Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument - Summary & Response

In Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument, Stuart Greene argues that writing an effective research paper is like entering a conversation that has already been going on, so you must express understanding of issue and present new opinions. Greene begins by pointing out that arguments are a part of everyday life. He continues on to say that when writing a research paper, you must display your understanding of claims people are making, the questions they raise, and the conflicts they address in the pieces you are reading. Greene explains that while writing an argument, the position you take will depend on which previously stated arguments you also believe and which you want to refute, as well as what new opinions and supporting information you can bring. He then goes into the section entitled Entering the Conversation, where he explains that in order to write a researched argument you must answer all necessary questions about the issue and express what is at stake if things change or stay the same. He then goes onto the section, Identify an Issue, where he expresses the importance of clearly identifying the issue, or tension that exists between two or more conflicting points of view. Greene next moves onto the section, Identify the Situation, where it is necessary to consider how people view the problem. The next step in constructing a research paper is explained by Greene in the section, Frame a Good Question, where you must make sure the question can be answered with the resources available and make sure there is a focus. Then Greene goes onto the section, Framing as a Critical Step for Writing, Reading, and Doing Research, where he expresses the importance of framing in order to enforce clarity and improve critical inquiry abilities. The final section, entitled, Conclusion: Writing Researched Arguments, explains that information researched must be shaped in order to help you to enter the conversation and information must be put in context, so connections must be made. Greene concludes his argument by stating that research is a social process if you can understand inquiry as a way to enter a conversation.

       Framing is a tool used when constructing an argument, or writing a piece in general. It helps to focus the argument and specify what the argument is about and/or is not about. Additionally, framing offers a way to make your position clear. The metaphor of a camera lens is used in Greene’s writing, because with a lens, you can focus on the main parts of the picture, in order to connect them, and blur out the parts that are not important or relevant. Additionally, you are able to control the mood or feeling of the picture by how it is set up, which you can also do in writing.

The Pursuit of Ignorance: Summary & Response

In his TED Talk, The Pursuit of Ignorance, Stuart Firestein argues that in science and other aspects of learning we should abide by ignorance. Firestein begins his talk by explaining that scientists do not sit around going over what they know, they talk about what they do not know, and that is how discoveries are made.  He then goes on to discuss the course he is teaching on ignorance and how ignorance, in the sense he is discussing, is not to be looked at as a negative thing, rather it is a communal lack of knowledge, a lack of things to be drawn on, or predicted.  As he continues, he discusses the idea of ‘conscious ignorance’, from which every advance in science is made and is how the supply of scientific knowledge and facts are growing fast.  He furthers his point by saying that knowing a lot does not make you a scientist and that in the grand scheme of things, ignorance is much larger than knowledge. Firestein reasons this out by explaining that knowledge generates more ignorance, that each discovery produces even more problems or questions to solve. He then goes on to discuss the current method of education and how it is weeding not evaluating through exams as it is supposed to. Evaluating gives people feedback, according to Firestein, it allows for trial and error. Ultimately, evaluation on exams provides students with a sense of curiosity, which, in Firestein’s opinion, is best; evaluation is a link to embracing ignorance.
Firestein says that in order to get students to step outside of their boundaries they have to explore and embrace ignorance. In order to do this, they must be evaluated, which provides feedback and allows for trial and error, not weeding out the students for what they are good at and what they are not. This allows students to see potential in various directions, not just one or none. Students tend to not step outside of the boundaries of facts because the facts are clear, they are not ‘dangerous’ and unknown like ignorance is. In order to get students to pursue ignorance, ignorance has to be presented in a manner that is not intimidating, that invites the student to be unsure and make it ok to not be sure. Students must be put in an environment that asks them to discover, not to memorize. Then the students will be able to pursue ignorance.

