400words paper

RUBBER STAMPS1 The following mistakes are very common in student papers at MSU. Don’t take corrections personally, but take them seriously. The abbreviations marked with an asterisk (*) usually reflect both philosophical and writing problems. AU Antecedent of the pronoun or demonstrative unclear. ARG Argument. You’re doing too much exposition (retelling what an author says), and have

not sufficiently done enough of your own arguing. AWK Awkward. Although your meaning is clear, rephrasing is needed. C?* Citation missing. Regardless of whether you quote, summarize, or paraphrase—you

must give a citation of your source. There are several reasons why: (a) It is a scholarly duty to give credit when you use someone else’s ideas, a duty best made habitual. (b) As a scientist’s lab report enables fellow scientists to repeat and test a hypothesis, you should enable your reader to follow the tracks of your reasoning about an issue. (c) It is often impossible for me to help you if I cannot determine that what you are saying about a topic derives from accepting or perhaps misunderstanding someone else’s views as originally stated. (d) Citation is an elegant way to make sure the reader can distinguish your claims from those of others when you are addressing several perspectives on a single issue. (e) Grades are negatively affected by failure to incorporate this practice consistently. (f) The worst cases of this sometime misdemeanor can be plagiarism (see P below).

CON* Confused. You have (a) conflated distinctions made by the author, (b) introduced distinctions that mislead, or (c) introduced inconsistencies.

CU* Connection unclear between the points you are making. Ʇ Contradiction. You say x in one place of the paper, and then say not-x in another.

You’re being inconsistent. CX Citation incorrect. I cannot find the text in the place you have indicated. D1* Diction. Imprecise or incorrect philosophical term. Some of the most common mistakes

are in the use of very common words such as ‘because’,

the ambiguous ‘because’

Consider the statement:

Jack is not ignorant because he is misled by pleasure. What exactly does it mean? You will be able to tell that ‘because’ is ambiguous when you consider also the following three incompatible replies to the statement: Then why is he ignorant?

If he’s not ignorant, what is he? So that’s why he’s not ignorant!

1 Adapted from Debra Nails.

The first might reply to one of the following reformulations:

It is not because Jack is misled by pleasure that he is ignorant. Jack is misled by pleasure, but that is not why he is ignorant.

The second might reply to the reformulation:

Jack is misled by pleasure, but ignorance is not the effect. The third might reply to one of the following reformulations:

Because Jack is misled by pleasure, he is not ignorant. The reason Jack is not ignorant is that he is misled by pleasure.

‘assume’, ‘if’, ‘then’, ‘thus’, ‘therefore’, ‘imply’, ‘infer’, ‘contradiction’, ‘inconsistency’, ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘or’, ‘however’, terms used technically in the text (of which there are many), and terms italicized in the following box. See Weston VI on deduction and his appendix: Definition.

Remember: Premises and conclusions are true or false. Reasoning is valid or invalid. If the premises of an argument are true and the reasoning is valid, then the conclusion is also true and the argument is sound. An argument with false premises and/or invalid reasoning is unsound.

D2 Diction. The most common error of this sort—given the philosophical meanings of such

words as ‘believe’, ‘think’ and ‘know’ is to say, “Socrates believes…”, or worse, “Socrates feels …” instead of the more accurate phrase, “Socrates says…”. Remember: Socrates is a character in a dialogue by Plato; one can report what he says, and even what he implies, but not what he thinks or believes or feels.

D3 Diction. Imprecise or incorrect term for the context. (I sometimes circle the word and suggest a more appropriate term.) Common mistakes and confusions: if/whether, that/who, then/than, who/whom, realistic/real, life/lifestyle, and implicates/implies/infers. Common ones:

incorrect correct

in regards to in regard to different than different from

it’s it is or its (possessive) point in time point or time

DG* Dogma. An unsupported claim, usually one that seems to be imported wholesale into the

assignment from some other field (religion, personal prejudice, et al.). In the same category are phrases such as ‘Scientists have proved’ and ‘It has been shown that’ for controversial positions.

DNF* Does not follow refers to your reasoning: premises do not establish the conclusion. E English. There is something wrong with your prose, whether it is muddled style,

punctuation, usage, or other general problems with prose.

EG* Example. An example used appropriately either disproves a general claim, or clarifies a point that one has already stated in a more general way and that requires clarification (do not use examples merely to illustrate your points in written work). Examples do not argue for themselves, and cannot stand alone in a paper.

