(The topic was a self-devised one on the relationship between the Scientific Revolution and Christianity.)
00846142 90 Viewing it from the standpoint of a believer is not bad, but you should also keep in mind that this is a paper on history of science, and should first and foremost engage closely with the “Scientific Revolution” and the relevant historical context. The paper’s argument is not very clear overall and is rather essayistic in style, but it does grasp some key points. The attitude is serious, and it feels pretty good. The bibliography is a little thin; among books on science and religion, The Soul of Science is not really a particularly good one.
00810046 82 There is no awareness of what a “paper” is. Too much space is devoted to introducing the Reformation, while the part that discusses the relationship consists only of a short quoted passage, and even that offers only a conclusion without any argument or supporting evidence.
00623024 81 The argument is unclear, the reasoning lacks evidence, and there are too few citations; overall it feels rather perfunctory.
00729157 82 Even if the topic is to say that Christianity prepared the ground for the Scientific Revolution, it doesn’t have to go all the way from the rise of Christianity to scholastic philosophy and then stop there… And some key points are not mentioned either, so the whole paper feels verbose and hollow.
00704094 85 The argument and line of thought are not clear; there isn’t much of a feel to it…
00721006 93 You did read a certain amount of material, and the citations and discussion are fairly smooth. However, perhaps in an effort to cover everything, the paper still feels somewhat scattered, and some key points are not explained in enough detail. If you took just the third section—the part on the view of nature—and concentrated your discussion there, I believe it would be much better.
00716606 81 The writing is verbose and lacks a thesis. I can’t see what viewpoint is reached after “In sum.” What does mentioning things like Christmas being fixed on December 25 have to do with the topic?
00648032 84 The overall structure is fairly clear and brisk to read, and the organization and absorption of Wu’s lecture notes are also pretty good. However, relying on nothing but lecture notes plus Baidu Baike is a bit too much.
00616030 84 It is not appropriate to say that Bruno paid with his life because he supported Copernicus, so does that mean you skipped that class?
00828081 92 The epigraph is good, but the body of the paper does not actually address the perspective stated in the epigraph—namely, the scientist’s faith in truth and the spiritual pursuit of science. Still, on the whole it is quite good. (By the way, why is the print so faint…)
00823011 90 The key points are all there, but there isn’t a single citation. Besides the General History, there are no other references at all, which is already rather excessive. Even more excessive is that a paper with no quotations actually includes an abstract and keywords, and the abstract is written as an introduction (an abstract should not be written as an introduction). If you want to pretend to be a serious paper, you should at least put some effort into the citations…
00823014 92 The bibliography is strong, and the argument is also fairly focused. However, the discussion is not very satisfying in terms of comprehensiveness or depth. The account of the “process and characteristics” of the “mechanization of nature” is somewhat confused. If you interpret the mechanization of nature as a change in God’s status—for example, God being downgraded from the highest final cause to the initial efficient cause—then this is all being discussed in the language of God, that is, within Christian theology, which is of course fine. But in the context of the history of science, the significance of the mechanization of nature is not very clear. Saying that Galileo was concerned not with final cause but with efficient cause seems inappropriate; in fact, Galileo said that he did not care about any cause at all (the why), but only about phenomena (the how). In addition, the significance of the “disenchantment” of the mechanization of nature is not pointed out, yet that is precisely the distinctive contribution of the Christian worldview.
00723005 90 Clear train of thought, fluent language, and no wasted words. It would be even better if you had consulted a few more sources and made the structure of the paper more neatly articulated.
00823034 87 In the course of reading, it is common to take in one set of views and then later discover opposing ones, but when writing a paper, you should not present these contradictions in full and unfiltered. Even if one says that history is always complex and plural, a paper should still grasp the proper measure and present a confident argument. If the complexity of this problem is ultimately impossible to handle, then it would be better to choose another topic. Judging from the printing, this paper was clearly written in a hurry, but overall the attitude was still fairly serious.
00620635 86 The article is too colloquial, cites too little evidence, and is obviously rushed. For example, when introducing the view that Christianity was the cause of the Scientific Revolution, it says that they have four arguments, but then only lists three. It is also very one-sided and does not notice that there are many other possible angles from which to make an argument on such a topic.
00728125 82 Some of the conclusions are arbitrary or not quite appropriate, and the text lacks sufficient material to support them; several quotations do not indicate their source.