The Case for Teaching Ignorance : Summary & Response

Jaime Holmes suggests that it is in fact beneficial to teach about ignorance in her article entitled, The Case for Teaching Ignorance. Holmes begins by mentioning Professor Marlys H. Witte, who says that it is important to realize the limits of knowledge as well as  appreciate and attend to questions just as much as the answers. She goes on to speak of Stuart J. Firestein, a neuroscientist, who believes that scientific facts are not solid or unchangeable, rather they are to be challenged and revised by each generation. Holmes then presents the idea that answers do not just resolve questions, they also create more questions; the more we know, the more we can ask. While bringing up this point, Holmes brings up Michael Smithson’s metaphor of knowledge as an island and the shoreline being the meeting place between knowledge and ignorance, as the island grows so does the shoreline, so as knowledge expands so does the room fro questions to be asked.  Holmes brings up this metaphor throughout her article, once again when she is saying that people feel safer in the middle of the island, where ignorance is furthest away. Holmes goes on to say that agnatology, the study of ignorance, must include emphasis on the unknown, the importance of the relation and interplay between questions and answers, and the psychology of ambiguity. She concludes her article by stating that we must begin to view ignorance as regular and be more curios.
A quote that resonated with me was when Holmes says, “She wanted her students to recognize the limits of knowledge and to appreciate the questions often deserve as much attention as answers.” I agree with Holmes and Witte, who she is referring to, that we cannot focus on just learning what has already been discovered because at some point, we will know everything that has been discovered and we will have nothing else to learn. Additionally, it provoked the importance of questioning and that things are ever changing, so we cannot just accept what we already know because at some point everything will change and we will know very little if we do not appreciate the importance of questions. Questions also are useful as motivation; they make us want to know more because we know that there is potential to know more. Although, if we do not appreciate the questions, the right questions will be harder to know to ask. This quote makes me think about what is important in knowledge, whether the questions are the reason for knowledge, or the answers, and how interdependent the two are.
“…in recent years scholars have made a convincing case that focusing on uncertainty can foster latent curiosity, while emphasizing clarity can convey a warped understanding of knowledge,” says Holmes in her article. This quote challenges my beliefs and assumptions about knowledge and ignorance.  I believe that there is a healthy amount of curiosity for people to have in order to learn and continue to want to learn, but too much curiosity can make you uncertain of everything you know, of your choices. This quote suggests that curiosity is healthy and assurance is not, but I believe that assurance is necessary for people to discover, to confidently carry out their work as well as their life. I believe that it is necessary to emphasize clarity, but also to know that there is more to know, that what is known is clear, but more can be discovered.

Challenging My Belief System

This may seem trivial, but as a seven-year-old child, my bunny being a girl was something I believed for close to two years, something that influenced naming the bunny. When I went to the vet with my bunny for the first time, finding out that it was a boy was hard news. I made the vet double check and triple check to make sure that my bunny was indeed a boy, and not, as the pet store had told me, a girl. When I finally accepted that my bunny was indeed a male, the next crisis came up; his name was Violet, which to me was a girl’s name. I sat there thinking about how to change it (and honestly, how I was going to break the news to my bunny that it had a new name?), because a boy could never be named violet in my seven year old brain. My mother told me that it was ok to leave it, that my male bunny could have whatever name I wanted and he could in fact be named Violet. This was weird to me because as a child I was always told, this is for boys and this is for girls, if not directly, by the media I was exposed to and the subtle nuances that invaded my life. At this point, I was confused; this challenged the idea that there were boy names and girl names and extended to the divide between girls and boys in every other aspect. I thought about this idea of having a boy bunny named Violet, breaking the gendered name barrier, and by the end I figured that it was still the same bunny, he was still a bunny, and like a human, did not deserve to be renamed part way through his life. I decided that he would be Violet the boy rabbit and he would rock it! After this, I became quite the advocate for breaking down these male-female barriers with my peers, getting into arguments about the idea that there is no such thing as a boy color or a girl color. This has continued into my life now because it allows me to let people be who they want to be, without judging them because they don’t follow the script that has been laid out for them based on who they are, where they are from, their gender, etc. My old beliefs are still minutely present in certain situations, but it situations where they are wrong, I am able to easily recognize this. Although this was a hard thing to accept, as a seven year old, in the past 13 years it has helped to shape my beliefs on gender roles.

