Write a paragraph (or two, depending on your reasoning) on one item from either

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

Write a paragraph (or two, depending on your reasoning) on one item from either podcast (comment on one or both) you found compelling as a criticism of the study under consideration (Milgram or Zimbardo/Stanford). What’s one thing that was meant as a criticism that you thought was less or least compelling as a criticism (i.e. what didn’t shake your confidence in the study). Explain. (Target: 150 words)
Both studies are famous for their ethical implications (complete your IRB before human-experiments!). However, as the podcasts point out, there are serious problems with both method (the process of the experiment) as well as the interpretation of the results by the experts who ran them. We talk a lot about sources and what counts as reliable academic sources. In other words, we ask students to look at markers of epistemic confidence (knowledge). While that’s a beginner’s course, it’s still worth thinking about whether that approach to sources is a good one. How much stock should we really put into such markers? It’s probably inescapable that our knowledge is dependent on some form of trust (we can’t run every experiment for ourselves, after all!). However, expertise might not be inherently stable as knowledge—as the podcasts suggest. Moreover, both experts, operating in good-faith (Links to an external site.) if with bad experiment design, seem to have been wrong or hyperbolic in their interpretation of their results. At least, again, according to two podcasts. The question you should answer here (in another paragraph or two) is whether criticism of process or interpretation needs to be backed by expertise and peer review to be academically helpful? In other words, is critique and criticism of the old “published and peer reviewed” standard of academic knowledge the same for sources that might poke at it in a critical mode–in this case podcasts by non-experts? However you answer, explain your reasoning. (Target: 100- 150 words)
Once you read the chapter from Abramsky, listen to either or both (preferably) of our two podcasts
1.1) Read: Abramsky – “Skim” Chapter 3 and then read Chapter 2 thoroughly
1.2) Martinson, Nothing Works (skim Martinson for context/familiarity)
2) Listen to: Cautionary Tales, Milgram Experiment (available on other platforms, too)
3) Listen to: You’re Wrong About, Stanford Prison Experiment (available on other platforms, too)
Write your answers in well-reasoned and organized paragraphs
Demonstrate in-depth reading/listening with each source
Demonstrate critical reasoning in your interpretation of the sources and their possible implications

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

Leave a Reply