CRITICAL THINKING Final: Summer Session 2005, MSAC, Professor Lane

NAME: ..

USERNAME: mrninjaturtle

What was your MIDTERM GRADE: A

WEB ADDRESS: http://mrninjaturtle.tripod.com/

DID YOU DO ALL THE READING? Yes, but I only managed to get halfway through Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. So if you find that my Question #15 isn't too great, I'll finish reading it and let you know when I finish.

IS THIS YOUR OWN ORIGINAL WORK? YES


1. Please COPY AND PASTE all of the postings you have done for this ENTIRE class (including your responses to the problems I posted)

All of my posts have been reposted below this final. They go all the way down to the post labeled "END" where after that post is my work from my Phil 5 class last semester.


2. How would Marx critique Max Weber?

Max Weber believed in a democracy where there was a firm hierarchy of control. He felt it was best politically, economically, and socially. Karl Marx is completely against democracy and capitalism. Marx believes that the firm hierarchy of control that Weber speaks of is what is bringing society down. Marx looks at society in numbers and sees that the working class as the majority. He would argue that the working class is being hurt by capitalist control. Weber might argue that democracy is the power of the people to elect the strong officials needed to run and operate the nation. But Marx would argue that the people have no power because there's no equality in society. The working class is so busy working at minimum wage and trying to survive that there's no time for education or political involvement. The struggling working class are the people who keep the nation afloat, but they have no say in which direction it sails. Marx would argue that the hierarchy would need to be removed and equal power distributed throughout the social classes.

3. How would Weber critique Marx?

Marx believed in a communistic society where everyone's equal and where there's no private property and no exploitation of any social class. He believed that this would restore human welfare across all social classes and everyone would be happy. Weber would disagree with him. Weber would argue that a centralized group of leaders would need to be established in order to lead the nation if it were to succeed politically, economically, and socially. Weber believed that a separation in class would be necessary in the functioning of this system. The working class would run the industry, the owners would maintain the flow of money, and the leaders would run everything from up top. Marx would argue that this system exploits the working class and forces them to be the slaves of the system. Weber would say that since it was a democracy, and the working class would have the opportunity to have their voices heard and to make decisions. Since the working class does make up the majority of the people, it will be their votes that are the real determinant in the outcome of elections.


4. What are Paul O'Brien's strongest arguments against believing in God? What are the weaknesses in Paul's argument?

Maybe I missed something or read O'Brien too quickly, but I didn't see any strong arguments against believing in God. Most of his arguments he provided were countered by an argument in favor of God. He stated that he wasn't going to be listing the academic reasons not to believe in god, and I thought that was cool and that I'd be able to hear something new, but I didn't. It seemed like his major audience was the religious people. I can see if they were reading this, it is sensitive to their beliefs and includes reasons to and not to believe in God. When he listed the reasons people believe in god, he used his counter arguments. This would be giving someone who's religious a different opinion. But when he listed the reasons against believing in god, he also used counter arguments for those reasons. He gave a good argument saying that if God was the Creator, he was defying physics and the conservation of matter and energy. This was a great argument, and a new one for me, but then he said, God could have then created the laws of physics after he created everything. He pretty much just ruined his solid argument. He goes on to say that God and the conservation of matter couldn't possibly exist in the same universe, but he still leaves it open for someone to argue that since God created physics, the rules don't apply to him. I guess with this technique he's able to play to the religious people reading it. But I was disappointed. This was much too sensitive for a non-religious person to read. I was even getting frustrated when he wouldn't just list the for or against without the counters to them. Once again, I could have missed the bigger, better picture.