EL* Elaborate. Your point needs to be spelled out at greater length for clarity and precision. EV* Evidence should be provided here. EX* Explain. The point needs justification and/or explicit connection(s) to other points. G Glib. Treat your opponent’s position with respect: do not dismiss an argument or

position as ‘ridiculous’ or ‘nonsense’ or caricature it. Rather, say explicitly what you think is wrong with it.

GR Grammar. There is some specific grammatical mistake or issue that needs fixing. IQ Inaccurate quotation. It is your scholarly responsibility to quote accurately. LL* Loaded language. See Weston Appendix I. M* Misleading. A judgment too narrow or too broad for accuracy; exactness is required. MP Metaphor problems. Don’t repeat and elaborate the metaphors an author uses; in

philosophy, it is important to break out of the metaphor and assess what it is supposed to be arguing. All arguments by analogy break down at some point (i.e., they are not identical to the material of which they are analogous) but the important question is whether they do some useful cognitive work before they break down.

NO Something false, misread, or made up. This comment would never be used on a matter of philosophical dispute, but on some matter of fact you have introduced.

OO* Objection omitted. Whatever position you defend, you must demonstrate that you understand what cogent objections might be raised against your position.

OP* Objection problems. A denial of your thesis is not an objection. A question is not by itself an objection. Good objections often challenge some aspect of a thesis rather than the whole and enable you to refine your original thesis in the course of your paper. Avoid straw men, giving the most charitable account of the objection you can manage; i.e., give reasons for your objection. If you can’t think of an objection, consult someone who genuinely disagrees with you.

ORG* Organization. The order in which you have arranged your ideas needs work. OS* Over-simplification. Your claim, explanation or description should be more nuanced. P Plagiarism. Theft of someone’s ideas. It is your responsibility to ensure that the reader

can distinguish your ideas and phrases from those of your source. Culpable plagiarism may occur through simple carelessness, but whether one intended to plagiarize is irrelevant to whether one did in fact plagiarize. Carelessness, like ignorance, is no excuse.

How to Avoid Plagiarism in Philosophy

It is very important to know what plagiarism is and how to distinguish it from quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing someone else’s work. (If you think you already know the difference, take the quiz that follows Rubber Stamps.) For illustration, imagine that you have been assigned a book by Ubi Honest, and asked to write a paper on it. Imagine further that you find an article in a journal (or on the Web) by I. M. Smart on exactly the point that interests you in the Honest book. Good research! You decide your paper will benefit from a discussion of some of Smart’s ideas. Fine. A problem arises only if, when you write your paper, you do not give credit to Smart for hers—and that includes her phrasing of ideas you share. There are various ways of giving credit, corresponding to how you present Smart’s ideas. If you quote her, use quotation marks. Give her name and (if her book is not on the course reading list) provide bibliographical details of the source where you found her comments. For example,

As I. M. Smart says in Everything You Wanted to Know About Plato, “What Plato means in this passage is that pleasure and wisdom may be analytically separable, but are inseparable in fact” (p. 197).

If you paraphrase, you still must give credit. For example:

Smart explains that although pleasure and wisdom can be distinct in discussion, they cannot really be separated (Everything You Wanted to Know About Plato, p. 197); similarly, one might talk about one side of a dollar bill or the other, knowing full well that either side alone is not only not a dollar but worthless.

Since my I. M. Smart example is too short to summarize, I will first quote something longer. One of my philosophy teachers distributed a letter (excerpted here) to his students:*

Plagiarism—passing off what others have written as work of your own—is of course a form of dishonesty, and thus it is wrong for the reasons that any dishonest act is wrong. We depend upon one another for information, for advice, for the keeping of promises, etc. We could not live together as a community of intelligent agents if we all re served for ourselves the right to misrepresent our beliefs, intentions, etc., whenever it suited us to do so. This is not to say that a single dishonest act, or even a whole battery of them, will always have calamitous effects. The point is rather that one who engages in dishonesty shows contempt for all of us, by excepting himself or herself from the duty to be honest, even though s/he knows full well that s/he could not wish for the rest of us to do the same. Another point, more specific than the first. A person who plagiarizes shows contempt for values that ought to be held dear—values to which we, as members of a university community, are especially committed. Universities serve many purposes, I know, but the most important of them is the development of intelligence, in all of its various aspects, and in all persons who count themselves members of this very special type of community. It is for this purpose that classes are conducted, papers assigned, examinations given, and so forth. A person who plagiarizes pretends to pursue this most important goal, the development of intelligence, while in reality s/he does not. And this indicates a lack of respect for that goal.