I Don't Want to Be Right - Summary and Response

In her article, I Don’t Want to Be Right, Maria Konnikova develops the idea that facts and evidence are not able to change people’s minds. She opens by discussing an experiment by Brendan Nyhan, about people’s opinions on vaccinations. Through this experiment, she reports, that facts, science, emotions, and stories fail to opinions, especially when something that is important to someone is confronted and contradicted. Konnikova discusses further experiments throughout the piece to back up her argument. She points out that studies have shown that corrections that are contrary to people’s beliefs do not work; they actually can end up causing a sense of distrust.  Konnikova goes on to say that judgment can be influenced by strongly held beliefs, even when people are aware and accepting of the facts.  Next, she brings up Nyhan who expresses that false beliefs tend to be related to self-identity, not always politics. She continues by discussing a study that showed that self-affirmation helps people to perform better on things such as tests.  Based on her sources, Konnikova suggests that the only way to change beliefs may be to present issues in a broader way, leaving out the political, ideological, and content that causes people to be self-reflective as well as facts and evidence because they are just now effective enough. She also suggests that if leaders of an opinion change, their ‘followers’ are also more likely to change. This is how Konnikova concludes, with the addition that ideology can have a strong influence and should be left to the side when trying to change beliefs.
In their articles, both Konnikova and Mooney share the idea that beliefs are hard, if not impossible to change. They also agree that if we were to try to change people’s beliefs, facts and evidence are not the most convincing way to do so. Furthermore, they both agree that corrections to false beliefs or just contradictions to their beliefs can cause the exact opposite of the intended changing of beliefs and actually cause them to hold on more strongly to their belief and can cause a sense of distrust towards those trying to convince them that they are wrong.  Konnikova offers some more insights, including the self-affirmation theory. The self-affirmation theory says that if a person goes through a series of self-affirming points before a test, then they are likely to do better on the test, the opposite is true as well with doing worse. This helps explain why people change their mind because it explains the role self-reflection has on people’s beliefs; if a belief is seen as threatening to their identity, then they are less likely to believe it or change their mind. On the other hand, if an idea is seen as neutral in regards to thee effect on their identity, they are more likely to be open to facts and evidence and allow their minds to be changed. Self-affirmation can be blamed for people’s inability to change their mind because if the opposite idea threatens their identity they feel threatened and will not change their mind even if there are facts and hard evidence present; it is o threatening to who they are and the confidence they have in their self, that it is not worth throwing that away and accept the facts.

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

         In his article, The Science of Why We Don’t Believe in Science, Chris Mooney argues that emotions are inseparable from reasoning and emotions are usually stronger than logical reasoning.
He begins this argument by giving the example of the experiment conducted by Leon Festinger as well as other scientists in which a cult believed they were communicating with aliens. This experiment illustrated the idea of ‘motivated reasoning’ which is reasoning which is not separable from emotions and positive or negative feelings come before conscious thoughts; this is explained to be a human survival skill. In other words, we try to push away or even deny threatening information and pill information we see as friendly closer. Mooney goes on to state that emotions are stronger in our reactions when it is something we care about, explaining the effects of confirmation bias where we weigh more on the information that is consistent with our beliefs as well as disconfirmation bias where we try to disprove information that is unsuitable with our beliefs. Mooney argues that we do such things because things like identity affirmation and self-protection are more important than accuracy.  Next Mooney transitions to the next section, entitled The back-fire effect: Why direct persuasion fails, arguing that people can see all of the details of science, but their beliefs will always prevail, giving examples such as experiments with thoughts on the death penalty and other experiments.  Mooney cites Dan Kahan, a Yale Law School professor, saying that individuals are classified by their cultural values, either individualist or communitarian and their outlooks as either hierarchical or egalitarian, pointing out that conservative republicans tend to be hierarchical individualists and liberal democrats tend to be egalitarian communitarians, using these political separations to give further examples.  Based on these classifications, Mooney states that a group of people can all be given the same information but have different percentages of belief.  Mooney points out that the backfire effect can be triggered by direct attempts to persuade someone of something, causing them to hold their wrong views stronger than ever. In his next section, Climategate: What really happened?, Mooney points out that people are not going to ignore their belief system over a bit of information, especially because they feel that their life will be made harder if they believe something that opposes that of their groups or spectators, trying to keep their social desirability in tact.  Transitioning to the effects of the media, Mooney states that people tend to gravitate towards media that has similar beliefs, and social media is worsening this skew of the information received by people. Next Mooney discusses the effects of education, based on experiments, explaining that increased education tends to make people more likely to deny information that is against their beliefs.  In his next section, Why the vaccine-autism link persists, Mooney discusses more political issues, namely vaccination. He goes on to say that conservatives seem to be more rigid while liberals are more tolerant of ambiguity. Mooney concludes his article by stating that in order to get someone to accept new evidence, it is necessary to present it in such a way that no emotional or defensive reaction results, that in order to gives facts a fighting chance, the solution is to lead with values.


