History Extension: Major Work Help! ;)

[Never.Give.Up]

Heya!!
I'm struggling a bit with my major work and would really appreciate some feedback on this paragraph. I'm not sure if it really makes sense or if I will need to adjust my question slightly to suit...but would loooove some feedback please
Thanks so much!!

Question: If history is supposed to be fact, why are there so many accounts? Explore this through the lens of the Manhattan Project.

The value of truth in documentation is not instinctively recognised unless prompted by a distinct lack of morality. To infer an historian’s documentation is innately moral is too simplistic, given the subjectivity of morality itself. Hence, it is imperative to consider the motivations driving a documentation, to adequately determine its veracity as fact. Ultimately, the concern that historians should make moral judgements apropos to their work, remains as a contentious issue. This is furthered through Andrew Brown’s understanding in his work Keeper of the Nuclear Conscience: The life and Work of Joseph Rotblat, “[M]orality is a lot like gravity. It’s a pervasive force which is essential for human activity, but like gravity is a weak force, and it’s easily overcome.”  This furthers the ideas of the value of truth in documenting work, as Brown comprehends the weaknesses of morality and the ability for individuals to despise these values despite its essentiality to life. Consequently, Brown highlights that in an absence of integrity, the historian’s veracity is challenged and the possibility of fact in history is ultimately questioned. Likewise, philosopher George Grant has pursued an investigation recognising that fact without morality is deficient of meaning, and consequently becomes a product of thought- evidently enabling historians to produce numerous accounts of little worth. Grant’s consideration “Good deprived of its spiritual and moral dimension becomes value, or values, a concept of worth, utility, commodity, judgements from a denatured soul rather than ideas permeated with meaning” , is relative to activities undertaken by scientists, doctors and physicists in their work on the production of an atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project. J Robert Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist known as ‘the father of the atomic bomb’, claims that “when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it”, conveying the absence of considering morals and ethics in a scientific academy. As believed by nuclear disarmament specialist Jennifer Allen Simmons, the analysis of political, religious or moral issues would mar the pursuit of scientific truth by dogma or human passions, allowing workers of the Manhattan Project to overlook humanity to pursue an invention in ignorance of the consequences.   Therefore, it is evident that a sense of immorality can ultimately deter fact from becoming truth, in an historians’ quest to reflect their motives.

[sudodds]

Heya!!
I'm struggling a bit with my major work and would really appreciate some feedback on this paragraph. I'm not sure if it really makes sense or if I will need to adjust my question slightly to suit...but would loooove some feedback please
Thanks so much!!

Okay just had a quick look over, and here are my thoughts

Spoiler

Question: If history is supposed to be fact, why are there so many accounts? Explore this through the lens of the Manhattan Project.


I feel like there may be a more sophisticated way of phrasing your question. Something to do on diversity of historical accounts?

The value of truth in documentation is not instinctively recognised unless prompted by a distinct lack of morality. Ohhhhh very strong opening statement! nice! To infer an historian’s documentation is innately moral is too simplistic, given the subjectivity of morality itself. Hence, it is imperative to consider the motivations driving a documentation, to adequately determine its veracity as fact. Ultimately, the concern that historians should make moral judgements apropos to their work, remains as a contentious issue. very historiographical so far!. This is furthered through Andrew Brown’s understanding in his work Keeper of the Nuclear Conscience: The life and Work of Joseph Rotblat, “[M]orality is a lot like gravity. It’s a pervasive force which is essential for human activity, but like gravity is a weak force, and it’s easily overcome.”  This furthers the ideas of the value of truth in documenting work, as Brown comprehends the weaknesses of morality and the ability for individuals to despise these values despite its essentiality to life. Consequently, Brown highlights that in an absence of integrity, the historian’s veracity is challenged and the possibility of fact in history is ultimately questioned. Likewise, philosopher George Grant has pursued an investigation recognising that fact without morality is deficient of meaning, and consequently becomes a product of thought- evidently enabling historians to produce numerous accounts of little worth. Grant’s consideration “Good deprived of its spiritual and moral dimension becomes value, or values, a concept of worth, utility, commodity, judgements from a denatured soul rather than ideas permeated with meaning” , is relative to activities undertaken by scientists, doctors and physicists in their work on the production of an atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project. J Robert Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist known as ‘the father of the atomic bomb’, claims that “when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it”, conveying the absence of considering morals and ethics in a scientific academy. As believed by nuclear disarmament specialist Jennifer Allen Simmons, the analysis of political, religious or moral issues would mar the pursuit of scientific truth by dogma or human passions, allowing workers of the Manhattan Project to overlook humanity to pursue an invention in ignorance of the consequences.   Therefore, it is evident that a sense of immorality can ultimately deter fact from becoming truth, in an historians’ quest to reflect their motives.

