We will write a custom Coursework on Ontology and Epistemology in the Contemporary Society specifically for you
301 certified writers online
In the contemporary society, ontology and epistemology is a popular topic that exhibits a polarized debate in the philosophy of science that offers no compromising solution. Several authors who seek to unravel its mysteries have undertaken various discussions on the topic. Different writers assume various assumptions and adopt a unique discussion on the issue. Also, the ideas may fail the test of incorporation of material facts on the issue or give a narrow picture.
The arguments advanced by these writers in their articles call for review and critique to ascertain their weight in the issue. Critique is a way of vividly analyzing the contents of a written material and posting your views that are not necessarily going to be considered by the writer on the same (Trevino, 2008). This writing aims to analyze an article on this issue and advance various recommendations and feelings towards the writing.
Critique of the title and analysis of the abstract
The title of the article (Anonymous, 2009) is relevant to the writing. The writer has properly chosen the phrases used to depict the vivid insights of the research. Holistic, a term used by the writer, is appropriate as the nature of the writing tends to elaborate the idea of describing the concepts of knowledge as a whole and the differentiation of parts that are relatively addressed in the article. However, the usage of the term holistic together with epistemology opens room for a wide array of interpretations. Relatively, epistemology is dealing with a given area or scope which can be interpreted to mean a small group coverage.
On the other hand, the term holistic is meant to address issues in a wider manner while looking vividly into other aspects that are part of the whole thing individually. The writer, to some extent, has captured the true picture of the article in his abstract. The summary fails to elucidate what exactly the article is all about; it fails to capture the systematic discussions and relevant conclusions of the article (Meier, 1992). The writer largely failed to provide the reader with a clear glimpse of the writing. Also, the writer failed to be brief and to the point in explaining the exact summary of the writing. The writer’s abstract failed in the representative nature of a serious journal. The skeleton provided needs some flesh about the holistic nature of the study and how various issues have been addressed single-handedly in the paper.
Critique of the introduction
The writer’s introduction has captured the main objective of the article. According to the writer, the article is unique from the past various scientific researches. The writer managed to post a challenging question in his introduction. This is good in bringing his views home while addressing the issues of holistic ontology. The question is related to the nature of knowledge (Anonymous, 2009). Knowledge according to the question is taking two attributes, whether it is hard or softer. Various writers, according to the writer’s references, have discussed the issue of knowledge. He has correctly singled out past articles opposing the question and cleverly, he distances from these writers’ beliefs. The identification of different scientific beliefs and subsequently change of paradigm enabled the article to set a good course on its purpose of viewing life in a holistic manner (Anonymous, 2009).
An analysis and critique of the main body
The writer has largely borrowed from the thoughts of other writers and kept the interpretation of the articles intact. This can be ascertained from the references he used; these references are sensitive to the exact writings. However, as a matter of capturing the exact facts in the interpretation, the writer has sought to arm-twist other writings in developing the course of his writing. In this light, in the case of a scientific research that seeks to define the meaning of reality, the writer has termed it skewed only to bring a notion building on the same reality but different scope (Anonymous, n.d.). The writer developed his views about the Hindu religion. In this light, he borrowed from the western scholars largely but again lambasted the skew of their research about the chosen scope. Most of the author’s discussions were based on the work of western elites.
Critique of the references
The logic behind the choice of references by the writer is questionable. Some of the references fail to capture the nature of the ever-changing scenario of the contemporary society. Moreover, some of the references chosen have no much relationship with the matter at hand. The newly born woman, an article of the early 1980s, for example, is a material that fails to add much weight to the issue being discussed by the writer. From my point of view, I propose the deletion and ultimate replacement to capture the purpose of the study.
Also, it could be prudent for the writer to base the writing on more recent researches on the subject to enable him to capture the most recent thoughts of modern writers. By the aforementioned proposal, the writer in this writing has based his writing on ‘ancient’ research going by the reference list (Anonymous, 2009). Despite the recognition of past writers being important, it is good also to appreciate the changing times and modern researches on the subject.
The writer has done impressively well in maintaining the relevance of the topic of discussion. The following of a systematic criterion in discussing different aspects is commendable. This enables the reader to follow the writer’s thoughts with ease. Some digressions from the subject matter are detectable but the writer managed to restrict himself to the ultimate goal of clearly expressing his points. The assumptions employed by the writer in the course of the writing are realistic. Different scholars have discussed the issue of change differently. Some scholars argue that change is internal while others believe that it is external, but the writer’s assumption that both the theories are relevant to the topic was prudent.
Critique of the discussion
In the discussion, the writer has overemphasized the elaboration on change. It is a fact that change is a dominator in the contemporary society. The subject was between the subject addressed in a mini-outline and the writer embarked on the elaboration of the matter in another sub-unit. Change was discussed in change and continuity and later in internal and external sources of change. The intensity of the issue led to the duplication and mix up in getting a systematic follow-up and ultimate understanding of the topic. The topic is the nerve of the title and some improvements need to be advanced to ensure the mix-up on the issue is addressed. Considering the two units are handling a similar issue, it would be prudent to discuss the issue exhaustively or make the units of discussion to follow themselves systematically in the article.
The statements used by the author in the article are clear. However, additional elaborations are paramount if a nonprofessional is to understand the content of the writing. The choice of words by the writer impedes interactions. The writer also needs to adopt a method where the statements flow systematically to enhance interest in reading. Also, the section on social ontology is in dire need of condensation. The insights are overemphasized while a summary would be relevant for a new reader.
The condensing of this section would be prudent to root out a situation where the author is viewed to have researched only a narrow area. However, there are several areas in the discussion that calls for additional work. This expansion will ease understanding by the reader. An illustrative application, for example, is one part that calls for additional attention in the article. This is an integral part of elaborating on what is being discussed in the entire article. The expansion of the issue will create a user-friendly article, where a large description is well explained in a simple illustration (Nakata, 2003).
In conclusion, the author has restricted himself to the objective of the topic according to his well-researched writing. This is attestable to the amount of material reference relevant to the topic of discussion. The writer has laid enough emphasis on explaining ontology in entirety. Despite the few overemphasis of material facts, the writer has displayed his prowess in bringing out the objective. The aforementioned corrections and additional review will largely improve the article.
Anonymous (2009). Holistic Ontology: Epistemological Implications for Organizational Studies. Paper submitted to the Journal of Management Inquiry.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Anonymous (n.d.). How to critique a journal article. UIS Center for Teaching and Learning. Web.
Meier, A. (1992). How to review a technical paper. University of California, Berkeley. Web.
Nakata, C. (2003). A philosophy of reviewing: Taking cues from Henry James. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 31(3): 346.
Trevino, L. K. (2008). Editor’s comments: Why review? Because reviewing is a professional responsibility. Academy of Management, 33(1): 8-10.