|What does analyze mean?|
The process of separating something into its constituent elements. Often contrasted with synthesis.
To break into smaller --yet significant pieces-- to determine how the parts and the whole supportively relate or cohere together.
Similar words: investigation, inspection, survey, study, scrutiny; exploration, probe, research, review, evaluation, interpretation, dissection.
How is the quality of any analysis necessary, or sufficient, to make a clear point?
Basic to any analysis is a description of how we know something with evidence and examples sufficient to a) define broad terms with examples, b) establish an argument's component parts, and c) review what criticisms others have made.
any analysis may be improved by a thesis statement or clearly stated working hypothesis to which examples are attached in order to provide evidence to support or refute the premise of research.
Many historic questions raise serious problems about how we know from a range of evidence from material remains, to written records,or transcriptions of orally derived traditions, or graphical materials such as paintings, sketches, maps, drawings, plans and the like.
Without a means of weighing the evidence the question of veracity -- or who do we believe-- is a nagging influence on writers who seek to distinguish facts from fiction and authoritative estimations from guesses or opinions.
We all have opinions, or doxa in the Greek tradition that are often biased, if not at complete odds with reality.
For example, the Roman's had no knowledge of the Mayan civilization of Central and southern Mexico (and vice versa) but that did not mean that these cultures did not exist in reality.
The veritas, or truth of the matter is both advanced civilizations were ignorant of one another's vast achievements.
History is filled with errors, masquerading as facts.
Philosophy is–in many senses–on a tangent to history because philosophers ask how we know anything for certain, let alone the ways we distinguish the fictions from the facts.
Philosophical discussion that bears on the quality of scientific, historical, and technological questions.
Features -- readily distinguishable qualities -- distinctive attribute -- part.
Elements -- separable entities -- an essential part, or aspect of the whole.
Structure -- the way in which anything fits together ; hence the arrangement of and relations among or between the parts or elements of something complex.
Characteristics -- the qualities and quantities, timing and distribution of the defining
facets that describe a situation, people places, or things.
Scientific evidence must be necessary and sufficient to establish a refutable statement -- that is a premise that can be challenged by finding evidence to sustain, refute or not influence the standing of a proposition.
The ideas about the veracity of findings in science involve concepts about necessary and sufficient conditions.
A spectrum concerning ways to think about the sufficiency of an analysis.
The following explanations are from:
sufficient, "it suffices (i.e. it is sufficient for) an object's having four sides that it is a square. Or, again, it is sufficient for your having something to drink that you have a glass of " wine or water.
necessary, "we all know that air is necessary for (human) life. Without air, there is no (human) life. Similarly, a microscope (or some other instrument) is necessary for human beings to see viruses. (Viruses are too small to be seen by the naked eye.)"
Necessary and sufficient
"Pick any two conditions whatsoever. The relationship between the two conditions must be exactly one of the following four possibilities:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests the following:
For example, the case of:
Like most people we tend to see our behavior and that of others as the products of either nature or nurture. By nature we mean our inherited disposition or genetic endowments as opposed to nurture which refers to our upbringing and conditioning in society, the families and institutional settings.
There is the very ancient argument over inheritance or environment as the most decisive factor in a person or a societies' success or failure in meeting worldly challenges. Yet this may be far too simple a dichotomy with which to understand people and history.
Today, however there is a great debate suggesting that nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) are not sufficient to explain how we behave, develop and thrive.
In some cases, both the inherited and the existing conditions bring out hidden abilities.
Still, there's no reason to ignore the debate, but to place it in the proper perspective that allows us to see that each piece fits together to for a more coherent whole; thus people and societies are products of both environment and inheritance. Nature is certainly necessary for our understanding of the roles that nurturing or nourishment perform, but by themselves, neither nature nor nurture are necessary and sufficient to explain what we see in ourselves, others and the creatures around us in this world.
It remains uncertain whether either nature or nurture is more decisive than the other for it appears to be both that happen to shape the personal, if not the social conditions of our existence, but both point to yet another kind of criteria -- known as emergent properties that are apparent only when the necessity of nature is sufficiently nurtured to produce the observed effects.
There are diseases, as well as developmental conditions in biology that reflect the role of all three (Nature, nurture, and emergent properties) in creating the living world we see and the study of these conditions in biology is called epigenesis.
Writer's Almanac on five things all writing does
Writer's Almanac on structuring an essay