I believe that the established criteria for evaluating this paper were good. If there were any weaknesses in the criteria set, it was because the paper in question was more of a historical document. Rather than being an article filled with completion of experiments and such (which we are used to), it gathered known information and data. Maybe the problem with this paper was having our class be the audience? Many of us are used to reading scientific papers with excruciating detail and examination. This paper had different requirements from its readers, so it is possible that we were not open-minded enough while reading through.
The presentations throughout were all very strong in exhibiting evidence for their case. At first, I thought it was pretty blatant that the "no" groups had a better argument. I was proven wrong however, because the "yes" groups did in fact find a lot of good information to present. I was not in class for the first day, but it seemed that the "no" groups won because the "yes" groups tried to work their case off of many things that seemed to be a little off tangent of the paper. (I can't say I blame them either.)
My group did pull together a lot of good information for discussion. Organization and such however, was not a great strong suit for us. I think it was a large consensus that it was hard for us to work on this project, because we did not feel strongly or passionately about the legitimacy of this paper. This was probably a good opportunity for all of us, because in the real world this will occur much of the time - hopefully less often than not. In the professional world people are given situations in which they will have to proceed in something they do not really care for, and I suppose this was good practice.
I did believe that the paper was not legitimate according to the criteria and otherwise. I have previously read papers that were simply reviews of others, but this one just seemed to give a false vibe. After observing how the data was presented inadequately and realizing the obvious bias in the paper, it became clear to me why I felt this way.
Surprisingly, the class was pretty divided in its decision of this topic. Personally, I thought the most ludicrous thing about this paper was that the authors were attempting to describe how carbon dioxide emissions are creating a more luscious and fruitful environment. With global warming being a huge issue in these times, how can one say that this is something even close to the truth?
"What we do in the US, soon will not matter." I think it is already evident that much of what our country does has little effect: most of our economy is based in Asia (namingly China) and many lesser-developed countries, our current national debt is in the trillions and counting, and it does not look like our economic situation is going to improve any time soon. Because of these factors, any situation, problem or topic that we may be trying to unravel is not going to develop an answer. For all complications that our nation is in the underlying discrepancy is money. It's not that money solves everything, but it can pay for many of the things that need to be resolved in the world today.
"What we do as individuals matters." There have been many individuals throughout history that have changed many things for the better or worse. The point is though, that they changed what was occurring at that point in time. This phrase has a lot to do with why I want to go into the medical field in fact. I want to help people sure, but I think with a combination of my life experiences and knowledge I can be an individual who has the ability to help make others feel that they matter as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment