Schulz's Argument Analysis
She begins her essay by stating that “we” use little or bad evidence to back claims. Schulz says, “…because it turns out, believing things based on meager evidence is what people do” (364). She backed this statement using the Salem witch trials as an example earlier in the chapter. This event showed how people used little to no evidence to convict and execute “guilty” people. Schulz then moves onto her “quiz” which helps prove her claim of inductive reasoning. She explains that inductive reasoning is guessing using past experiences. This helps people solve common sense problems such as her quiz. Inductive reasoning could be used by both types of thinkers. Although Schulz explains that inductive reasoning helps, she says it could be bad. Schulz
…show more content…
The first example I recorded was a professor teaching meteorology. The topic of global warming was brought up during class. As many know, global warming is a controversial topic despite more scientists backing it. The professor began by asking the question whether you think global warming exists or not. Roughly 80% of the class said they believed in global warming, while the other 20% did not. A student then asked the professor what he thought, and the professor said he believes in it. However, instead of explaining why he is right, the professor explained why it could not exist. He went on to explain how it could actually be more of a global cooling than global warming. The professor then went on to explain why global warming is true and gave clear facts to support it and back it up. This is a clear example of self-subversive thinking as he explained the opposing side of the argument and gave sufficient evidence to back his claim. This is also an example of how self-subversive thinking should be used to help better explain complex topics such as global warming. Had the professor been a confident bulldozer, all of the students, including me, would not have learned as much as we did. We would not have understood the opposing side and in turn, would have become confident bulldozers about the global warming. This supports Schulz’s argument about how self-subversive thinkers
The first example I recorded was a professor teaching meteorology. The topic of global warming was brought up during class. As many know, global warming is a controversial topic despite more scientists backing it. The professor began by asking the question whether you think global warming exists or not. Roughly 80% of the class said they believed in global warming, while the other 20% did not. A student then asked the professor what he thought, and the professor said he believes in it. However, instead of explaining why he is right, the professor explained why it could not exist. He went on to explain how it could actually be more of a global cooling than global warming. The professor then went on to explain why global warming is true and gave clear facts to support it and back it up. This is a clear example of self-subversive thinking as he explained the opposing side of the argument and gave sufficient evidence to back his claim. This is also an example of how self-subversive thinking should be used to help better explain complex topics such as global warming. Had the professor been a confident bulldozer, all of the students, including me, would not have learned as much as we did. We would not have understood the opposing side and in turn, would have become confident bulldozers about the global warming. This supports Schulz’s argument about how self-subversive thinkers