Affect and reason are tools that shape and solidify our belief system by almost instinctively labeling something as positive or negative to us. Our beliefs are also shaped by confirmation bias, where we hold information that supports our beliefs higher, and disconfirmation bias, where we try to disprove information that is not consistent with our beliefs, thus making our beliefs more solidified. If the network is not easily swayed by compelling facts and evidence or reads research to validate  existing views, this suggests that knowledge is based on beliefs, meaning it is relatively closed off to facts if they are facts that go against beliefs, only learning more about that which is believed to be true. In my opinion the only way to change people’s minds on topics such as global warming, abortion, health care, etc. would be for them to actually experience both views playing out, so they can see what will happen, because hypotheticals, however factually based they are, are difficult to use to convince people.  If people cannot be persuaded by arguments and evidence this gives writers a very hard job, a job in which they have to present arguments in such a way that support the readers beliefs while also pushing for the results based on evidence. This leaves citizens of democracy at the hands of whichever political party has the most supporters, regardless of our individual thoughts.  According to Mooney, confirmation bias is worsened by technology and social media because it supplies an endless supply of information that supports our beliefs, rather than exposing us to the many beliefs of the world around us. Mooney says that conservatives are more apt to deny science because they are more authoritarian, denying results of individuals, and based on past political views involving science.  I think that this is because conservatives generally tend to be more religious, tightly bound to their beliefs that they have grown up with, which tend not to include science and deny certain aspects of it.

The Melancholy of Anatomy: Summary and Response

In his essay, The Melancholy Anatomy, essayist Wendell Berry argues that only a small portion of the small amount of information that humans have uncovered can be held as knowledge in an individual. Berry begins by discussing the difference between believing and knowing, saying that people know by evidence and believe by what they feel is true , what they are able to create images of in their mind, what they feel in their hearts, and stories they hear.  HE furthers this discussion by questioning whether there are things that cannot be known without belief, giving the example of religion.  Berry then explains that determining something’s value by the market, having a hatred of highly spiritualized religion, and thinking that it is harmless to miss things is proving to be destructive.  He continues by arguing that in order to preserve integrity we always need to have opposites for each other:  makers for the anatomists (an analogy used throughout the essay) who cut things apart, poets for analysts, arts for sciences, etc.  Berry then discusses people who are considered smart in our world and how they either analyze by breaking things into smaller parts or synthesizer by breaking things apart and then force them together. He then criticizes people for not seeing the complexity and connections that are present in our world.  Berry concludes by expressing that we, as people, have more and more information, but still the same capacity for knowledge, so as certain things enter our knowledge, other things escape our knowledge.

When Berry states, “We have accumulated a massive collection of ‘information’ to which we may have ‘access.’ But this information does not become knowledge by being accessible,” he is trying to say that information is not knowledge (14). By saying this Berry means that just because we have access to certain information does not necessarily mean we know that information. Berry suggests that knowledge is created once a person is able to remember and use information, not just when a person is able to read something and then forget it. The value of this knowledge, Berry suggested, is determined by its value on the market, by what is desired by consumers, and research is done based on the discoveries that will be the most profitable most of the time.  Research in the sciences is based on discovering things for revenge in the military-industrial complex, research here capitalizes on deprivarity.  Science research has moderately constrained our pursuit of knowledge by only pursuing those cases where the advantages outweigh the consequences, by doing that they can ignore other topics and fail to research them further. Additionally, science research mainly capitalizes on people’s fear, weakness, and financial situation.  By the conclusion of his essay, Berry advocates for general criticism, which he argues, will improve the integrity and health of the world.

