In "Argument as Conversation," Greene encourages the reader to think of writing in a social manner. He explains that writings can be seen as conversations between the authors. If a reader disagrees with the viewpoint of something, they will continue the conversation by writing about their stance. Rather than merely agreeing with someone's views, Greene explains that readers must extensively research a topic in order to gain their own perspective. After gaining this perspective, the person must then learn to frame it to their own readers. This guides the potential readers to learn about the perspective that the author intended and furthers the argument.
Greene makes some good points. I hadn't previously thought of the connections between writings as conversations, but this is a useful view. When we write a research paper, we drawn on many sources and present them in a way that argues our view and discusses several other author's works. Thus, it becomes a conversation. When several more people write about the same topic, they further the discussion. Greene also suggests that using writings of experts helps improve the authority of our own voice. These points I certainly agree with; however, I think it simplifies the issue and potentially creates bias. In the research paper example, we wouldn't want to gain our facts from an opinionated source. If someone else is arguing for one side, and is making a good argument, certainly it will influence our opinions on the subject. This, I believe, makes it harder for us to draw our own conclusions. Greene does suggest extensive research first so a person should be reading all sides of an argument to gain an overview and be free from bias. While this can be done, it is difficult to change your mind once you have an opinion.
The other idea of Greene's that I disagree with is that there is nothing new to have an opinion on. New conversations are started everyday, but Greene's ideas seem to overlook this. He writes as though every argument has already been made and we, as writers, must join the conversations instead of starting a new one. This view is very limiting and doesn't consider future problems. At the very least, old problems will affect us in new ways. When the Bill of Rights was created, our founders valued privacy; however, than could not have foreseen the Internet and the problems it would create in order to discuss it then. It was not until recently that we have seen the problems regarding our privacy and we cannot foresee what future discussions will be.
Through this writing, I have proven Greene's main point. When we read other pieces, we will always have an opinion and we are able to use it to add to the conversation.
Greene makes some good points. I hadn't previously thought of the connections between writings as conversations, but this is a useful view. When we write a research paper, we drawn on many sources and present them in a way that argues our view and discusses several other author's works. Thus, it becomes a conversation. When several more people write about the same topic, they further the discussion. Greene also suggests that using writings of experts helps improve the authority of our own voice. These points I certainly agree with; however, I think it simplifies the issue and potentially creates bias. In the research paper example, we wouldn't want to gain our facts from an opinionated source. If someone else is arguing for one side, and is making a good argument, certainly it will influence our opinions on the subject. This, I believe, makes it harder for us to draw our own conclusions. Greene does suggest extensive research first so a person should be reading all sides of an argument to gain an overview and be free from bias. While this can be done, it is difficult to change your mind once you have an opinion.
The other idea of Greene's that I disagree with is that there is nothing new to have an opinion on. New conversations are started everyday, but Greene's ideas seem to overlook this. He writes as though every argument has already been made and we, as writers, must join the conversations instead of starting a new one. This view is very limiting and doesn't consider future problems. At the very least, old problems will affect us in new ways. When the Bill of Rights was created, our founders valued privacy; however, than could not have foreseen the Internet and the problems it would create in order to discuss it then. It was not until recently that we have seen the problems regarding our privacy and we cannot foresee what future discussions will be.
Through this writing, I have proven Greene's main point. When we read other pieces, we will always have an opinion and we are able to use it to add to the conversation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletegood response, please raise your objections in class.
ReplyDelete