When pursuing a claim, the ability to produce a
well-articulated complex, analytic, persuasive argument is crucial in order to
write a successful paper. The proposal for my second major paper (Short
Assignment 4) outlined the argument that I expanded on in the second major
paper. For my complex claim, I start out with a concession, a brief introduction of Newton
in order to put the issue into context. From the general description, I lead to
my claim by noting that "when people think of Isaac Newton, the image of
the falling apple or the three laws of motion come to mind". Therefore,
the assertion that "people rarely are aware of his underlying motives for
his search for truth" stated in the
next sentence is reasonable. That people have certain images of Newton, such as the falling apple, and that "science and religion represent contrasting ideologies and remain separate" provides evidence of the assertion. At the end of the introduction, I propose questions
that I answer in my paper: Why and how has Newton's identity been skewed
and misrepresented throughout history? Does theology present a crucial part of
his identity or has it rightfully been neglected? What are the consequences of
these false views? By listing the questions, I articulate what I will be
covering in the paper and provided a clear road map. Asking both why and how makes my claim complex since it adds depth to the subject. The second and last
question presents the stakes that the paper will cover, since it questions
whether it is correct to ignore his theology and considers the consequences.
In the proposal, I list possible reasons of why Newton's theology may have been masked: "concentration on his contribution to sciences [and] society's reluctance to relate science and religion". Sources (i.e. "article by Kate Ravilious" and "Alfred Rupert Hall's compilation of biographies") that will be analyzed and used to support these reasons are included in the proposal. The counter-argument is clearly stated in the proposal. I recognize that "some may question how the disregard of religion is detrimental to society" and that the "lack of knowledge of his theological influence does not affect one's ability to understand physics or complete mathematical computations". However, I continue to argue my claim by reasoning that "it does hinder people from understanding Newton's brilliance". The stakes of my claim is then mentioned to strengthen the importance of my argument. If people neglect Newton's religion, people would have "false conceptions of how genius such as Newton's came to be" and develop the false notion that Newton's work made religion unnecessary "reasoning that Newton's work allows for a clockwork universe, which is opposite of Newton's true ideas" as indicated by his correspondences and private journals. I also explain the possible warrants in my paper in order to justify any other counter-arguments that may arise. The two major assumptions I make is that "Newton's theology is not well known" and that "people hesitate to relate science and religion". I reason the two, indicating that it can be properly justified "with references to how textbooks neglect such information and solely teach the discoveries" and "with evidence from the evolution and creation debate [where controversy] prevents people from thinking of sciences and religion in the same plane". By acknowledging and accounting for the warrants, I leave little assumptions in my paper, providing a stable, persuasive argument.
The questions asked in the proposal require consideration of multiple sides of the argument, making the claim complex. I articulate the stakes, consider the counter-arguments, and further my claim by analyzing and quoting sources. The proposal provided a clear outline and road map of the second major paper. All of these components combined provides a great example of how I successfully produced a complex, analytic, persuasive argument, satisfying the third outcome.
In the proposal, I list possible reasons of why Newton's theology may have been masked: "concentration on his contribution to sciences [and] society's reluctance to relate science and religion". Sources (i.e. "article by Kate Ravilious" and "Alfred Rupert Hall's compilation of biographies") that will be analyzed and used to support these reasons are included in the proposal. The counter-argument is clearly stated in the proposal. I recognize that "some may question how the disregard of religion is detrimental to society" and that the "lack of knowledge of his theological influence does not affect one's ability to understand physics or complete mathematical computations". However, I continue to argue my claim by reasoning that "it does hinder people from understanding Newton's brilliance". The stakes of my claim is then mentioned to strengthen the importance of my argument. If people neglect Newton's religion, people would have "false conceptions of how genius such as Newton's came to be" and develop the false notion that Newton's work made religion unnecessary "reasoning that Newton's work allows for a clockwork universe, which is opposite of Newton's true ideas" as indicated by his correspondences and private journals. I also explain the possible warrants in my paper in order to justify any other counter-arguments that may arise. The two major assumptions I make is that "Newton's theology is not well known" and that "people hesitate to relate science and religion". I reason the two, indicating that it can be properly justified "with references to how textbooks neglect such information and solely teach the discoveries" and "with evidence from the evolution and creation debate [where controversy] prevents people from thinking of sciences and religion in the same plane". By acknowledging and accounting for the warrants, I leave little assumptions in my paper, providing a stable, persuasive argument.
The questions asked in the proposal require consideration of multiple sides of the argument, making the claim complex. I articulate the stakes, consider the counter-arguments, and further my claim by analyzing and quoting sources. The proposal provided a clear outline and road map of the second major paper. All of these components combined provides a great example of how I successfully produced a complex, analytic, persuasive argument, satisfying the third outcome.