Too Big to Know: Summaries Revised

Chapter 1 Summary: Before
       To begin the first chapter of his book, Too Big to Know, David Weinberger discusses the DIKW hierarchy.  This hierarchy resembles the structure of a pyramid where data is on the bottom, then information, then knowledge, and on the top, in the smallest portion of the pyramid lies wisdom. Weinberger explains that to get from one level of the pyramid to the next requires the processing of the current level, for example, one must process data to get information. Weinberger then expands on the topic of knowledge, exploring different views throughout time as well as views that have continued to hold true. Specifically, he discusses the view of ancient Athens that in order to for someone to be knowledgeable they must hold opinions that are both true and justifiable. (4) Next Weinberger transitions into a discussion about the evolution of knowledge as a filter. He discusses how knowledge used to be processing and retaining things necessary to our success and filtering out unnecessary information, but now, due to our seemingly endless resources we go through information trying to retain as much as we can about something, rather than just what we need to know.  Weinberger continues by discussing the need to fix our way of filtering in order to avoid the overload of information and how the control of filters is changing from experts to those closer to the general population, who we know. Then Weinberger points out that due to the influx of readily available information there is more good information, but also more bad information, there is more information readily available to prove a point, but also to contest that point. Finally, Weinberger ends the chapter by discussing the new structure of knowledge and its emergence as a wide and populous network rather than a pyramid. Through this chapter, Weinberger explores what knowledge is and its evolution through time as well as the evolution of how knowledge is used and handled.

Chapter 1 Summary: After
To begin the first chapter, entitled Knowledge Overload, of his book, Too Big to Know, David Weinberger discusses how knowledge and how knowledge is handled changes and evolves over time. He begins with the section, Triangular Knowledge, concerning the  DIKW hierarchy, where data is on the bottom, then information, then knowledge, and on the top, in the smallest portion of the pyramid lies wisdom. Weinberger explains that to get from one level of the pyramid to the next requires the processing of the current level, for example, one must process data to get information. Weinberger then expands on the topic of knowledge, exploring different views throughout time as well as views that have continued to hold true. Specifically, he discusses the view of ancient Athens that in order to for someone to be knowledgeable they must hold opinions that are both true and justifiable, something that still seems to be relevant. (4) Next Weinberger transitions into Info Overload as a Way of Life, a discussion about the evolution of knowledge as a filter, how now, due to our seemingly endless resources we go through information trying to retain as much as we can about something, rather than just what we need to know, as people used to do.  Weinberger continues by discussing the need to fix our way of filtering in order to avoid the overload of information and how the control of filters has changed over time; this is discussed in Filtering to the Front. Then Weinberger moves onto The New Institution of Knowledge and points out that due to the influx of readily available information there is more good information, but also more bad information, there is more information readily available to prove a point, but also to contest that point. Finally, Weinberger ends the chapter by discussing the new structure of knowledge and its emergence as a wide and populous network rather than a pyramid. Through this chapter, Weinberger explores what knowledge is and its evolution through time as well as the evolution of how knowledge is used and handled.

Chapter 1 Summary: Explanation 
      While revising my summary I began by writing a new first sentence. Previously my sentence was about a more specific point, so I changed it in order to express the main idea of the whole article, so that the following points I made were clearly in support of the main idea. Additionally, I added the title of both the chapter and the sections within the chapter to the summary. This allowed me to logically progress through the summary as well as provide points of reference. Finally, I reread the summary and eliminated any information that was too specific and unnecessary to summarizing the chapter, which made the summary more concise and straight to the point.



