Structural Governance Within structural governance, we consider the question of insider fraud, the theft of both digital value within the Financial Cryptography system and of any physical value that underlies the virtual value managed by the system. With any payment system, there is an ability to create new assets, or misdirect existing assets, all with no more work than a few button pushes. To address this, we use the approach of separation of concerns to address the agency problem of holding owners' assets, but protecting them from internal attack. This problem is normally handled by separating out management of day-to-day assets with the creation of assets in the system, and increasing the work required for any fraudulent transactions.
I find this claim plausible, for the following reasons You'll usually begin by putting some thesis or argument on the table for consideration. Then you'll go on to do one or two of the following: Criticize that argument or thesis Offer counter-examples to the thesis Defend the argument or thesis against someone else's criticism Offer reasons to believe the thesis Give examples which help explain the thesis, or which help to make the thesis more plausible Argue that certain philosophers are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis Discuss what consequences the thesis would have, if it were true Revise the thesis in the light of some objection You'll conclude by stating the upshot of your discussion.
For instance, should we accept the thesis?
Should we reject it? Or should we conclude that we don't yet have enough information to decide whether the thesis is true or false? No matter which of these aims you set for yourself, you have to explicitly present reasons for the claims you make. You should try to provide reasons for these claims that might convince someone who doesn't already accept them.
A good philosophy paper is modest and makes a small point; but it makes that point clearly and straightforwardly, and it offers good reasons in support of it People very often attempt to accomplish too much in a philosophy paper.
The usual result of this is a paper that's hard to read, and which is full of inadequately defended and poorly explained claims. So don't be over-ambitious. Don't try to establish any earth-shattering conclusions in your 5 page paper.
Done properly, philosophy moves at a slow pace. Originality The aim of these papers is for you to display familiarity with the material and an ability to think critically about it. Don't be disappointed if you don't make an utterly distinctive contribution to human thought in your first attempts at philosophical writing.
There will be plenty of time for that later on. Your critical intelligence will inevitably show up in whatever you write. An ideal paper will be clear and straightforward see belowwill be accurate when it attributes views to other philosophers see belowand will contain thoughtful critical responses to the texts we read.
It need not always break new ground. If you do want to demonstrate independent thought, don't think you have to do it by coming up with a novel argument.
You can also demonstrate independent thought by offering new examples of familiar points, or new counter-examples, or new analogies.
Major Guidelines Thinking about a philosophical problem is hard.
Writing about it ought not to be. You're not trying to craft some fancy political speech. You're just trying to present a claim and some reasons to believe it or disbelieve it, as straightforwardly as possible.
Here are some guidelines on how to do that. Make an outline Before you begin to write, you need to think about the questions: In what order should you explain the various terms and positions you'll be discussing? At what point should you present your opponent's position or argument?This research was supported/partially supported by [Name of Foundation, Grant maker, Donor].
We thank our colleagues from [Name of the supporting institution] who. What Does One Do in a Philosophy Paper? A philosophy paper consists of the reasoned defense of some claim; Your paper must offer an argument. It can't consist in the mere report of your opinions, nor in a mere report of the opinions of the philosophers we discuss.
(See the Writing Center’s handout on thesis statements for more help with this stage!). You then provide strong, logical evidence that supports the validity of your argument throughout your paper.
Consider your Audience! Writing an Argumentative, . Moved Permanently. The document has moved here. Thesis Statements and Introductions The Tutoring Center Bucks County Community College. AGAINST NARRATIVITY Galen Strawson Abstract I argue against two popular claims.
The ﬁrst is a descriptive, empiri-cal thesis about the nature of ordinary human experience: ‘each.