One way to summarize the preceding material very briefly would be to say in your own paper:

Michael Young’s letter to his students says plagiarism is wrong because the person who plagiarizes shows con tempt for other people and disrespect for the university’s most important purpose.

Notice that this formulation does not tell the reader whether you agree with Young and why or why not; so you need to say more. Another appropriate way to summarize, this time implying your agreement, would be to say:

Plagiarism is wrong because the person who plagiarizes shows contempt for other people and disrespect for the university’s most important purpose (M. Young, letter to his students).

Unless you go on to critique (i.e., support or oppose) the position summarized, it will not be evident that you have done your own thinking. It is good practice to discuss your ideas with others in the class or friends who may act as sounding boards for your arguments or may suggest lines of attack or defense that you have not considered yourself. In good philosophical writing, a footnote is used to thank the person. If you listen to class discussion, you will often pick up ideas for your own arguments. What is important to me in grading your paper is how well you are able to defend, to develop and to extend—not merely to repeat—a philosophical position, no matter where it originated. In the words of a former student, “If it’s okay to quote or paraphrase or summarize as long as you give credit where it’s due, you’d have to be really stupid to plagiarize!” ——————— * Michael Young, University of Kansas, class notes for Introduction to Ancient Greek Philosophy, 1975. (Notice that I am using another method of identifying my source, the footnote.)

PAR Paragraphs. Your paper would be clearer if you used paragraphs effectively. Q Quotation. Quotations should fit the surrounding grammar of the sentence. Quotations,

like examples, cannot stand alone; it is important to make clear what you think the quotation establishes or implies (thus it is often a waste of words to quote). The advantage of paraphrasing is that, by putting the material into your own words, you demonstrate that you understand it. Remember, however, that even a paraphrase requires a citation.

When to quote—

• The source author has made a point so clearly and concisely that it can’t be expressed any better.

• A certain phrase or sentence in the source is particularly vivid or striking, or especially typical or representative of some phenomenon you are discussing.

• An important passage is sufficiently difficult, dense, or rich that it requires you to analyze it closely, which in turn requires that the passage be produced so the reader can follow your analysis.

• A claim you are making is such that the doubting reader will want to hear exactly what the source said. This will often be the case when you criticize or disagree with a source….— Gordon Harvey, Writing with Sources (Cambridge: Hackett, 1998, p. 5)

Q1 Single quotation marks have a special use in philosophy (and linguistics). Not only do

they indicate a quotation-within-a-quotation, as they do elsewhere, they also indicate a term rather than that to which the term refers. For example:

• ‘Socrates’ has three syllables, but Socrates has three sons. • Socrates makes several points about justice but uses the term ‘justice’ ambiguously.

When context allows, you will save yourself headaches over single and double quotation

marks if you will make an effort to address how authors understand concepts (justice, knowledge) instead of how authors define terms (‘justice’, ‘knowledge’); the latter is more narrow and usually less useful than the former.

QB Question Begging. See Weston p. 89 for this common fallacy. It takes on many forms. REA* Reasons. Your statement is unsupported. Premises are needed for your conclusion. RED Redundant word or phrase. REL* Relevance. Your point seems unrelated to proving or challenging your thesis. The onus

is on you to demonstrate relevance when appropriate, not on the reader to figure it out. REP Repetitious. You are wasting the small space available for argument. I use this abbre-

viation when you repeat yourself, when you repeat the topic in unnecessary detail, and when you parrot something said in class without independently backing up what you say.

RH1 Rhetoric. The most common example of this error is for students to ask questions, assu- ming that the reader can intuit how the question ought to be answered. But what is usually at issue in a philosophy assignment is how such a question should be answered. Do not assume your reader would answer your questions the same way you would. Answer, don’t ask, questions in your paper.

RH2 Rhetoric. The second most common example is for students to use flowery, inflated, or hollow introductions and conclusions that detract from a paper’s philosophical rigor.

RH3 Rhetoric. Avoid fancy schmancy words and phrases throughout your paper. Avoid being airy and chatty. Rather, be clear and concise.

