Due Date: December 15, 2025
A recent failure in critical thinking that I encountered involved the controversy surrounding University of Oklahoma student Samantha Fulnecky. She submitted an essay that did not meet the rubric criteria and received a zero. Fulnecky claimed the grade was based on her personal beliefs, even after the instructor explained that was not the case. She went on a public campaign defending herself, involving the organization Turning Point USA, and even a member of the Oklahoma government. In my view, Fulnecky used several logical fallacies. One clear example is ad hominem. She and her supporters attacked the instructor for being transgender, instead of addressing the essay’s failure to meet rubric requirements. They framed the situation as religious persecution, which misrepresents what actually happened. Unfortunately, the instructor was placed on administrative leave due to public pressure. Experiences like this, alongside a few of my own in college, have shown me that not everyone approaches critical thinking in the same way.
Outside of the SGC colloquium, one news article that caught my attention during my Environmental Science and Policy supporting course discussed the potential of powering artificial intelligence with nuclear energy. AI servers require massive amounts of clean water for cooling, which can create water shortages and thermal pollution. Nuclear energy could be a better option than solar or wind for meeting the large-scale energy demands of AI. My main concerns are the risk of accidents involving radioactive waste and the finite nature of uranium. While we discussed nuclear energy briefly in SGC, I don’t think the colloquium enhanced my understanding of the topic as much as my supporting course did. However, I think the supporting course did a fantastic job of teaching me about the political aspects of climate change. It should definitely be kept on the list for future SGC Scholars.
One SGC topic that connected strongly to my major was the impact of climate change on human health. As a biology major aiming to become a scientific researcher addressing antibiotic resistance, this topic resonated with me. Climate change increases the prevalence of tropical and vector-borne diseases such as Lyme disease, dengue fever, and malaria. During a group project, I learned how climate change contributes to higher Lyme disease incidence. Lyme disease is primarily treated through antibiotics, depending on disease progression. This connects to antibiotic resistance because more disease prevalence increases antibiotic usage, which accelerates resistance. Learning that these diseases are increasing through SGC made me more passionate about helping to find therapeutic treatments. Through my Cellular and Molecular Biology supporting course, I learned about pathogen transmission, evasion of host defenses, and mechanisms of resistance. Resistance increases as antibiotic use increases, so we need to find ways to reduce our use of antibiotics and modify bacteria to be more responsive to antibiotic treatments.
My learning was further improved through interactions with certain SGC Scholars. During my practicum with Jamie Bombick, we bonded over discussions about climate legislation and we have also worked together on two group projects: one on climate-exacerbated Lyme disease and a drama skit highlighting logical fallacies. Our friendship is definitely one of my most cherished parts of being in Scholars. On the other hand, I don’t think being in a living-learning community had a major impact on my Scholars experience. I’m an introvert, so I usually have a hard time connecting with people unless we’re always in close proximity (such as my practicum). It didn’t really feel like a living-learning community because many people on our floor (such as my roommate) were not in Scholars, or they were in other Scholars programs. Since colloquium only met once a week, I would see some people from my floor then, and almost never see them again until our next meeting. After our first year, half of my peers dropped out of SGC, so I never saw them again. I don’t think living together for the first year is extremely necessary. However, it was really convenient living in Centreville for field trip meet-ups and office hours.
In terms of personal contribution to SGC, I would say mine was moderate. I actively participated in discussions and consistently contributed to group projects. However, I didn’t engage much with members of other Scholars programs in formal settings. In terms of being in contact with people who challenged my beliefs, hearing classmates' views on scientific topics was interesting. I had never thought about things from their perspectives. The climate solutions activity showed that different people prioritized different things. For example, some of my group members wanted to invest more in electric cars and other affordable climate solutions. Since we had a good budget, I thought it would be a good idea to invest in big-ticket items such as solar satellites and nuclear fusion in addition to wind and afforestation. My beliefs and opinions haven’t changed much in the last three semesters.
I believe my SGC experience will inform my future by strengthening my critical thinking and communication skills. Discussions on decarbonization and geoengineering activities were sometimes annoying, but they gave me the chance to interact with a diverse group of peers. I appreciate those social opportunities since I rarely interacted with people in SGC during our first year. Finally, Demon-Haunted World wasn’t my favorite book to read, but Carl Sagan’s writing was extremely insightful. I think it improved my ability to recognize logical fallacies and apply them to real-world arguments. Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction was probably my favorite out of all the required textbooks. I enjoyed learning about the Anthropocene from a scientific view, which included biological concepts. Drawdown was also very interesting. I liked how it incorporated many different topics into short summaries. I might actually read the whole book now that I’m stuck with it. Thomas Kida’s Don’t Believe Everything You Think was a decent read. It reminded me of a lot of self-help books, which don’t interest me much at the moment. Overall, these experiences will be useful as I continue in my major, in post-undergraduate education, and in my professional career.