Sorry for the strange looking post - I couldn't get blogger to format my outline the way I had it in Word, so I just took screenshots and uploaded the images.
Your outline looks good! Have you decided which subsequent accounts you want to look at specifically? Are you trying for any sort of geographic cohesion, or are you just sorting chronologically? And maybe for your conclusion, were there any drawbacks to the methods of the Royal Society? (like perpetuating the belief that some races were inherently inferior?) I think it's really cool that you have a source that Newton went back and improved using Royal Society methods... that'll definitely be strong proof of the kinds of things that the Royal Society was looking for in their ethnographies.
I agree with Cameron in that I think, in your conclusion, you should at least address the question of what about the Royal Society's original methods allowed for possible misuse later, or how what happened later arose.
Other than that looks like you've planned your paper out well.
I like that you took a strong stance on your thesis. And it appears that you have some good sources to introduce your topic. I was just thinking it would really add to your paper to add a paragraph about how the intentions of the royal society succeded or failed. Meaning their goal in creating their travel accounts may have been to create one that was objective and scientific, but did they succeed on that front? In what sense did their biases come through? Or were they able to keep their personal religious, political, societal beliefs outside of their accounts?
I think it looks good. I would just suggest that you at least briefly touch on the opposing argument since that doesn't seem to be mentioned in your outline. For instance, it's possible that someone could argue that the RS did show signs of having ulterior motives, or perhaps of clear bias (i.e. supporting the Enlightenment like in Hentsch's paper). You can then try to engage it and analyze its merits.
I copied your example of using a screen shot - thanks! This outline looks really good. The one point I hoped spell out more is the section on why the Royal Society was created and what its mission was. My suspicion is it would be helpful to look up what is formally said and also the political conditions in which it was created - does the mission statement really match the reasons a political body decided to create it? Why did the state find it worthwhile to fund the objective pursuit of knowledge if it did not expect some benefit? (I imagine there could be an answer, but it would seem to need to involve changing views of what the state ought to pursue and what its full purpose was)
The source you've found that gave instructions on how to document ones travels seem really good. I assume they fall in line with your thesis, giving instructions to objectively document ones findings. Is there any political subtext in them? Another question would be, did the travel accounts you're looking at faithfully follow those guidelines?
Your outline looks good! Have you decided which subsequent accounts you want to look at specifically? Are you trying for any sort of geographic cohesion, or are you just sorting chronologically? And maybe for your conclusion, were there any drawbacks to the methods of the Royal Society? (like perpetuating the belief that some races were inherently inferior?) I think it's really cool that you have a source that Newton went back and improved using Royal Society methods... that'll definitely be strong proof of the kinds of things that the Royal Society was looking for in their ethnographies.
ReplyDeleteHi Billy,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cameron in that I think, in your conclusion, you should at least address the question of what about the Royal Society's original methods allowed for possible misuse later, or how what happened later arose.
Other than that looks like you've planned your paper out well.
I like that you took a strong stance on your thesis. And it appears that you have some good sources to introduce your topic. I was just thinking it would really add to your paper to add a paragraph about how the intentions of the royal society succeded or failed. Meaning their goal in creating their travel accounts may have been to create one that was objective and scientific, but did they succeed on that front? In what sense did their biases come through? Or were they able to keep their personal religious, political, societal beliefs outside of their accounts?
ReplyDeleteMackenzie
I think it looks good. I would just suggest that you at least briefly touch on the opposing argument since that doesn't seem to be mentioned in your outline. For instance, it's possible that someone could argue that the RS did show signs of having ulterior motives, or perhaps of clear bias (i.e. supporting the Enlightenment like in Hentsch's paper). You can then try to engage it and analyze its merits.
ReplyDeleteHi Billy,
ReplyDeleteI copied your example of using a screen shot - thanks! This outline looks really good. The one point I hoped spell out more is the section on why the Royal Society was created and what its mission was. My suspicion is it would be helpful to look up what is formally said and also the political conditions in which it was created - does the mission statement really match the reasons a political body decided to create it? Why did the state find it worthwhile to fund the objective pursuit of knowledge if it did not expect some benefit? (I imagine there could be an answer, but it would seem to need to involve changing views of what the state ought to pursue and what its full purpose was)
Billy,
ReplyDeleteThe source you've found that gave instructions on how to document ones travels seem really good. I assume they fall in line with your thesis, giving instructions to objectively document ones findings. Is there any political subtext in them? Another question would be, did the travel accounts you're looking at faithfully follow those guidelines?