Common Essay Problems

First paragraph doesn’t declare the Thesis Many first paragraphs are rambling and unfocussed and don’t tie into the prompt and READ THE PROMPT Many first paragraphs are rambling and unfocussed and don’t tie into the prompt and READ THE PROMPT Here would be a counter example Here would be a counter example Tenet B: Within the context of the time period (600 BC – 200 AD), I will argue that the distinctions between Science and Religion are not so great. Both rely on order in nature, (God vs natural laws), both represent systems of belief, both are articulated by gurus (priests vs science), and both offer the illusion of control over nature. Moreover, the distinction between revealed knowledge (revealed to a guru) and knowledge acquired through experimental discovery are operationally not that great. I will support my argument using some of available texts that describe the actions of nature and their interpretations. While religion may offer the promise of the “truth” so to does the logical and ordered Aristotelian system. Tenet B: Within the context of the time period (600 BC – 200 AD), I will argue that the distinctions between Science and Religion are not so great. Both rely on order in nature, (God vs natural laws), both represent systems of belief, both are articulated by gurus (priests vs science), and both offer the illusion of control over nature. Moreover, the distinction between revealed knowledge (revealed to a guru) and knowledge acquired through experimental discovery are operationally not that great. I will support my argument using some of available texts that describe the actions of nature and their interpretations. While religion may offer the promise of the “truth” so to does the logical and ordered Aristotelian system.

Departure for personal opinions We don’t care about these – they are not relevant e.g. : We don’t care about these – they are not relevant e.g. : As far as personal experience I have two examples of the duality between science and religion. My mother considers herself to be a religious woman, and truly believes that she must pray to God every night so that she may go to Heaven. On the other hand, I have a friend named K. A couple years ago, after reading a three-paragraph article on why a vegan diet is scientifically healthier and more beneficial to one’s wellbeing, K. immediately dropped her omnivore diet and started eating kale by the pound

Departure for personal opinions Seen from the scientific viewpoint, conflicts between religion and science were superficial at first, as what was being looked at by science, was a merely a brushing of the surface, a concern for what was immediately intuitive. But as science gained maturity, what lay beneath the surface of intuitive observation came forth and the superficial nature of the conflicts between religion and science changed as well, mainly due to the reactive nature of religion. I hesitate to state that outright superficiality on behalf of religion truly represents this reaction. However as a non-theist believer of science, I think that with hindsight in mind, it was superficial even if it hasn’t “felt” this way from the religious standpoint.

More Refrain from using ‘evidence’ from the modern period on our notion of Science. Refrain from using ‘evidence’ from the modern period on our notion of Science. “It seems in modern day society that those in the scientific community and those in various religious communities are constantly at odds with each other. The newspapers are packed with stories about churches protesting new medical treatments or scientific professionals attempting to disprove aspects of the Bible “. “ A clear example of this antagonism is with Copernicus’s book of new ideas the early 1500’s. He published his book on his death bed so as to avoid religious prosecution (The Beginning of Modern Science). From the point of view of religion, the conflict would have been deeply threatening, as seen with Copernicus. “ You must stay in the historical period and support your arguments with evidence FROM THAT PERIOD.

Proclamations, Nonsense Sentences and NOT Evidence Examples: Historical refutations of scientific or religious findings are not truly differences between the two sides aims, but social impairments brought on by human response (???) In so much of religion, it seems that there is an “act of faith” involved with believing something - but that same act of “believing” is just as present in the scientific community (no evidence was supplied) Scientific thought relies on connections based upon deduction which are provable under all circumstances. The bias of a discipline manifests itself in the opinionated interpretation of an observation and the further integration of that interpretation into rhetoric The lecture presented on Wednesday of week one stated that “human behavior evokes a response from the gods and that response is usually received through natural events.” (this could be just crap)

Have a good summation paragraph That ties your argument together and reminds the reader of the validity of the argument and supporting evidence Too many examples like this: – While it has been shown that science and religion are different, they are not hostile towards one another. Science at the time does not aim to disprove religion, and religion likewise does not aim to disprove science