You need to fashion an outline for this book. If you don’t have an outline, you don’t have a roadmap. You don’t have your task list. The chapters won’t get written if you don’t say, “This is what’s in it!” But an outline is hard to write. It puts you in planning mode.

Remember, an outline is made to be changed. What you write now is not the TOC you’ll have when the project is done.

How many chapters are you going to have? How about one chapter for each of the seven points you wrote down? Add a first chapter as an introduction, and last chapter as a conclusion. That gives you nine chapters. Build the seven body chapters around the seven kernels you wrote down. Can you remember them?

No! Are the kernels rich enough that you can build an essay around each of them?

Well, let’s start your list:

Chapter 1: Introduction – What is this book about? Are you going to write a preface? You can write about the two theologians in the introduction.

Chapter 1a: Straight comparison and contrast between the two cases.

Chapter 2: Kernel 1 – The virtue of patience.

Chapter 3: Kernel 2 – The use of evidence. How to conduct research when evidence is incomplete.

Chapter 4: Kernel 3 – Conduct of research when your main source is untrustworthy.

Chapter 5: Kernel 4 – Don’t mind the names. Here you can talk about the social organism!

Chapter 6: Kernel 5 – Go for the easy stuff. This is a research strategy chapter.

Chapter 7: Kernel 6 – Remember the victims. Remember us.

Chapter 8: Kernel 7 – Build and maintain credibility. Your rhetoric of inquiry chapter.

Chapter 8a: What about the sources? A brief history of these two research projects.

Chapter 8a: Remember the common aim. What is next?

Chapter 9: Conclusion – What was this book about? Wrap up and remind people why you wanted to write the book.

I think you can combine kernels 2, 3, and 5 in one research strategy chapter. That would give you five kernels and ten chapters total. Let’s rewrite the list above to reflect that.

Chapter 1: Introduction – What is this book about? Write about the two theologians in the introduction. Decide if you will have a preface. Generally you have had a short preface.

Chapter 2: Straight comparison and contrast between the two cases.

Chapter 3: Kernel 1 – The virtue of patience. The need to move fast.

Chapter 4: Kernel 2 – Conduct of inquiry: research strategy

Use of evidence. How to conduct research when evidence is incomplete.

Conduct of research when your main source – the government – is untrustworthy.

Go for the easy stuff. This is a logical point related to the first one: how to make progress when information is unavailable.

Chapter 5: Kernel 3 – Don’t mind the names. Here you can talk about the social organism!

Chapter 6: Kernel 4 – Remember the victims. Remember us.

Chapter 7: Kernel 5 – Build and maintain credibility. Your rhetoric of inquiry chapter. How to be persuasive.

Chapter 8: What about the sources? A brief history of these two research projects.

Chapter 9: Remember the common aim. What is next? How to collaborate effectively.

Chapter 10: Conclusion – What was this book about? Wrap up and remind people why you wanted to write the book.

That’s a good list! Let’s call it a night!

Where are you going to talk about the two theologians? Where are you going to draw straight comparisons between the two cases, rather than do lessons learned.

  • Be patient.
  • Don’t ask of the evidence more than it can give.
  • Assume the government is untrustworthy.
  • Don’t mind the names.
  • Go for the easy stuff.
  • Tell a story.
  • Remember the victims.
  • Build and maintain credibility.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11.22_9.11: Two Theologians, Two Infamous Dates

No one wants to be taken for a fool. (See below, after the questions.)

What happened on 9/11? Write one or two paragraphs to describe that day’s events.

What evidence did you use to write your description? Why did you select that evidence?

How do you characterize the arguments of people who disagree with your description? What standards did they use to select their evidence?

Now answer the same questions for November 22, 1963:

What happened? What evidence did you use to write your description? Explain why you selected that evidence and not other evidence.

Briefly analyze the arguments of people who disagree with your description.

=======================

No one wants to be taken for a fool.

That puts people in a difficult spot in reference to events like 9/11 and Kennedy’s assassination. If you believe the official account of those events, people who believe the official account is false will think you are a sucker. If you disbelieve the officiali account, the believers label you a nut. What do you do in a situation like this, when you just want people to think well of you?

You keep quiet. If you must say something, you say words you believe will keep you out of trouble, words that won’t displease the people who hear them. Why stir up trouble unnecessarily? You’re glad the subject doesn’t come up, and your friends feel the same way.

Why would anyone care about these subjects anyway? We can’t change the past. The people who died are dead. You can’t bring them back. The first rule of safety has always been: let sleeping dogs lie. No one can profit from kicking any of these dogs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Advertisements