5. Why is Christianity and its moral views, according to Nietzsche, ANTI-NATURE?

According to Nietzsche, Christianity (and others like it) is anti-nature because it teaches men "to despise the very first instincts of life" and "to experience the presupposition of life, sexuality, as something unclean"; and it "looks for the evil principle in what is most profoundly necessary for growth, in severe self-love" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/). This says it all but I'll elaborate. When I was growing up in a Catholic school, the priests, nuns, and teachers all said that sex before marriage and sex for anything other than procreation was a sin. Sex is one of our basic and primal instincts. Without sex, how could we populate? In the early days of man, the average life expectancy was about 20-30 years. As a species, we needed to get the mojo flowing early. Pop out the babies in our teen years, and nurture them for the rest of our life, which would be about the same time they're ready to have kids of their own. It used to be custom to be married as a teenager, and some native peoples still have it this way. I don't think our bodies were built to be baby machines in our late 20s and early 30s. My reasoning is that as women reach those ages, the risk of a chromosomal defect goes up significantly. Ever since our life expectancy has increased, so has the average age for marriage and childbirth. The average age to be wed nowadays is about 25-30 years old, but our bodies have been screaming at us for sex ever since puberty. But Christianity stresses that pre-marital sex is a sin, and with threats of burning in hell for committing sins, we put our sexual urges on hold (well kind of, because we still masturbate). And even masturbation is taught to be a sin.

6. In what ways was Marx a humanist?

In his Communist Manifesto, Marx is fighting for the working man. The working man; the laborer; the lower class makes up most of the population. He's trying to improve the welfare of the people who make society work. There is a struggle between the working class and the business men. The laborers are the ones who operate the machinery which allows the business owners to make money. If not for them, the bourgeois wouldn't be where they are. But the bourgeois make no effort to help the laborers. The laborers make minimum wage and can barely get by. They are being exploited and it's unjust. His plan for communism would end the bourgeois and would make everything equal. It would be an end to private property and the nation as they know it. Since the poor don't have property anyways, it won't hurt them. His idea would also take children out of the dangerous workplace and put them in public schools where they can get the education they deserve. Marx cared about humanity and the preservation of a working society. Everyone would strive if there were no class struggle. No one would be looked down upon, and everyone would be working together toward a common goal.

7. How is Lane's pretext/text/context argument similar to Wilber's HOLON argument (yes, you need to research the web for this one).

Ken Wilber's Holons are wholes (entities) and at the same time are a part of other wholes (being attributes to the entity). One can go either up or down with them. This is very similar to Lane's pretext/text/context argument. An alphabet letter is a pretext (or holon), a word made up of letters is the text (or another holon consisting of the lower holons), and a sentence made from the words is the context (or another holon consisting of the lower holons). Lane's is easier to understand because it has the three adjustable levels. A sentence could be the pretext, text, or context. If it was a pretext, then a paragraph would be the text and a chapter would be the context. Wilber's Holons are not as well stated. A sentence could be a holon, or a holon making up something bigger, or a holon being comprised of something smaller. By labeling everything a holon, his argument is difficult to work with. Another difference between the two is that Wilber believes that a holon could be anything material, spiritual, or abstract. This isn't the case with Lane. In Lane's argument, things are made of things which are made of things and so on; and things make up things that make up bigger things and so on. There's no room for spirituality or abstract ideas in Lane's argument. Which is another reason why his would be easier to understand. Otherwise, when we get past the atoms and quarks, and possibly even the strings from superstring theory - Lane's argument would stop until the next lower level is established. But if we're using Wilber's, then below strings is "God breath" and below that is "Holy dust." With Wilber's, you could make anything up to name the next holon. This isn't a very good approach to science.

8. What is the neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism? What is the best argument AGAINST vegetarianism?

The neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism is very simple but I'll have to use a few words to get it across. The main argument is pain, suffering, and death. We as humans don't kill and eat each other because we know how it would feel and wouldn't want it to happen to us or others around us. Lane argues that feeling is nothing more than one's central nervous system relaying messages. Well, we humans have CNSs and therefore can feel things. But all animals (in the Animal Kingdom,) have a CNS. So doesn't that mean that they feel too? Of course it does but we don't understand it. We think that as long as we make it quick and "painless" the animal won't mind. Well of course he/she's going to mind because its life is coming to an end. But humans don't understand the concerns of lower intelligent beings; we just don't speak the same language. But if we, like Lane argues, understand neurology then we can understand that we are all animals with lives and feelings. Does a dog or cat not jump when you step on its tail? Of course, because it hurts. We humans jump back when someone steps on our toes. Since all animals, not just cats and dogs, have a CNS they should be treated as such. By growing cows, chickens, etc without providing them personified names doesn't stop the fact that they're living, breathing, feeling animals like us. So the neuro-ethical argument is one of morals too. These creatures have lives and feelings, so who are we to take those away from them. They should have every right to roam the earth as we do.