S Self. It is fine, and in fact common in philosophy, to write in the first person. Such expressions as ‘I feel’, ‘I think’, ‘I believe’, and ‘in my opinion’ are inappropriate and a waste of words—except when needed to distinguish your view from that of your source. (It is your paper, after all, so I assume that you are speaking for yourself when you are not citing someone else.) Similarly, it is a mistake to narrate the history of your own thinking about something (“At first I found this unconvincing, but now . . .”). Your argument must stand or fall on its own merits; the fact that you believe something adds nothing to its plausibility.

SFO Save for Oral communication. Remember that I am the audience for your paper. What you write should be much leaner and more exact than what you say to your colleagues.

SL Sexist language (inappropriately gender-specific language). We are all living at a time when our language is changing dramatically and conventions are in flux.

SP Spelling. You are expected to run your software’s spelling checker, but you are respon- sible for spelling all words correctly. Typographical errors often appear to be spelling errors.

SQ Scare quotes. Do not overuse quotation marks to indicate irony or that you are using a term or phrase in a special way. After all, it is the business of philosophy, inter alia, to stipulate new uses for terms and to distinguish among multiple meanings for a single term.

SS* Secondary source. It is a mistake to quote or to use a secondary source for a point in such a way that it appears you are unaware that the point is made in the original text; to do so generates the appearance that you are not sufficiently familiar with the primary source. Be careful not to adopt the expressions or stylistic conventions of the secondary sources you consult, e.g., ad hoc uppercase letters.

SU* Summary. Summarizing cannot replace critical exposition, and may blur distinctions that you are expected to be able to make. Remember that your reader has read the same text you have, so there is no need to do more than refer to (cite) the passage you critique or use as an example within your critique.

TE* Text. You have not demonstrated familiarity with the assigned text, a requirement of all the assignments. You must neither neglect parts of the text that have a bearing on your argument, nor introduce parts of the text that are inappropriate to your point.

TH Thin. You appear not to have thought deeply (perhaps not long enough) about the issue you address. If it appears in your margin, it refers to a single comment. When it appears at the end of your paper, it refers to the assignment as a whole, meaning that you have approached the entire topic too superficially.

ThS* Thesis statement. Good philosophical papers are not essays but have a form more like that of a geometrical proof: at the beginning of a philosophical argument, it is crucial to state what you will argue (or demonstrate or prove or disprove); it must be something philosophically controversial, not a matter of fact, or of style, or of authorial intention. Imagine, but don’t write, the words “I argue that” before each of the following examples of thesis statements:

• Socrates obeys the city’s laws unless they conflict with his fundamental moral prin- ciple, do no harm (Crito 49d).

• If knowledge were true judgment (Theae. 187b), it would be as effective to memorize “19 is a prime number” as to understand it.

• A problem with the claim that knowledge is true judgment plus an account (Theae. 201d) is the assumption that the account is known.

TL Too long. If your paper exceeds the maximum number of words allowed, I cut from the

end. You must show that you know the relative value of the points you make. Comments made in footnotes are not a part of your word count, so feel free to use footnotes to add additional material that you would like me to comment on without its being counted for or against your grade.

TS* Too strong. Your statement is broader (covers more examples or claims more) than is required for your argument to be valid and (sometimes) broader than can be defended adequately in so short a paper. An example: saying that something is always or is never or must be the case, or is true of all or no one, when your argument covers only a limited number of instances. Expressions like ‘clearly’, ‘obviously’ (and the use of italics) are so rarely appropriate in philosophy that you should count them as signals that you need to examine your reasons further. See Weston IX.C6.

U* Unclear. Clarify. I do not understand what you have written. V Vague. What you have written is open to more than one interpretation. Be precise. W# Weston The # stands for a part of Weston that you should review. W?* Why? The claim you are making requires supporting evidence or reasons. WC Word count. Use your software’s word counter, or count manually. Count all words—

including short ones and ones appearing in quotations—but not citations in footnotes or parentheses, and not numerals. Write or type the word count on your paper.

WF Wrong font. Use underlining or italics, not both in the same paper, for titles and foreign words. Use italics sparingly for emphasis. Boldface and novelty fonts are inappropriate in formal philosophical writing. Do not italicize numerals, if used, or numbers following titles (e.g., Crito 49d).

WO Wordy. Too many words for the idea being expressed. Write clear, succinct sentences.

incorrect correct

In order to prove… To prove… Due to the fact that… Because…

…tell me whether or not it works. …tell me whether it works.