[u'r not alone小组]提纲作业 Argument36

Luise8891UID: 2906459

Argument36::p The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.

"Twenty years ago Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. Because they are using the interview-centered method, my team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."

dreamerdanceUID: 2759402

1.作者得出结论的前提是孩子们讨论其父母比较多就证明他们是被其亲生父母所养，他仅凭自己尚未完成的研究进行猜测，而且也没有提供任何资料以说明他们采用的方法一定更准确。另外论者也没有告诉我们他们是否在采访中采取了措施以保证结果准确，比如采访话题是否会引导孩子谈论父母。有可能二十年后这些孩子长大了，他们想找到亲生父母才谈论的比较多。有可能当年他们的父母都出去打工了，但是现在回来了。这并不能说明孩子不由全村人抚养。比如食物喂养，技能传授等等。

2.即使确实是孩子有他们的亲生父母所养，也不能由此得出他使用的研究方法是无效的。没有证据证明Dr. Field当年就仅仅是观察， Dr. Field的研究结果有可能来自多方面的详细调查（如interview,历史资料,教育设备,教育状况等），而Dr. Karp仅靠interviews就推翻了Dr. Field的观点，显然是不充分的。另外旧观点是在二十年前建立起来的，如果说该村的风俗改变了，则不能证明旧观点是错误的。

3.•论者认为他们采用的采访为中心的研究方法肯定能对此问题得出更准确的理解。而且论者没有提供资料证明采访中心研究适合该地区，更没有资料证明采用interview的形式他们的研究结果就一定是正确的。并且这不说明关于整个文化的结论都错了，抚养孩子只是文化中一小部分。即使结论错误，不能说明方法错了，可能是方法运用错误。根据作者的逻辑，如果利用数学解决问题错了，数学这种方法就错了。

结论：论者要增加说服力还需要进一步研究采访的内容，当地的风俗传统，20年是否发生了变化得出最终的答案。而不能仅凭孩子的谈论而仓促做出结论。

Luise8891UID: 2906459

1）        the arguer fails to convince us that the conclusions of Dr. Field about Terrian village culture of children is false by simply point out the difference between his own conclusions and the conclusions of Dr. Field.  There are four possibilities in total.  Firstly, both conclusions are incomplete. Maybe twenty years ago, Dr. Field paid much attention on observing the children’s daytime life with different residents in the village other than the time with their parents at home and their related formed behaviors. But when Dr. karp had an interview with the children, the children would probably want to accent the importance of their parents and sent the wrong message.  Secondly, maybe the both conclusions are valid. After all, the research of Dr.Field was conducted twenty years ago, during which the way of rearing a child has changed gradually.  Thirdly, maybe the conclusion of Dr. Field is valid and the other is invalid. As mentioned above, the children sent a wrong message when they were inteviewed. Finally, it’s the premise of Dr. Karp’s finall conclusion that the observation-centered approach to studing cultures is invalid. In order to substantiate his premise of final conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more evidence to rule out the other three posiibilities.
2）        Secondly, even if the conclusion of Dr. Field is invalid, it seems a little arbitary to conclude that the entire observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. First, the wrong conclusion drawn from an observation-centered approach is insufficient to conclude that the whole approach is invaluable in studying culture. Then, there are so many factors that affect the validity, such as the capacity of researchers, the actual situation of reserach etc. Even if observation-centered approach to studying is invalid, it is insufficient to assert that the team of his graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures. Further research and more evidence need to be provided to prove the uselessness of observation-centered approach and the value of interview-centered approach to studying culture.