00739194 76 Direct quotations are given without source notes, and the only indirect quotation is itself headless and tail-less; upon checking, it is in fact also a direct quotation, and the bibliography itself is not good either. In short, a low score.
00732039 83 The distinction between the social and spiritual dimensions is very clear and crisp. Although it does not touch on the aspect of the view of nature, it is rare to see the linear view of history mentioned. Unfortunately, the citations are extremely irregular, and the bibliography is thin.
00825090 92 The train of thought is clear and comprehensive, the topic is focused, and there is little filler. The drawback is that the use of source material, especially direct quotations, could be strengthened. Properly citing historical materials as evidence can further enhance persuasiveness.
00722023 79 Materials should be selected with discernment. Citing that bad article from the journal of Baoshan Teachers’ College was a major blunder. In addition, many indirect quotations do not indicate their source, which comes close to plagiarism. Fortunately, at least the references are cited in the bibliography; subjectively it does not seem too intentional, so points are deducted accordingly.
00811099 80 Borrowing ecological niche theory for analysis, perhaps you performed well in your analysis of the decline of classical science, but this article, first, has a different topic, and second, a different assistant—anyway, it is not going to fool me. You do not seem to have adequately absorbed the course content; the literature you read is also quite outdated; the views are questionable, the arguments hollow, and the writing full of errors. The abstract and keywords are completely wrong in form and are superfluous. Low-level mistakes such as “Ptolemy’s heliocentric system” and “The Revolutionary Structure of Science” show that your attitude was not serious enough. It is hard to see that you really read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions carefully. When citing White’s book, please pay attention to the year it was written.
00823023 85 The body already runs over a page, and you even added a cover page—what a waste of paper… The paper’s line of thought and structure are both good, but unfortunately neither direct nor indirect quotations have any notes, which comes very close to plagiarism and is a major flaw. Rather than pointlessly adding a cover page, if you had added a few footnotes, the score would have improved substantially. (Judging from the structure of this paper, if you had paid attention to adding notes, you could have added at least seven or eight points.
00825151 83 The structure of the paper is uneven, the narration is somewhat loose, and there is not much skill in using evidence. But the basic line of thought is still pretty good.
00611109 81 The paper’s structure is fairly good, but the citations are irregular (page numbers are not indicated), the bibliography is too old, the ideas are outdated, and the style of textbook-style Marxist philosophy is too obvious. Saying that Bruno sacrificed himself for science and clearly advocated separating nature from God shows that you clearly did not come to class.
00831031 90 The literature was read and used fairly well, but the paper’s structure is not clear enough, and the argument is not distinct enough; it does not achieve the effect of “using the outline to make all the details emerge.”
00831022 90 The topic is fairly focused, and it is rare to see an abstract and keywords written correctly. The body, however, is not as clear as the abstract; it is not compact enough, and the length exceeds the limit.
00939012 89 The so-called conflict between science and religion is explained as a conflict over the “right of interpretation” of the Bible rather than over Christian doctrine itself, and that explanation is fairly good. However, the discussion is still somewhat scattered, and the questions raised are too broad. In fact, if you had further narrowed the focus by devising the topic yourself, it would have been better.
00848248 81 Not only did you add an abstract (written incorrectly), you also added a table of contents! With that kind of energy, it would have been better to get the citations right. You cited He Guanghu’s article without indicating the source location, but I suspect you only looked at the abstract and copied the whole passage over. He says in the first sentence that Chinese scholars have some one-sided views on the relevant issue, but the following few sentences are his own, not one-sided, summary of the matter—and then they are all cited as if they were one-sided views, which really gives one a slightly absurd feeling. As for Thomas Sprat’s History of the Royal Society, that dates from 1667—were you able to read it? Of course it must have been a secondhand citation, and this direct attribution only intensifies the absurdity of the paper.
00848083 84 Explaining the dispute between Christianity and science as a dispute over the underlying philosophy is not bad. But one should note that the philosophical picture fostered by science also does not have no roots in Christianity at all. Also, the distinction that “theology belongs to the category of philosophy… modern science belongs only to the category of experimental science” lacks deeper reflection. The division between philosophy and science is itself one of the results after the Scientific Revolution; during the period of the Scientific Revolution, theology-philosophy and the field of science, including experimental activity, were not so sharply divided.