Chapter 2 Summary: Before

In Chapter Two of David Weinberger’s Too Big to Know, he opens the chapter by discussing how humans are built to stop searching for an answer once an answer is reached, so that we may search further for more information. In other words, we do not try to find the same answer four times over, we take the sources word for it, at least when the source is credentialed. Weinberger then goes on to discuss the emergence of facts and how knowledge in today’s world is built on the foundation of facts, but in the ancient world the foundation was, instead analogies, a way in which the ancients were able to draw connections in their world and explain things.  Weinberger also traces the development of facts from being universals to being particulars, leading from deductive reasoning into inductive reasoning, causing scientific theories such as Francis Bacon‘s theory on gases. Next, Weinberger discusses the significance of facts, that, when used, demand trust and backup arguments; he later addresses that there are now so many facts that for virtually every fact in an argument there is a readily available counter fact. Weinberger continues to discuss the evolution of the use of facts when he discusses the 1830s, when Jeremy Bentham convinced Parliament to treat everyone in the society as equals by using facts to construct statistics in order to make decisions for the society. He then moves on to the 1890s-1930s where facts become the way to settle disputes, both local and international through fact-finding missions.  Next, Weinberger discusses different types of facts that emerge through discussing Darwin’s “this is that” method of fact finding versus a service entitled Hunch, which asks questions to discover facts about you in order to use statistics to make suggestions for you. Further down the line the government creates “Data Commons,” which are data made public because they have no reason to be kept secret. Weinberger concludes this chapter by reviewing the phases of facts; he discusses Classic facts which are relatively sparse, painstakingly discovered and used to prove theories, database facts which cover a handful of fields, chosen and organized by a hand full of people, and networked facts which are facts linked to more information about the context of the fact as well as open to a network of disagreement. (38-39) This chapter discusses the emergence and the role that facts play.

Chapter 2 Summary: After
          In Chapter Two of David Weinberger’s Too Big to Know, which is entitled Bottomless Knowledge, Weinberger discusses the evolution, growth, and change in availability of facts. He opens the chapter by discussing how humans are built to stop searching for an answer once a satisfactory answer (usually from a credentialed source) is reached, so that we may search further for more information. Weinberger then goes on to his section entitled A History of Facts and discusses the emergence of facts and how knowledge in today’s world is built on the foundation of facts, but in the ancient world the foundation was built on analogies, a way in which the ancients were able to draw connections in their world and explain things. Weinberger also traces the development of facts from being universals to being particulars, leading from deductive reasoning into inductive reasoning. Next, Weinberger discusses the significance of facts, that, when used, demand trust and backup arguments; he later addresses that there are now so many facts that for virtually every fact in an argument there is a readily available counter fact. Weinberger continues to discuss the evolution of the use of facts when he discusses the 1830s, when Jeremy Bentham convinced Parliament to treat everyone in the society as equals by using facts to construct statistics in order to make decisions for the society. He then moves on to the 1890s-1930s where fact-finding--missions become the way to settle local and international disputes. Next, in Darwin‘s Facts, Weinberger discusses different types of facts that emerge through discussing Darwin’s “this is that” method of fact finding versus a service entitled Hunch, which asks questions to discover facts about you in order to use statistics to make suggestions for you. In the section entitled The Great Unnailing, Weinberger discusses how the government creates “Data Commons,” which are data made public because they have no reason to be kept secret. Weinberger concludes this chapter by reviewing the phases of facts; he discusses Classic facts which are relatively sparse, painstakingly discovered and used to prove theories, database facts which cover a handful of fields, chosen and organized by a hand full of people, and networked facts which are facts linked to more information about the context of the fact as well as open to a network of disagreement. (38-39) This chapter discusses the emergence and the role that facts play in our lives today.

Chapter 2 Summary: Explanation

       In this revision, I needed to fix very similar things as in the first summary. I began by inserting titles of the chapter and sections. I then needed to eliminate a part where what I was saying was not fully neutral. I also needed to get rid of some unnecessary specific examples as well as repetitive reiterations and explanations of points I brought up. Finally, I realized that the main idea of the article was not at the beginning, which caused my summary to seem like a series of points proving nothing in particular, so I changed the first sentence to address the main idea.