Please finish read the documents!!! Critical Analysis: For citations – you shoul

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable ratesFor This or a Similar Paper Click To Order NowPlease finish read the documents!!!Critical Analysis:For citations – you should provide the author and page number for any articles I have assigned for class readings (as seen in the example paper). If you use an outside source, please provide a full citation. You can use APA/MLA orother citation format. Just be consistent and be sure I can find the source!____________________________________________________________________________________________The example:Weber and Robbins each urge us to consider the relationship between science and the scientist. We confront the problem of separating the knowledge within a scientific discipline and the work done by the scientist himself. In practicing economics, the economist concerns himself first and foremost with content of economic science, however these readings suggest that the activity of the economist himself is potentially a worthy object of study. I am struck by the implications of incorporating a theory of how economic science is pursued into an evaluation of the validity of economic insight. The subjective nature of scientific activity adds an additional layer of uncertainty to scientific claims.On one hand, mathematics or physics appears to be the epitome of objective knowledge, and provide a benchmark to which other sciences should aspire. In those fields, there should be little or no disagreement based on the perspective of the scientist. Cultural sciences, however, cannot conform to this ideal, and yet contain many of the most interesting and fundamental objects of human inquiry. These papers highlight the importance of the perspective of the scientist in ways I hadn’t previously considered. Weber asserts that, “All knowledge of cultural reality… is always knowledge from a particular point of view” (Weber, 64). His point is both epistemological and methodological, in that he makes both a simple claim about the nature of observation and a subtler argument that the scientist is the source of meaning. He later asserts: “without the investigator’s evaluative ideas, there would be no principle of selection of subject matter and no meaningful knowledge of concrete reality” (Weber, 64). Our minds give meaning to our surroundings, and we should – or even necessarily must – pursue questions that strike us as meaningful.Among other things, acknowledging the scientist’s role in what constitutes science means that we must recognize our limits. Omniscience is beyond our reach. That reality must inform the way we view the knowledge we do possess, as well as how we view the scientific progress. Each scientist inevitably brings a set of presuppositions to any problem he studies. We cannot, strictly speaking, simply allow the data to ‘speak for itself.’ Instead, we should recognize that context determines how we pursue, interpret, and organize the data of the world around us. The question remains: do we dispose of the notion of objectivity in economics altogether, or is there a way to salvage some propositions from the grasp of relativism?Acknowledging our partiality, we confront problems of how we reach objective knowledge at all. Each of our authors recognize, and warn against, radical relativism and nihilism. Robbins notes that generalizations about ideal types do not correspond to specific realities, but cautions us against assuming the validity of our insight, “is limited to certain historical conditions, and that outside these they have no relevance to the analysis of social phenomena” (Robbins, 80). Even though the scientist works within a contextual framework, he does not abandon hope that we can claim to know certain truths that have an almost mathematical legitimacy. I am not sure I completely understand why this should be so, but it does seem worth exploring further – and it would be a comforting conclusion.Assuming, that Robbins and Weber are correct, it seems that we are capable of building toward a ‘body of scientific truths’ which is in principle separable from the methods used to build it. Weber offers some optimism when he claims that, “scientific truth is precisely what is valid for all who seek truth” (Weber, 66). The authors both argue that we should aspire to arrive at validly objective facts about the world. The readings make me less hopeful that objectivity is possible, but if it is, I realize more now than ever that it is worth pursuing.Overall thoughts: (Positives) Transitions are good; each paragraph contains a main point and advances the discussion; judicious use of quotes; grammatically and stylistically fine; clear communication of a main idea or set of ideas; shows engagement with the readings (Negatives) Occasionally too wordy; repetitive; conclusion could be strongerOverall grade: 22/25 – This is an A paper, and a bit of copy-editing could have made it better.“RUBRIC”A good paper may take a number of forms, but it will certainly follow some general guidelines:Whatever you write, please ensure that you are not merely summarizing or reacting to what you have read. Fundamentally, I don’t care to hear “your opinion,” except as a necessary byproduct of your analyzing the text. If you’re going to agree with something you’ve read, you’ll need to lay out why you find it compelling. The easier task will be to criticize something. But in order to do this properly, you need to lay out an argument. A real argument.To write an argument, you need to be absolutely clear what sort of conclusion you are proposing and what premises lead to that conclusion. You might also want to show that you are aware of the weaknesses of your argument and make some effort to address them.1) You might start by very briefly summarizing the point you wish to comment upon. Something like: “Deneen argues that our society is bound to fail because it uses up material and moral resources more quickly than it can replenish them.” At this point, you’ve laid out all the context you need. Now, move quickly to explain your intent in your essay: “While I agree with his claim that capitalism uses environmental resources irresponsibly, I find his arguments about moral resources unconvincing.” Fine.2) Before you go too much further, you need to show that you accurately understand the argument you are discussing. A quote might be useful, but again, you should keep this as brief as possible. This will be difficult! You are going to have to make a call: How much do I need to explain to show I accurately understand his essential arguments? In some cases, this explanation will be your second paragraph. In other cases, you might weave your commentary in and describe his argument over the course of your whole paper. For instance: “Deneen claims that certain habits of behavior are essential to the maintenance of a functioning society. He claims that we have lost these habits and concludes therefore that our society is bound to fail.” You could unpack this quite a bit, and probably need to, depending on what you plan to argue. For instance – what habits? What is a well-functioning society? What does failure look like? The more detail you give, the more attention you will have to pay to the specifics of Deneen’s argument. You will have to make a trade-off between brevity and detail.3) Now it is your turn to comment: “While Deneen’s argument is valid, he fails to appreciate the diversity of habits that can serve as the foundation for a well-functioning society. This over-narrow prescription leads Deneen to a position of unwarranted pessimism.” Now you are off to the races. You should be as clear and concise as possible. What are the habits that characterize our modern society, and why should we think they would serve at least as well as the habits Deneen suggests we have lost? In order to answer this, you will likely want to borrow from Deneen’s own formula. He has thought a lot about this, and anyway, it is good rhetorical technique. “Deneen decries the destabilizing effects of loosening social bonds, but he says comparatively little about the stabilizing effects of habits that arise out of modern liberalism. The cosmopolitan tendencies of modernity surely contribute greater peace and stability between nations. Inasmuch as conflict between peoples, ethnic groups, and nations is a source of failure for nations, a liberal order is more robust than its pre-modern counterparts.” And so on. The meat of your paper will take some thought. You are building an argument. You will have to think DEEPLY about why you agree or disagree with the author. In doing so, you may change your mind. Good – back to the drawing board. Somewhere in the second half of your essay, you should probably acknowledge the points of weakness in your own argument and attempt to address them.4) By the end, you will want to have some small room for a conclusion. In a two-page paper, this will be short. Probably not more than two or three lines._________________________________________________________________________For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order NowRelated