The best argument against vegetarianism is from an evolutionary perspective: humans have canines. Horses don't have canines because they're herbivores. They grind down their plant food with their molars. Humans have molars too, and that's why we're omnivores. The hominid body evolved as omnivores, and therefore the human body is also designed for meat eating. Canines are in the cavity to tear through flesh and to sink in to make sure it doesn't run away. Most of our essential nutrients and amino acids that they human body can't make by itself are provided by the meat we eat. Our stomach enzymes have difficulty breaking down and digesting cellulose (this is why we can see our corn in our excrement if we haven't chewed thoroughly). We weren't meant to live on plants alone. Of course we could survive without eating meat today, but that's only because of our technology and vitamin supplement capabilities. Sure you could do it without supplements, but I hear it takes a lot of work. When meat used to be whatever one could hunt and cook, the animal was a part of the wild - analogous to a lion hunting zebras. Currently, we are raising these animals for the sole purpose of killing them later for food. It is only because meat has become industrialized, and out technology so great, that we should stop eating meat. It is morally wrong in how we obtain our meat. But if we refrained from eating meat, would this not create an imbalance in nature? If hawks and other predators refrained from eating rodents, would we not have an overpopulation problem? If whales refrained from eating seals, would the same result not occur? These aren't the best examples because both predators listed are mainly carnivores; but lets use the omnivorous insects or fish for example. If these stopped eating the smaller creatures, and only continued to eat plants, would there not be an infestation of the smaller creatures. Humans as the top predator and keystone species help maintain species diversity in nature.

9. Francis Crick argues that we are nothing more than a packet of neurons firing. What are the strengths and weaknesses in his argument?

Crick is using the empirical world to try to find answers for our consciousness. How else would a scientist approach? Whether or not he used a model similar to Lane's pretext/text/context, Crick narrowed it down to the lowest possible place where our consciousness could lay - our brain. Our brain functions by the firing of neurons. So he figures the answer to conscious awareness is in there somewhere. This is the same logic he used to discover DNA's double helix. I think the whole idea is strong, but further research must be conducted. The brain is the headquarters (heh, pun intended) for our entire body. Without the brain, we're nothing. Without the brain, we can't breathe, eat, drink, move, think, etc. Why wouldn't the secret behind consciousness be hidden in there too. When our brain stops, we're not taking or processing information and therefore conscious awareness is lost. We close our eyes, but our brain is still aware of its surroundings.

The only weakness of his argument was not about us being a packet of neurons firing, but in trying to locate where "free will" is in the brain. This is a little too theoretical, even though it is still possible. We could have decision options running through our brain unknown to us, and the decision we make is the one we perceive. It is possible, but sketchy. It seems that people are always trying to locate everything in the brain. But if we're supposed to be looking at this materialistically, should "free will" even be considered as part of our brain? Because isn't free will something god supposedly gave us? Shouldn't we call it our decision making part of our brain or something like that? Or our thinking and reasoning part of the brain? But we've already located those in the frontal lobe. It was an interesting idea that our brain thinks without us knowing, but then what about the well thought out and planned actions? If we're believing in free will for this example, does free will take a break? Or is it always working and it comes to our conclusion even though we believe we've come to the conclusion through our planning and thinking? If this is the case, we're being deceived because it's not what our consciousness is thinking, it is what our free will is thinking. Trippy.