00625027 86 As the name suggests, this is a “reading note,” not an argumentative or critical “reading report.” It is written in a rather impressionistic way. Writing a reading report on a single book is a good choice; however, as a reading report rather than a response to reading, one should not be content merely to state one’s impressions and questions, but should either further refine or develop the book’s line of thought, or comment on its strengths and weaknesses, and so on.
00720073 86 This article talks about scholastic philosophy’s emphasis on reason, but what is the relationship between reason and the Scientific Revolution? How scholastic philosophy relates to Christianity is not discussed in detail either. It says that “the contradictions and differences within scholastic philosophy quietly sounded the overture to the Scientific Revolution,” but this “contradictions and differences” are not adequately discussed. In addition, Zhang Zhiwei’s edited History of Western Philosophy is not some famous/authoritative book, so directly quoting “History of Western Philosophy points out…” in the paper makes people feel very strange.
00720004 84 From the article, the attitude seems fairly serious, and the way of drawing diagrams is quite creative. However, the reading and thinking do not seem deep enough. In addition, the abstract has been written as an introduction.
00720100 85 Although adding a cover page is unnecessary, the article itself shows a fairly serious attitude. However, the major flaw is a double digression. First, the assignment topic is the Scientific Revolution and Christianity, not the general relationship between science and Christianity, so Einstein did not need to appear; second, the self-devised title, with the subtitle “The secularizing tendency of Christianity promotes the development of science,” is not actually pursued in the text. Apart from a short quotation from Weber at the beginning, there is almost no further discussion of so-called secularization as a theme.
00723006 94 Clear train of thought, fluent writing, and no filler. It would be even better if you had read a few more sources and made the structure of the article more analytically articulated.
00618002 85 Although the article has layers, they do not seem distinct, and the argument is not focused enough and the evidence is not substantial enough. The title is “Christianity Created the Scientific Revolution,” but the body merely says how Christianity “promoted” science and how it did “not hinder” science, both of which are clearly much weaker than “created.” In addition, the second section says “the positive role of the Church in the Scientific Revolution,” but what is actually discussed is not really the issue of the “Church.”
00986092 82 The horizon is not broad enough, the literature read is too little, and there are no citations at all.
00810064 89 You have read a great deal and thought a great deal. But on the whole it gives a rather messy impression; the length is a bit long, while the argumentative focus, main line, and layers are not prominent. The writing feels odd, mixing casual everyday speech with bizarre philosophical terminology. It feels a bit like someone who has read philosophy until they’re dizzy.
00623016 84 The metaphor of “host and parasite” is very creative. But in the development of the discussion, neither the depth of thought nor the thickness of the bibliography is yet sufficient.
00623027 81 Neither “Christianity” nor the “Scientific Revolution” is sufficiently highlighted. After talking at length about the Greek learning brought back by the Crusades, is Christianity’s significance really embodied in the Crusades? The key is what kind of religion Christianity is, and what kind of revolution the Scientific Revolution is, and only then to discuss the relationship between the two.
90901319 75 None of the quotations indicate their source, and not even a single item is listed in the bibliography—this is really excessive. Since the article itself is also not good, a low score is given as a warning.
00723021 84 Little literature was read, and the argument is not distinct.
00704081 82 The writing and line of thought are rather scattered.
00820035 81 Relatively little reading, and the argument is rough.
00839080 81 The writing and line of thought are rather scattered. What is Newton’s “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” supposed to be…
00704057 88 Quite a lot of reading, and the structure is also good, but the inference from narration to conclusion is not clear.
00824601 81 The first page looks okay and does absorb some course content, but the last two pages get more and more chaotic, especially that paragraph spanning three pages, which is simply a heap of assorted material and very ugly to look at. Finally, it is Wu Guosheng, not Wu Guosheng~~~
00839134 87 The article’s structure is fairly good, but the final section is relatively weak. Also, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King are two different people: the former was a leader of the Reformation, the latter was a twentieth-century American…
00704008 87 If the topic is the Reformation, then the first page is a bit wordy. Also, scholarly articles are not prohibited from citing literary works, but taking the discussion of the “Illuminati” in Angels & Demons as a “representative statement” about the relationship between science and religion at the time is somewhat inappropriate.
00720040 86 This teaching assistant does not like flashy tricks. Appropriate analogies can certainly enliven a paper, but one still has to begin with solid arguments, evidence, and reasoning as the foundation. The Babel Tower metaphor is a bit redundant, the correspondence with the four causes is somewhat forced—especially the formal cause—and the summary is still not comprehensive or deep enough.
