Source criticism in writing, Essays (high school) of English

Download Source criticism in writing and more Essays (high school) English in PDF only on Docsity! Source Criticism I searched for information in a well-sorted way by using several search engines and examining a diversity of sources; accordingly, I could make my text varied and contain clear, transparent, correct and credible information. I used the following keywords: the neuroscience of meditation, mindfulness, prefrontal cortex, neurotransmitters, gray matter, the hippocampus and the human brain. Additionally, I used the following search engines: Google, Uppsala University Library, and Elsevier's Scopus engine. The main reason why I precisely chose these four sources is that they were the most relevant to answer my question among other sources. On the other hand, I decided not to use other sources because they were neither relevant nor credible. Firstly, I have used Wikipedia, which is a multilingual web-based encyclopedia. It has essentially free and open content developed and written collaboratively by anonymous volunteers, for the purpose of improving the understanding of a subject. Both Wikipedia sources have up-to-date information, which makes them regarded as trustworthy. For my part, I think Wikipedia is not always a credible source because it is a secondary source where the writer can be anyone, such as ignorant people, and write anything unaware of the subject. On the other hand, the Wikipedia articles that I used have been helpful and reliable sources because they consist largely of references from sources written by experts. They helped me to be aware of different perspectives, to think richly and differently and to create my perception. These sources serve a beneficial purpose as providing general information for the introduction to reasonably understand the entire subject regarding the human brain and neurotransmitters. There I have been able to coordinate what the human brain consists of and what role neurotransmitters play in regulating emotional and social behavior. Secondly, I utilized an article from a popular scientific magazine called Psychology Today, written by a licensed clinical psychologist. While this source was last updated in 2011, I have no problem using it as the article presents proven facts about the relationship between the human mind and meditation; thus, these facts take long to change. The reason why I chose to use this article is that it is written with the purpose of persuading, which means that all biased information is well-prepared with a sufficiently high level of knowledge about the functionality of meditation in the human brain. That makes the content of the article correct and relate to answering my question as well. However, due to the author's personal biases about how meditation positively affects brain functions, I have verified the credibility of the article with a peer-reviewed study carried out at Harvard University. Both the article from Psychology Today and the study published in ScienceDirect, support the idea that regular practice of meditation for eight weeks can change the human brain, this would further give humans greater control over their behaviors. Both these sources have also contact information that makes them credible for the control of the content. Thirdly, I have taken advantage of a peer-reviewed scientific article based on a study conducted at Harvard University by neuroscientists and published in and reviewed by ScienceDirect for the purpose of informing about new findings. This study, unlike the article from Psychology Today, is a primary source because several scientists have designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and prepared the manuscript without copying from other sources because then copying from other sources can occur incorrectly. This study is even a first-hand account because the scientists could observe the detailed structures of the brain during mindfulness practice with their naked eye and then drew conclusions based on their results. The article provides an objective of all information without any special interest in lying, exaggerating or altering the truth, which is perceived as an independent and neutral written source. Although the article was published in 2010, it is nevertheless plausible for this task because the results of a study do not change but can only be developed. All in all, this leads me to the conclusion that this article is a credible source as well relative to answer my question. The language of this article is mostly geared to an educated audience, unlike the language of the article from Psychology Today and Wikipedia where there is no especially assumed target audience except those interested. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, I decided not to use other sources. For instance, the article “7 Ways Meditation Can Actually Change The Brain” published in Forbes, is one of the articles that I doubted its credibility. Because, firstly, the article is written by a health and science journalist, unlike the author of “Changing Your Brain By Changing Your Mind” who shows an astonishing and high level of competence, secondly, the article is written for the purpose of capturing the reader's interest by using emotive language, and hence the article is published in an advertiser-driven magazine to increase profits. Another example is the article “Feasibility and Preliminary Outcomes of a School-Based Mindfulness Intervention for Urban Youth” published in SpringerLink, which does not relate to answering my question because it is focusing more on describing the improvement of school-based mindfulness in urban communities.