This source I found is off of google scholar. It was on a
site called Social Science Research Network. The link is http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1408586.
This site according to the CRAAP test #1 is the currency of the article. This
article was written on May 22, 2009. This information is up to date. Number two
on the CRAAP test is Relevance. This article is very relevant as it speaks
directly about my topic. Number three is the authority or author of the paper.
The author of this article was Steven Goldberg who has recently died. He was a
law professor at Georgetown University law center and wrote this paper
accordingly. Next on the CRAAP test is accuracy and the place where he found
his information simply from his brain and his knowledge. The purpose for this
information I feel was to inform as well as teach people about the issue of
transhumanism and the separation of church and state. The summary of this
article is basically that in the future there might be an overwhelming amount
of transhuman believers and they could pass something that requires us to learn
about transhumanism would this still be crossing the line of church and state because
its about the human race and not so much into a religion. He then says that it
would become a legal matter that the courts would have to rule upon.
Google Scholar is a great search tool, and I'm glad you found an interesting source to review. However, this source is actually a speech that Goldberg presented, not an article. Overlooking details like this could make your audience question your credibility: did you actually read the source or just the abstract? You cannot adequately assess the credibility of a source or summarize it just from the abstract.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of your CRAAP analysis, you do mention each category of the analysis but still have more work to do. You say this source speaks directly about your topic but you do not go on to explain how it does so. This is an important step in establishing relevance. In terms of the author, you should explain not just what job he held but how you think his position makes him an authority on the topic. Why does it make sense that a law professor could speak authoritatively on this matter? Regarding accuracy, I disagree with your assessment. If you had read his speech carefully you could talk about the other sources he pulls into his argument (and they aren't just ideas from his brain).
Your summary highlights one main idea of the text but it'd help your research to identify why Goldberg is hypothesizing about transhumanism being taught in schools. Further, what does his argument help you understand about the separation of church and state?
ReplyDelete