Ex Post Facto

The “Web 2.0” is the interactive internet made possible by wikis, blogs, social bookmarking sites, etc.

For an analysis of Wikipedia, one of the most successful implementations of this new technology, see Marshal Poe’s “The Hive,” from the Sept. 2006 issue of the Atlantic Monthly. For a demonstration of Wikipedia at work, watch: Heavy Metal Umlaut, a screencast by John Udell.

For some delightfully thought-provoking (and creatively presented) reflections on the power of the evolving web, see Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us and (in reply) Re: Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us. These presentations are being discussed at Digital Ethnography @ Kansas State University.

Stayed tuned for a post on “Information versus Knowledge,” in which I will reflect on the implications of some of these new technologies within the context of human learning.

This site is equipped with RSS feed capability. If your web browser is compatible with this technology, you can click here for the feed.

It can also serve up an Atom feed, if that’s more your speed.

If you read a lot of blog and news sites that use RSS, you may want to use an RSS reader or aggregator in order to efficiently browse new posts and stories.

The most popular reader is probably Bloglines. You can set up a free account there quickly and easily. If you need help, check out this thorough tutorial.

A pseudo-thesis is an attempted thesis statement that falls flat because it fails to state a specific argument.

Often, the pseudo-thesis appears in the form of a rhetorical question, such as, “Was it really neccessary for the United States to enter the Great War?” Although this kind of questioning is important to the writing process, it is counter-productive within the context of an argumentative essay. The point of the essay, after all, is to attempt to answer the question. To withhold the answer — to withhold your position — is to risk losing your reader. It’s only with the thesis in mind that the reader can make sense of the essay’s evidence.

Another way to write a pseudo-thesis is to tell the reader what the essay is going to do. For instance: “This essay will explore the significance of foreign trade for the U.S. entry into the Great War.” That’s all fine and well, but it only reveals the topic of the essay — not the argument. Likewise, the pseudo-thesis might simply list the subjects that the essay will cover: “This essay will consider the role of political idealism and economic interest in connection with the U.S. entry into the Great War.” In this case, the author should go ahead and make the nature of that connection explicit.

Most commonly, a pseudo-thesis is just plain vague, as in the following examples:

Each of these examples begs the question. What were the reasons? Why was it controversial?

A pseudo-thesis is not only ineffective, but it often symptomatizes a larger problem: the need for revision. Writing a good essay requires embarking on a process of drawing some significant conclusion and arguing on its behalf. It takes time and thought to sharpen a thesis. Many good writers actually start out with a pseudo-thesis, just to get going, and only gradually refine that statement into a specific and precise statement about the position to be argued.

For more help, see “So What? Writing with a Thesis.”

The “topic sentence” that you should have at the beginning of every paragraph in an essay is probably misnamed — at least if you are writing to make an argument. In an argumentative essay, topic sentences need to do more than simply mention a “topic” for the paragraph. To be effective, a topic sentence should both state a specific main point for the paragraph and implicitly refer back to the essay’s thesis.

Just as the defense attorney explains why the witness’s testimony exculpates her client, the topic sentences of an essay should move your argument along, explaining how and why the forthcoming evidence supports your main point. If a paragraph lacks an argumentative topic sentence, it is merely dispensing information, which may well seem pointless to your readers.

To test whether a would-be topic sentence is actually doing its job, you might ask, does this sentence have a built-in answer to the question: so what? If not, you probably need to revise. Often, you will need to write a somewhat more complex sentence that links together multiple concepts. (If you start applying this test, you might notice that no sentence that simply states a fact — that merely describes — can meet the “so what” criterion.)

Here, for instance, are a couple of weak topic sentences for a paragraph about the U.S. Constitution, in an essay that purports to argue that the Constitution forged a legitimate representative government:

• The convention that framed the Constitution met in Philadelphia.
• The framers had difficulty figuring out a system of representation.

The first sentence above is merely a statement of fact — it doesn’t have any power to advance an argument. The second sentence at least includes an idea, that the issue of representation posed difficulties, but it is too vague: it neither attempts to explain why there was a problem nor why the problem mattered.

Here, by contrast, is a sentence that could help advance the thesis in question:

• The ratification debate and process allowed ordinary voters, including the majority of white men, to give the Constitution their approval.

This sentence works because it puts together two ideas — the ratification process and voter approval — and these ideas in turn help support the thesis.

The topic sentence, then, plays a crucial role in the development of your essay’s argument. An essay without argumentative topic sentences will probably leave your reader unpersuaded and unsatisfied. You may be filling the pages, but you won’t be making your point.

Reading: Noble Cunningham, Jefferson vs. Hamilton, 1-27

In the opening chapter of this book, Cunningham blends his own commentary with excerpts from Hamilton and Jefferson in order to explore the fundamental principles of these two men. While Jefferson and Hamilton certainly shared many values, they parted ways on a number of key issues. Perhaps most significantly, they held different beliefs about the ability of “the people” to make good political decisions.

We have enough evidence before us to ask and answer a few important questions:

1. How might Jefferson’s and Hamilton’s different backgrounds and experiences have shaped their political points of view?
2. Judging from these sources, what were Jefferson’s main political principles? What were Hamilton’s?
3. What major differences of opinion separated Jefferson and Hamilton, even before their scuffle over national economic issues?
4. Whose reflections on the national government turned out to be more prescient?