To decode this assignment, separate it into the following:
Write a review of Goodall's, Kuhn's, and Asimov's
essays.
Jane Goodall had some difficulty being taken seriously by other scientists.
To what degree does Goodall follow Kuhn’s pattern or Asimov’s pattern for
scientific creativity?
What might be added to Asimov’s or Kuhn’s descriptions to allow for
Goodall’s kind of science to be more readily accepted?
Now take some of the key words from the
assignment and look them up in a dictionary.
Do this step even if you already know the meanings of the key
words. This may help you to focus your ideas later
on.
At first glance, writing a 5 to 6 page analysis essay may
seem intimidating. However, before you throw your
book out the window and make a mad dash to Las Vegas to gamble
away all your stresses, consider the following quote by Anne
Dilliard:
You know when you think about writing a book, you think it is
overwhelming. But, actually, you break it down into tiny little tasks that any
moron could do.
Like writing a book, this analysis writing assignment can be broken into
smaller parts. The remainder of this
web page will deal with each part.
Write a
review of Jane
Goodall's "First Observations" (pp.
177-185).
Write a review
of Isaac
Asimov's "Those Crazy Ideas" (pp. 142-152).
Write a review of Thomas
Kuhn's The Route to Normal Science (pp. 193-202).
Since review is synonymous to
"evaluate," you should go back to the getting
started section of essay two in which you were asked to
evaluate Didion's essay "On Self-Respect." Re-read characteristics
of evaluative writing, which will give you an idea how to
critically read and write about Jane Goodall (pp. 177-185),
Isaac Asimov (pp. 142-152), and Thomas Kuhn (pp.
193-202). As you review each article, you
should summarize no more than 1/3 of the article. You should
spend approximately 2/3 of your review analyzing the
article. Four to six pages of your paper will
consist of a review of the writers. To see a critique of Thomas
Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," click
here.
Jane Goodall had some difficulty being taken seriously by other scientists.
To what degree does Goodall follow Kuhn’s pattern or Asimov’s pattern for
scientific creativity?
To explore this part of the writing assignment, spend some time writing on the following topics:
Why did Jane Goodall have difficulty being taken seriously by
other scientists?
First, you should be aware that the nature of
experimental inquiry is as follows: Identifying the problem,
designing the experiment, conducting the experiment in which
one collects and analyzes the data, interpreting the data,
and drawing conclusions after which one disseminates them to
a wider audience. A scientist can be judged on the premise
that one, some, or all the these steps are perceived as
being flawed.
Second, a scientist can be judged in terms of
credibility. A scientist's educational and professional
qualifications, the respectability of the journal in which
he or she has published, and reviews of the scientist's work
help to determine whether or not he or she is a credible,
credentialed, and esteemed authority in the
field.
Finally, the credibility of a scientist is ultimately
determined by his her ability to show a thorough knowledge
of the facts, to build common ground, and to respond fairly
to objections and opposing arguments.
What is Kuhn's pattern
for scientific creativity?
What is Asimov's
pattern for scientific creativity?
Utilizing comparison
writing techniques, show how Goodall's pattern is similar
to that of Kuhn's or Asimov's?
What might be added to Asimov’s or Kuhn’s descriptions to allow for
Goodall’s kind of science to be more readily accepted?
Now that you have reviewed and drawn comparisons among
the three writers, you need to consider their differences,
especially how Kuhn and Asimov are different from Goodall.
You should spend time writing, outlining, clustering, or
brainstorming on the following topics:
Group Asimov and Kuhn together and list some of the major
similarities between these two writers. You should
consider their views on experimental inquiry and on their
creation and validation of knowledge.
Consider some fundamental differences that Goodall might
have from Asimov or Kuhn.
How is Goodall's pattern for scientific creativity
different from that of Kuhn or Asimov? Considering her
scientific methods of inquiry by which Goodall creates
and validates knowledge, you should explain what she does differently
from Kuhn or Asimov.
How does she identify the problem about which she is
researching? In what way is this different from Kuhn's
or Asimov's ideas?
Does she design her experiments in a way which
would be acceptable to Kuhn or Asimov?
Would Kuhn or Asimov agree with how Goodall collects and analyzes the
data when she is conducting experiments?
Would Kuhn or Asimov agree with Goodall's interpretations
and conclusions about her data?
In a sense, you are being asked to modify Kuhn's or Asimov's
notions
of scientific inquiry that would more readily
accept Goodall's methods of scientific
inquiry. Based on your notes,
should write about what might be added to Kuhn's or
Asimov's descriptions so that Goodall kinds of science will be
more readily acceptable.
Once you have generated 15-20 pages of writing at this stage of your writing, you are ready to move on to the
planning and drafting stage.
If you have any doubts about your topic, consider
discussing your choice with me (1) by E-mail at mbuckhoff@aol.com
, (2) during class at the appropriate time, or (3) at my
office. It is much less painful to refocus your
topic at this stage of the writing assignment since you do yet
not have a complete, highly polished draft.
