One of the most useful things we looked at with Scholars were logical fallacies. Upon being fed examples of red herring, no true authority, ad hominem, and many more, I started paying attention to the way people argue. You see, in conversation we often have ulterior motives because we are all living creatures who have hormonal urges and - many could argue - are driven by predictable factors such as money, love, or drugs.
Recently, I heard someone defend the bombing of Israeli towns by Palestinian forces just because Israel has done the same to Palestine many times with deadlier force. This wasn’t really a logical fallacy we covered in class because it takes a very elementary train of thought to debunk, but I still think it counts, falling under the belief that ‘two wrongs make a right.’ If a scientist were to believe this, it would be worse than the average logical fallacy because they might try to combine two very reactive chemicals and create an explosion that equates to a shorter lifespan for society. And we all like to live long, right? Well, we are lucky because most professional scientists don’t actually fall victim to that.
My SGC Colloquiums have helped process many things, including news of droughts in western states leading to wildfires during the summer. We learned in class that nothing about climate change isn’t multi-faceted, so I began compartmentalizing all the different factors in Oregon and California that triggered these ‘light shows,’ if you will.
I remember in English 101 last year when we learned about Environmental Justice all around the world, and more specifically a young woman growing up in Baltimore, near the infamous Wheelabrator incinerator community of Westport. It’s an important step to recognize that although these inflamed Westerners might be on the upper echelon of people affected by climate change, because the truth is that generally, the North pollutes and the South suffers. This is, of course, a generalization, but still notable enough to be considered a trend. It could also be used to explain why poorer countries are closer to the tropics.
One way to mitigate these effects, as I learned in my ENCE100 class, is to begin using sustainable materials in construction, such as permeable concrete or cork (because of its abundance) instead of wood. As long as these have similar material properties, a few key attributes can go a long way in providing a return on the investment.
Everything I have stated thus far owes its roots inside my brain to SGC Scholars and faculty. I can only in my right mind express gratitude to these people for this. It could come as a surprise, then, that I attribute none of this to the interactions with other Scholars. Maybe that’s because my two best friends dropped the course shortly after the third semester began, or simply the challenge of socially taming a class of roughly seventy. Either way, I certainly learned more from Professors Merck and Holtz’s lectures than fellow SGC Scholars. I didn’t feel a sense of community to the point where I felt it improved or enhanced my learning in and of itself. As far as my own contribution to this storied program, I feel underwhelmed. Apart from listening to Colloquium presentations and being attentive at a few excursion destinations, I certainly could have done more to feed off of the energy of the room. This being said, I did contribute sparse questions in class that probed a group’s stances. This is to say I have personally contributed to SGC to a minimal degree. One of my deepest regrets was not participating in the student panel this year, when some of my classmates benevolently chose to give that feedback to the instructors (and ultimately crafters) of the program.
If anything, Scholars definitely brought me within close proximity to people and a curriculum that would ultimately shape my view of the natural world. I already had an appreciation for science, but this class made me proud of what it means to be a scientist. The notion that a single true external reality exists, independently of our perceptions, was such an empowering message to hear. Where I have been challenged is in realizing that uncertainty doesn’t mean unlikely. Everyone changes their mind - decisive people just keep that to themselves.
Science and Global Change has helped me understand who I am as a person relative to the world. I care deeply about the environment. I am a deeply emotional thinker as much as a rational one, so the matters concerning fellow warm-bodied creatures on this sublime and sometimes majestic landscape will forever follow me around.
Scholars has effectively encouraged my path for Civil Engineering to be the Water Resources track instead of Geotechnical/Structural. I feel that the Water Resources track pays more attention to the very applicable modern-day issues like agricultural runoff, erosion, and increasingly heavy droughts. It should come as no surprise, then, that I have decided to pursue a Minor in Sustainability Studies.
As it pertains to my post-undergraduate education, we are not there yet. Something tells me, however, that four years will be enough for me to be able to join some organization where I can make a difference towards my goal, which is to save the planet. Two possible professional locations I have given thought to are the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the futuristic Civilian Climate Corps, as outlined by congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others. I would like to conclude by mentioning what SGC’s legacy will be to me. Despite all the shortcomings I may have had in engaging with the program’s breadth, I will positively refer to it as a single entity instead of a series of courses. Its interactive groupworks taught me that thinking critically together in a large group can be very satisfying, and, reverting to an earlier theme, can foster the scientific mindsets of skepticism and independent thought. I am lucky to say that I came into last year’s Freshman Colloquium with a fair degree of open mindedness, but the way in which it was reinforced the ensuing three semesters was frankly spectacular.