Philosophy

Problems often surface to cause stresses in everyday life, and the methods of finding solutions to the problems vary.  One method in figuring out solutions is to apply persuasive thinking, while another method is to figure out solutions by applying scientific thinking.  Persuasive thinking takes a stand in pointing out the informal rewarding effects of the solution for the individual (Blair, 2006).  Scientific thinking takes a stand in pointing out the formal objective effects of the comprehensive solution (Freeley  Steinberg, 2008).  Persuasive thinking is more limited in its approach, because individuals are often able to be persuaded to take action if there is an immediate personal benefit, without taking into consideration the entire context.  On the other hand, scientific thinking is more comprehensive in its approach, because all objective facts of the problem are considered in context.  In looking to my personal life and experiences, there are two problem situations I can recall which were handled differently, one with application of persuasive thinking, and one with application of scientific thinking.

    Several years ago, I encountered a situation when my uncle did not agree with me about a certain political point.  I believed that the US government could have engaged in more immediate relief efforts after hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, while he believed that the military and civil defense operations were conducted superbly.  By using persuasive thinking techniques, I tried to convince my uncle that he would be better served by a government which acted immediately to cater to his needs in emergency situations.  I used the example of him being trapped on a rooftop for days in the sun, and tried to influence him that he also needed to be better cared for by the government in times of crisis.  By using several examples of how my uncle would have been better served by the government if the government had acted immediately to save him after a hurricane like Katrina, I tried to convince my uncle that the US government needed to make intensive changes in its search and rescue operations.

    Here, persuasive thinking took the shape of an informal and personal appeal to the ideology of another person.  By offering solutions to the problem aimed at my uncles own personal welfare, I attempted to help him to come to the realization that he could personally benefit from having better search and rescue services put into place.  My arguments were based on convincing my uncle of his own personal need for the services.  By pointing out the disconnect between him being in crisis and the response of the government, I aimed to call attention to the simple realization of the rift which existed between what his needs would be in a disaster situation and what is actually available and being provided by the US government.  My aim was not to disparage the US government, but merely to point out that what my uncles needs would be in a crisis would not be met by the current system in place.  It was my intention to persuade my uncle to take personal action to rectify the divide between him and his government.

    Very recently, there was also the situation of the earthquake in Haiti, and my uncle and I again came to a difference of opinion regarding the response of US search and rescue operations.  He believed that the US government did their very best, with no room for improvement, and I believed that out of the many tens of thousands of people who were trapped under the rubble, the US could have saved many more than several dozen.  This time, by using scientific thinking techniques, I pointed out to him the advancements in technology, such as specialized helicopters, the availability of search and rescue training, and the many physical areas from which the US could have operated in regard to logistics.  By making connections between what was scientifically possible for search and rescue missions and what was objectively needed in Haiti, I was able to paint a comprehensive picture of the many resources which were available and the lack of US response to the many Haitians in need.

    Here, scientific thinking took the shape of a factual and rational appeal to known resources and needs of society in general.  By offering solutions to the problem aimed at calling attention to my uncles formal responsibility as a member of a society which is rich with actual resources and possibilities, I attempted to help him come to the realization that there are certain educational and technological capabilities which could have made the search and rescue operations in Haiti much more comprehensive and successful.  By pointing out the disconnect between what the US government is potentially able to accomplish given the facts surrounding modern advancements in implementation of search and rescue teams and the large number of Haitians who were suffering and dying under the rubble, I was able to paint a very clear picture of the comprehensive causes and effects of not utilizing scientific advancements in crises.

    When formulating an argument in support of a solution, persuasive thinking and scientific thinking both have their uses, yet persuasive thinking is more aligned to convincing a person based on the benefit to the individual, while scientific thinking is more detailed and comprehensive.  In regard to the situation of hurricane Katrina, perhaps my uncle was swayed by thinking of the possibility of his own potential plight and the service of the government to him personally.  My purpose in utilizing persuasive thinking was to aim to convince my uncle of the need for government support during crises, based on his own personal needs.  In regard to the situation of the recent earthquake in Haiti, it is possible that my uncle was influenced by my sharing the detailed scientific possibilities in regard to the entire objective situation.  My purpose in utilizing scientific thinking was to aim to convince my uncle of the need for government support during crises, based on the objective facts surrounding what occurred and was implemented in Haiti and what is known to be scientifically possible.