our individual beliefs. I agree when Mooney explains that we do not persuade people through facts and evidence, but rather through our emotions because it's not necessarily what you present, it's how you do it. Emotions can do a lot to people, and if you explain your facts in a way that can connect with people through emotions, then that tends to go a longer way than by just spewing out facts on a certain topic. While people will sometimes ignore the facts, it's important to be able to present your information in a concise, yet interesting way that will connect with other people that you're trying to reach.