This was great! Well done, hardly anything I feel the need to point out, or think that you should change. The only thing I may recommend is to improve integration of the Manhattan Project. I don't mean that you need to add more or less, but rather than structuring your paragraph as:

- Explanation of theory/point in a broader context
- Explanation of the Manhattan Project

It would be better to have something like this;

- Explanation of part of your point + how this relates to the Manhattan Project
- Further explanation of your point + how this relates to the Manhattan Project
and so on. (I hope this makes sense).

Now this is tricky to do correctly, and tbh you can probably still get an E4 without integrating in this way. But if you can achieve this level of seamless integration, it can really enhance the sophistication of your major work!

Hope this helps,

Susie

[Never.Give.Up]

Okay just had a quick look over, and here are my thoughts

Spoiler

Question: If history is supposed to be fact, why are there so many accounts? Explore this through the lens of the Manhattan Project.


I feel like there may be a more sophisticated way of phrasing your question. Something to do on diversity of historical accounts?

The value of truth in documentation is not instinctively recognised unless prompted by a distinct lack of morality. Ohhhhh very strong opening statement! nice! To infer an historian’s documentation is innately moral is too simplistic, given the subjectivity of morality itself. Hence, it is imperative to consider the motivations driving a documentation, to adequately determine its veracity as fact. Ultimately, the concern that historians should make moral judgements apropos to their work, remains as a contentious issue. very historiographical so far!. This is furthered through Andrew Brown’s understanding in his work Keeper of the Nuclear Conscience: The life and Work of Joseph Rotblat, “[M]orality is a lot like gravity. It’s a pervasive force which is essential for human activity, but like gravity is a weak force, and it’s easily overcome.”  This furthers the ideas of the value of truth in documenting work, as Brown comprehends the weaknesses of morality and the ability for individuals to despise these values despite its essentiality to life. Consequently, Brown highlights that in an absence of integrity, the historian’s veracity is challenged and the possibility of fact in history is ultimately questioned. Likewise, philosopher George Grant has pursued an investigation recognising that fact without morality is deficient of meaning, and consequently becomes a product of thought- evidently enabling historians to produce numerous accounts of little worth. Grant’s consideration “Good deprived of its spiritual and moral dimension becomes value, or values, a concept of worth, utility, commodity, judgements from a denatured soul rather than ideas permeated with meaning” , is relative to activities undertaken by scientists, doctors and physicists in their work on the production of an atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project. J Robert Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist known as ‘the father of the atomic bomb’, claims that “when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it”, conveying the absence of considering morals and ethics in a scientific academy. As believed by nuclear disarmament specialist Jennifer Allen Simmons, the analysis of political, religious or moral issues would mar the pursuit of scientific truth by dogma or human passions, allowing workers of the Manhattan Project to overlook humanity to pursue an invention in ignorance of the consequences.   Therefore, it is evident that a sense of immorality can ultimately deter fact from becoming truth, in an historians’ quest to reflect their motives.

This was great! Well done, hardly anything I feel the need to point out, or think that you should change. The only thing I may recommend is to improve integration of the Manhattan Project. I don't mean that you need to add more or less, but rather than structuring your paragraph as:

- Explanation of theory/point in a broader context
- Explanation of the Manhattan Project

It would be better to have something like this;

- Explanation of part of your point + how this relates to the Manhattan Project
- Further explanation of your point + how this relates to the Manhattan Project
and so on. (I hope this makes sense).

Now this is tricky to do correctly, and tbh you can probably still get an E4 without integrating in this way. But if you can achieve this level of seamless integration, it can really enhance the sophistication of your major work!

Hope this helps,

Susie

Hey Susie
Thanks so much for this feedback
I have now finished my essay and it is due in one week!!
Anyway, I was wondering if anyone would have anytime to have a quick look through it for me please!

Thanks so much