Read on Twitter
Richard Dawkins uses his own ruler to measure things that aren’t straight and then claims they’re badly built.
His piece for The Spectator uses 3 references from 25+ years ago to prove his vague generalisations that have just enough of a lilt to them that they catch people’s attention but it’s just him blowing hot air.
If he submitted that “essay” in my first-year university introduction to composition course, this is the marking feedback I’d give:
1) Relies heavily on vague generalisations & value judgements
- provide concrete definitions for your terms/claims—repetition of “logic” doesn’t clarify its meaning
- specify & contextualise your scope—you can’t speak to “the nature of truth” in a lifetime, let alone 1 assignment
- provide concrete definitions for your terms/claims—repetition of “logic” doesn’t clarify its meaning
- specify & contextualise your scope—you can’t speak to “the nature of truth” in a lifetime, let alone 1 assignment
2) Does not provide sufficient secondary sources to support claims — 3 obscure examples from 25+ yrs ago does not show sufficient engagement with current academic discourse
3) Contradicts & undermines the thesis
- admits limitations of scientific body of knowledge yet discounts possibility of other schools of thought having answers, while misrepresenting their views
- disingenuous argumentation — employs strawman and false dichotomy fallacies
- admits limitations of scientific body of knowledge yet discounts possibility of other schools of thought having answers, while misrepresenting their views
- disingenuous argumentation — employs strawman and false dichotomy fallacies
Overall: shows a passion for the subject matter but posits personal opinion in place of critical engagement, making broad claims without sufficient evidence.
Grade: 58%
Grade: 58%
*note: that grade is based on typical Canadian grade expectations
