Self-Reflection of Pacific Seminar 1

Originally Written: 10 December 2008
Henry David Thoreau, an American essayist, poet, and naturalist, was quoted as saying, “No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof”. Despite the fact that he has been dead for well over 140 years, Thoreau’s words still ring true today. For a very long time I have believed that if one wants to argue his point, he must also be ready to back it up with evidence and/or ‘cold, hard facts’, as is often said. However, I have found that many people readily jump into a debate without such proof, and I am forced to believe absolutely nothing that they say, on the grounds that they have nothing with which to support their argument. I would argue that such actions merely demonstrate the level of thinking which these people possess, one that is lacking in analysis and possibly even complex ideas. For this reason, I believe myself to be among those who exhibit a reflective level of intellectual development, however, I do admit that the Pacific Seminar course has defined my understanding of what is involved in effectively supporting one’s point of view.
Throughout the semester, several readings and issues that came up within the course demonstrated my reflective level of intellectual development. I am under the impression, however, that I came to Pacific already in possession of such mental capabilities, and that being here only allowed me to use them more often. The thought-provoking essays that we read and discussed intellectually stimulated me; being the highly analytical person that I am, I often looked for flaws or lack of evidence in a writer’s argument. This speaks to Rampton & Stauber’s Questioning Authority, in which the writers urged their audience to question that which they were being taught or asked to do. Fortunately for me, or unfortunately in the eyes of some, I often question why I am asked to do certain things. I do not interrogate every teacher for the reasons that they are assigning a particular exercise, only when the task seems to have no overall purpose and/or does not confer any benefit to me, as the student. This is perhaps why I enjoyed Bjorn Lomborg’s Our Chemical Fears so much. He professed that all statistics are inherently flawed, as they can be twisted in any fashion that the presenter desires (despite the fact that he, himself, did the very same thing), which I completely agreed with. This distrust of statistics and “facts” in conjunction with my questioning of authority, serve to demonstrate my reflective development level. I reason through arguments and points of view, looking for people’s personal interpretations of data or “facts” as I examine and evaluate their “use of evidence”. I am sure to keep an open mind as long as facts and statistics that I believe to be true are presented in a non-biased light. In addition, I also examine the sources of information used for essays and articles, often looking for sources that would have some sort of “expertise” regarding the topic at hand. I have never felt that any issue, or question, was merely an opinion-driven topic. I have always found that opinions are based on experiences, analyses, and interpretations – whether people realize it or not. For example, I think that living in the 1950s is preferable to living in today’s world. I interpret the way of life in that decade as being uncomplicated, happy-go-lucky, innocent, and free of many of modern society’s problems with crime rates, technology, and other sources of discontent. In my experience, most people who lived in this era absolutely loved it, and would prefer to go back (including my parents)! Although, at the same time I surely realize that this was a time of innovation, in which many modern technical inventions and techniques did not even exist, and diseases such as polio were still rampant. However, I’ve weighed the potential benefits to potential costs, and reason that I would still prefer to go back in time and live in this era (I could write a whole paper simply on this issue alone, demonstrating my reflective level capabilities but this is neither the time nor place to do so – as I am limited by space constrictions).
In addition to simply siding with articles, or finding them to be enjoyable because of their veracity, I also argued against articles both in my own mind as I read and in class discussions. In Peggy Orenstein’s What’s Wrong With Cinderella? piece, I really put my analytical abilities to their full use. As I read, I tore up her argument. She presented herself as a feminist, which ordinarily would not have mattered, except in this case it slanted her point of view so much that I could not even see straight. She presented arguments that were driven purely by emotion and conclusions that she, herself drew – she had no facts, figures, or opposing interpretations of her arguments to support herself. I felt that she was just upset that little girls were going to grow up to be submissive, subservient housewives simply because they were wearing a Cinderella dress, or that they would be so disillusioned by the story tale that they would be heartbroken when their prince charming never showed up. This was somewhat presumptuous on her part, to believe that these little girls would not realize that Cinderella was just a story, not the real world. From my point-of-view, she is calling them stupid and naïve, what audacity! Although, I must say, I am biased in that I absolutely hated her piece, and looked for every wrong piece of information I could find. Hers was not the only piece that I argued against though.
There are several other examples of my complex thinking, in regards to works that we read, that shaped my “understanding of what is involved in reasoning through complex issues, supporting a controversial position, and responding to disagreement”. In this class I did develop a more concrete understanding of the methodology behind my analysis of a person’s argument. I realized that I first look for flaws, such as lack of proof for a conclusion. I then look at sources of information, possible points of (incorrect) interpretation, and bias. In supporting a controversial opinion of my own, such as when I was the only person in class supporting the ban on gay “marriage”, I maintained a level-head, sited an expert (Dr. Gerhard when it came to the historical perspective of my argument), and drew well-reasoned conclusions from my gathered evidence. In addition, I presented a solution and appealed to the opposition, in beginning with my belief that gays should have the same rights as married people (despite going on to say that they should not be allowed to attribute the word “marriage” to their unions). I used the same techniques in response to disagreement, the most important of which is not to answer right away; one must first carefully articulate a response before speaking and becoming trapped or losing crushing.
In conclusion, I came to the Pacific Seminar course as a reflective level intellectual but garnered a clearer understanding of the art of proving one’s point of view by being in the class. The experience in itself will prove to be rewarding for many years, if not a lifetime, to come. The skills I learned in this class and the observations that I am taking with me will aid me in my future career, discussions around the dinner table, and may even keep someone from taking advantage of me. The impact of the course