(Note Part II currently focusses mainly on argumentation, using the original Rationale training exercises. It will soon be revised (Q1 2009) to follow the schema set out in the course Introduction. Many of the examples are general, non-scientific examples, and these will gradually be replaced.)
Part II: Arguments in scientific writing
Most scientific
papers have, at their heart, an argument. They put forward some specific
case of this generic argument:
The results
provide new information that significantly modifies (or confirms) our
existing understanding of one or more scientifically important topics.
Within this
overall framework will also find many sub-arguments, such as (generically
expressed):
- The methods
used to obtain the results are reliable
- This study
is the first of its kind
- The results
have implications that are significant
Young scientists
are often shocked to hear that argumentation plays such a prominent role
in scientific writing. They often feel that are involved in uncovering
"reality" and that the data should basically "speak for
themselves". If they are advanced enough to realise that science
is more concerned with "models" than reality, then they probably
feel that the focus should be on how to best present their "new model".
But while this may play some part in a paper, a more important goal is
persuading the reader that the old model is in need of some fixin' in
the first place.
I got my
own wake-up call about this aspect of science when, after a conference
presentation early in my career, a colleague took me to task about the
reliability of my data.
So instead of basking in the glow of a well-prepared talk, I found myself
adrift in unfamiliar territory where what was called for was not the logical
mind of a scientist but the poise and wiles of a debater.
Writing a
persuasive argument of any type is a highly sophisticated skill. Scientific
arguments are often particularly difficult because of the intellectual
challenge and wide-ranging nature of their content. To reduce these problems,
and to increase the efficiency of writing, it is has become increasingly
obvious in recent years that it is wise to approach argument writing in
two stages:
- first,
generate the argument in diagrammatic form without concern for style
(and fine-tune in this format until all your collaborators are happy)
- second,
package the argument in English prose, using the argument diagram, along
with other considerations, as a guide.
Argument
diagramming or mapping is a rapidly developing art and in this course
we will use the pre-eminent software in this field, Rationale.
Argument mapping works rather like a structured form of brainstorming,
and is unique amongst such "pre-writing" approaches in that
it offers very useful insights into how to proceed with prose composition.
In this part of course
we will first learn how to "map" an argument and then learn
how to use it as a guide to our prose.
By becoming
familiar with the inter-relationship of map and argumentative prose you
will:.
- learn
how to use the architecture of a argument map to give your prose a "logical
backbone"
- become
skilled, in reverse, at extracting arguments from text - e.g. to dissect
a paper for a journal club
- develop
skills in text composition that will carry over to non-argumentative
technical writing
These will
be the main outcomes of the course. But we will also look at some "higher
skills" whereby good writers:
- make the
logical structure of the text less explicit
- employ
more sophisticated strategies that are used in story telling
Proceed to
the exercises of Set 1. |