00829028 84 The division into three dimensions does not seem quite appropriate. The last two paragraphs are superfluous.
00786064 87 The attitude is relatively proper. The topic explanation makes it very clear that the theme is the influence of religion on the emergence and development of the Scientific Revolution, rather than a broad discussion of the relationship between science and religion. But in the actual writing, there is no clear definition or evaluation of the “emergence and development” of the “Scientific Revolution,” which is a pity. Brooke’s book is worth reading more, while Dampier’s book may be skipped.
00724059 95 The literature read is abundant and good, the paper’s topic is clear, the structure is lucid, and the citations are appropriate; it can serve as a model paper.
00724012 87 The topic selection is good, but the writing is average.
00720007 88 The title still discusses the relationship between the Scientific Revolution and Christianity, but what is actually discussed is mostly the Reformation or the relationship between science and Protestantism, so perhaps the topic should be narrowed further. Some assertions are a bit overreaching (for example, “scholars have always believed”). It is rare that the paper addresses the reaction of the Scientific Revolution on religious conceptions, though unfortunately this is not explored deeply enough.
00822008 91 The organization is fairly clear, and the discussion is relatively comprehensive, but it still feels as though the prose lacks force or depth…
00786056 85 The argument is not yet distinct enough, and the use of literature still needs to be strengthened. By the way, the letters between Kepler and Galileo were obviously secondhand citations, right? Unless you can actually see the primary source, you must indicate where the secondhand citation comes from.
00823015 91 The topic is relatively clear, and both the reading and the summary are good.
00624003 78 There are clearly direct and indirect quotations, but they are never marked as such (only one inexplicable quotation is marked); there is merely a bibliography list. As a senior undergraduate, you really should not fail to follow this most basic academic standard. A low score is given as a warning. Also, the teaching assistant’s eyesight is still fine—you don’t need to make the line spacing so huge~
00839043 59 Classmate, do you know that “Gu Hu” is actually me, your teaching assistant? Although some quotations are cited with their sources, there are many more passages copied directly from my article without quotation marks. That is what is usually called plagiarism. If others plagiarize me, I might overlook it or be too lazy to check; but now that it has been plagiarized from me personally, how could I not deal with it? Moreover, that article is not my proper academic paper at all, but merely a draft prepared for a short-answer question on an in-class exam, so it has no notes and was written extremely hastily. Citing that text already should have cost points, let alone plagiarizing it. Teacher Wu says plagiarists get 0, but I’ll make an exception and give the highest score within the failing range as punishment; if you have any objections, please take it up with Teacher Wu and appeal there~
00728120 87 The opening introduction through anthropology is refreshing, but unfortunately it is not developed any further.
00613018 82 Little literature was read, and it was not used appropriately.
00939111 83 The reasoning is not very clear, the argument is rather scattered, and the literature that was read was not handled very well.
00823028 89 Basically speaking, it is relatively clear, but the prose still feels as though it lacks force.
00925047 81 The abstract should not be written as an introduction, and the ability to handle a paper is still very immature (which is perfectly normal for a first-year student). The literature reading is insufficient and not used well. The wording that was secondhand cited needs to indicate the source of the secondhand citation (you didn’t see the original version of that letter from Newton, did you?), and the long quotation from that letter is a bit redundant. Generally speaking, if you quote such a long passage from the original text, it is because you want to comment on it in detail; but here you simply quote it without comment and then move directly to the conclusion, which is inappropriate.
00746106 80 There is something off in the understanding of the “Scientific Revolution,” and the division into several parts feels awkward (whether from the standpoint of theory or from the structure of the article). Judging by length alone, the first part is almost as long as the last three parts combined, which shows that the line of thought and layering are still not clear enough. The argument is also unclear; it is not obvious what exactly is being discussed.
00910008 79 It is obvious that you do not know how to write a paper: it is very loose and casual, and you even say “sorry” directly in the body text… Although it is not necessary to annotate every item when organizing what you learned in class, this assignment is not just about sorting lecture notes; it also requires you to search for and read literature on your own after class. If, as a first-year student, you have not yet mastered paper-writing skills, that is understandable; but a lack of reading is something that cannot be excused.
Average 84.7
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply