Discussing and Disputting -Critical

Discussing and disputing - critical

Contents

Evidence and generalization                                     

Evidence and generalization

There is nothing stronger than empirical proof to make a claim on an idea. However, it is almost impossible to find evidence of absolute strength, which is why the word ‘proof’ is seldom used except in mathematics. Nevertheless, as well as ensuring that sources of authority are correctly and strategically acknowledged through the referencing system, we do have some linguistic devices for implying strength or weakness in any piece of reported or experiential knowledge:

You often use present tense to give authority to statements and to act as ‘given’ or background knowledge which cannot be disputed without even stronger counter-evidence.

A sentence in the simple present tense may be:

           

                        tied to a specific situation:                                          This water is cold.

                        common knowledge:                                                   Water is wet.

                        generalized from evidence which can be produced:   Water freezes at 0^o C

Which statement is confined only to a single time or situation?        How?

Which of the above is the stronger, more authoritative statement?    Why?

Read texts A and B

There are surprisingly few differences between Passage A and Passage B below, and yet the strength and flavor of each paragraph is quite distinctive, according to the verb tenses used.

What happens to the scope and sureness of the information in each case?

How clearly in your mind can you see an actual (concrete) event happening for each passage?

Which text refers to general and which to specific understandings?

Which paragraph contains knowledge that is transferable?

How can each of these passages be used in academic writing? With what purpose?

In which section of a research report does each passage belong?

A

Visual manipulations include the use of a blindfold for eliminating visual information and a visual-conflict dome for producing inaccurate input. The dome provides sensory conflict by depriving the subject of peripheral vision and introducing a sway-referenced image. It moves in synchrony with head movement and thereby reduces the meaning of vision as a reference for body sway. Thus, the use of a blindfold and the use of a visual-conflict dome should examine different aspects of the sensory organization of visual information. The use of a blindfold examines how well subjects maintain balance in the absence of visual input, and the use of a dome examines how well subjects maintain balance when visual input is present but conflicts with vestibular input (Cohen et al 1993).

B

Visual manipulations included the use of a blindfold for eliminating visual information and a visual-conflict dome for producing inaccurate input. The dome provided sensory conflict by depriving the subject of peripheral vision and introducing a sway-referenced image. It moved in synchrony with head movement and thereby reduced the meaning of vision as a reference for body sway. Thus, the use of a blindfold and the use of a visual-conflict dome should have examined different aspects of the sensory organization of visual information. The use of a blindfold examined how well subjects maintained balance in the absence of visual input, and the use of a dome examined how well subjects maintained balance when visual input was present but conflicted with vestibular input (Cohen et al 1993).