10. Critique homeopathy and explain why most skeptics view it as pseudo science.

Not only does homeopathy disregard the laws of physics and pharmacology, but the ideology behind it is foolish. Homeopaths believe that the human body has the ability to heal itself and that only a small stimulus was needed to begin the healing. If this was the case, we wouldn't require hospitals. People would be able to cure their cancer with their watered down homeopathic medicine. Years of medicine have proved that this is not the case. Tumors need to be extracted, lacerations need to be stitched, and organs need to be replaced. A big issue with the homeopathic medication is that conventional scientists are unable to test it like any other medication because it doesn't apply to modern physics or pharmacology. Homeopaths believe that one should fight the symptoms not the cause of the ailment. This isn't very logical because the cause of the ailment is what causes the symptoms. If, somehow, you're able to reduce the symptoms, it doesn't mean that the cause has been cured. The homeopaths believe that like cures like. For example, if I were bit by a poisonous snake, a homeopath wouldn't give me the anti-venom - they would give me something derived from a snakeroot plant. I don't quite understand their reasoning behind it. Not only are their choices of what to use as medication odd, but how they prepare it is even weirder. Like I said earlier, the homeopaths believe that the body can heal itself with the help from a small stimulus. So what homeopathy does, is it dilutes the medication in water. I don't see how drinking a glass of water with a hint of snakeroot is going to save me from a venomous bite. This was probably a revolutionary idea when it was conceived (somewhere between 1755 and 1843), but it is completely contradictory to what we commonly know about medicine. It is more of a belief system than a medical practice.

11. How would a skeptic analyze Bush's rhetoric BEFORE the Iraq war and NOW?

Before the Iraq war, Bush's speeches were full of conviction and determination. He was on an offensive mission to fight and bring an end to terrorism. He needed to speak with great confidence and power in order to both earn the support of the American people and to scare the enemies of the US. His pronunciation was never great, but his straight face and beady eyes conveyed that he meant business. Ever since it was discovered that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, his demeanor in front of the microphone has changed. He's always bumbling and chuckling in between sentences, and he never seems to have a main point anymore. He's using these as his defense mechanisms against the public. He promised an end to terror, and he asked for support in going to war. The majority supported him in going into the war, but after no WMDs and pointless death, the majority was against him. He was on the offensive before the war, but seemed to be on defense afterwards.

12. Why is neuroscience so important in understanding mysticism?


Mysticism refers to the altered states of consciousness and the believed connection with the paranormal. The paranormal doesn't necessarily mean aliens or creatures like that; but connections with God, other religious figures and people, or even places. Mysticism has been known to be attained by praying, meditating, or taking psychotropic drugs. Each of which involves different states of consciousness which is directly related to the person's state of mind - their brain. By researching what parts of the brain are most active during particular moments of the session, neuroscientists are able to see if there's a connection between these altered states and the physiology of our brain. In his book Rational Mysticism, John Horgan writes about several different mystics, their beliefs, and research on the connections of mysticism and the locations in the brain. Horgan mentions Saint Teresa who wrote about her many physical experiences with God. In 1644, the Baroque artist Gianlorenzo Bernini even created a sculpture of Teresa in the middle of an experience (http://art.terra.net.ua/icons/style/bernini.jpg). Her descriptions of her experiences and other known facts about Teresa point to the possibility that she had Epilepsy. Neuroscientists have since linked epileptic seizures to the temporal lobe, and the psychologist Michael Persinger has gone as far as to create what people call "The God Machine." The machine surrounds one's scalp and sends little electric shocks into the temporal lobes which should then trigger visions or voices. Other neuroscientists have been able to link other parts of the brain such as the parietal lobe with the sense of unity felt by mystics. This is all very important because instead of accrediting mysticism with the paranormal, we are able to witness and explain these accounts materialistically.

13. How would a skeptic critique religion in general?

Religions are first and foremost created by man, and therefore have the ability to be wrong. Even if somehow a devine god came and provided his words to be written down - man still wrote it down. And unlike science, religions lack the ability to be changed because it would be making changes to what the all-knowing god originally said. Science is a self-correcting and self-updating process where new findings replace the old. Religions won't allow their beliefs systems to be wrong, and that's why they are against being challenged or investigated. Religions can stir hatred and have been known to lead to many wars. Another problem with religion is that there are too many of them. When I used to be Catholic, the Church would argue that although the different religions hold different belief systems, they all worship the same god. But if this were true, then why are there so many different belief systems? If god told one group of people to believe one thing, why would he tell the others to believe something different? If these people were really worshiping the same god, they'd all be practicing their faith in the same way too. Another thing is that all over the world there are different religions. In ancient Greece, there were Zeus and all of the other gods. In Native American tribes, there's a god for the sky, the land, the water, etc. Ancient Egypt also had many gods. In India, there are many Avataras. And then there's Christianity with Roman Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many more. In his book The God Gene, Dean H. Hamer writes about the human brain's instinctive need and desire to accredit things to a higher being. This would explain how so many different religions pop up all over the timeline and globe. I too think that religion is something humans create in order to understand the world around them. But with modern science there's no need for this. Religion creates a false representation of the world. Religion provides that the world was created in six literal days, a chosen few posses spiritual powers, and the laws of nature don't necessarily apply. Instead of the earth's plates shifting and causing an earthquake, it's the angry earth god. Richard Dawkins once said that: "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

