Paper on Reformed Epistemology

[Marrow Man]

I have a paper due for a Christian philosophy class tomorrow morning. I have posted the draft of my paper at my blog, and I was wondering if any interested PB readers might read over it for me to make sure it is clear and accurate. If there are any problems, let me know.

Thanks in advance.

Proofreaders Please! « Gairney Bridge

Warning in advance: the paper is 12 pages in length...

Update: this link should also work for directly accessing the paper:

 

[InevitablyReformed]

Tim,

I took a break from my own research paper to quickly read yours. I can't promise that I will be able to read it more closely before your deadline (sorry).

There are a few typos dealing with suffixes (both their absences and tenses) throughout the paper and you seem to be using MLA format (I'm not very familiar with MLA as I am a history major and I use Chicago style), but the citations vary. Some only have the year, some the name, year, and page number. Just wondering if those are typos as well.

Something that my professors (here at the Citadel) have mentioned to me when writing research papers is that when you are including/comparing/contrasting others' thoughts it is better to put their ideas into your own words--then cite the paraphrase. This is so that your paper has more "you" in it instead of quote after quote after quote. But that's just what I've been told by professors.

Even if I can't reread it later today--because I would like to ask some questions for clarity--I hope to reread it soon and ask you some questions.

I enjoyed reading it though and it picqued my interest in Christian philosophy as I have many "learned" family members who are not Christians.

 

[Marrow Man]

Daniel, thank you for your input. The missus is reading it to catch the grammatical mistakes. The style I am using is APA, which absolute nonsense but a requirement by the school. In seminary we used the Turabian/Chicago Manual documentation, which makes far more sense. I didn't include the resources used, btw, as I still have to type up that page.

Part of the reasons that I may have "over-used" quotations is that the material is so dense that it is difficult to put some of the concepts accurately in your own words without saying almost exactly the same thing word-for-word. When the language has to be so precisely, I deemed it better to quote. However, there may be a few places where I can redo the citations, so I will take up your suggestion as I proof the paper again.

Once again, I appreciate your time and effort.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

I completely understand the desire to be precise and use the direct quotes. That is exactly my thinking. Some of my history professors have been sympathetic toward this sentiment--others not so much.

God Bless your efforts.

 

[Marrow Man]

Thank you, my friend. I've proofed and re-proofed and you always seem to find bone-headed errors in doing so (writing "effect" instead of "effective" for instance). Per your suggestion, I did go back and change a couple of those quotes, however.