Pauls' Wheels of Reasoning:
Question of issue: The difference as well as the similarities between various disciplines of both science and arts
Purpose: To show himself that his point of view that they are similar is wrong and that there are various differences between them
Evidence: 1) "The stereotype of "science" as a totally certain, infallible body of knowledge arrived at through totally objective observation and deductive reasoning is not true of physics. Conversely, the stereotype of "arts" does not apply to history either."
2) "The similarities and differences between sciences and arts involve a number of parameters. If we consider all these parameters, what we get is a multidimensional spectrum, not a binary classification."
Assumptions: The writer is assuming that though science and arts have their obvious differences, he is consoling himself by saying that there are also similarities between the two.
POV: That science and arts are similar and to debunk this assumption
Concepts: The breaking down of science and arts into smaller aspects, like sub disciplines of science and arts and the finding of similarities between these sub disciplines, like the criteria for critical evaluation and the methodologies.
Implications:The article suggests that the difference between arts and science is very thin ad very vague.
Inferences: that the author believes that both science and arts have similarities and differences
No comments:
Post a Comment