tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post6001969507625588177..comments2014-12-12T18:07:42.274-05:00Comments on Seminar in Composition : Skepticism of ScienceAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post-85218392498641763172014-10-19T10:57:53.752-04:002014-10-19T10:57:53.752-04:00Your introduction is a little vague. It’s right, ...Your introduction is a little vague. It’s right, as far as it goes, but it’s too long, since it says so little. L. does want us to be skeptical, but that’s a pretty general description which could have been presented very quickly. You spend several paragraphs summarizing some important aspects of Lewontin’s thought. You’re showing that you understand some important material from Lewontin, but this is simple summarization, without a focus - it would be better if you applied Lewontin more directly (and earlier) to his article.<br /><br />I could have done with a *brief* summary of the article. I’m totally sure you picked a good topic (who doesn’t like slime molds?).<br /><br />What you’re not really doing here is engaging with the details, or using Lewontin to analyze the details. Talking about the finances is ok, but that avoids talking about the details of the article.<br /><br />So I read the article to give you some possible ideas. Did you notice how the metaphor of “police” is used for the slime mold’s weird proto-immune system? Also, note the strict division between lab-friendly and lab-unfriendly species of slime mold. Guess which ones are going to get sequenced? (The structure of laboratory science is such that we tend to study questions which are easily studied in laboratories, which skews things pretty badly). Also, did you note the comparisons between humanity and slime molds in terms of “values”? None of this is *easy*, but any of these moments in the text could have been discussed using Lewontin.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com