14. GIVE ME A LINK TO YOUR CHOSEN RESEARCH TOPIC OR PASTE IT HERE.

http://mrninjaturtle.tripod.com/my_research_on_wicca/

15. Provide a 500 word essay describing how Carl Sagan thinks CRITICALLY. Be specific.

I was only able to get about half way into his book, but I was able to get a good taste of how he writes and forms his arguments. I think he's the best author of the three because of his style in how he approached his topics. For example in his third chapter, he writes about the Moon, Mars, and the human instinct to see faces in things. He didn't approach the subject with a presupposition like Gardener did. He looked at all of the possibilities and used his arguments in a clever manner so that the reader can see for themselves what they are supposed to see. So far, my favorite line is: "Even when summarized so badly, isn't there a kind of thrill in contemplating these claims? [...] Whose interest can fail to be aroused? Immersed in such material, even the crasset cynic is stirred" (45). He's referring to claims of life on other planets, and even though he's one of those skeptical scientists, he still feels that there's an exciting possibility. It's almost like he's saying "wouldn't it be awesome - but it just so happens that there's no proof." I think this is a great quality in his logic and reasoning because he's not blinded to one side. Sure he thinks it would be cool to find evidence of life out there, but he sticks to his findings. He also uses a lot of questions in his writing - some rhetorical and some earnest. It shows that he's thinking and he's getting the reader to think too. By opening up other possibilities with his questions he's not locked in telling his side of the story and nothing else. I would say that this technique of using questions was key to his book. Here's a good example of some of his thinking questions: "Why do they believe these witnesses but not those who reported, with comparable conviction, encounters with gods, demons, saints, angels, and fairies? And what about those who hear irresistible commands from a voice within? Are all deeply felt stories true?" (153). Instead of just laying out the facts, he provides some abstract thinking to help find some conclusions that might appear in the empirical world.

16. Use 3 different chapters of Martin Gardener's (as found in his book, DID ADAM AND EVE HAVE NAVELS?, and see if you can find any FLAWS in Gardener's ideas or conclusions. Be sure to substantiate your answer. This question is KEY to your test so concentrate on it.

The main problem I had with Gardener's book was that he attacked a topic while already having labeled it as crazy. It just makes his reasoning sound much more biased than it has to. When he was talking about reflexology, urine therapy, and even the egg balancing thing, he approached each as if they were preposterous even before he was able to argue his points. What I would have liked to have seen - like when he's talking about reflexology and urine therapy - was his reasoning behind why the supposed cures shouldn't work. All Gardner was able to do was list a bunch of information on them, call them stupid, and move on. But what about the people that it did work on? How did it work? Why? By saying that it shouldn't happen doesn't explain how it could have.

Also, in the cannibalism chapter, he thoroughly examines all of the angles and he quotes anthropologists who've come to different conclusions, but he never makes a conclusion for himself. While there is strong evidence on both sides, he should have at least added his opinion as to whether cannibalism was a myth or not.

He's so quick to pick a side when it comes to odd medical beliefs (as opposed to a respected sciences like anthropology), without finding out why or how it works with some people. Martha Christy managed to somehow overcome her ailments after drinking her urine. Why and how did it work? The placebo effect couldn't have possibly been that powerful. Instead of addressing this, Gardener just lists her claims (and other people's throughout the book) as ridiculous without actually saying it. He lets them ramble on and on, and when they say something that sounds completely stupid, he focuses on that and uses it to discredit all previous information.

And like with that egg balancing lady (Donna Henes), he never went into how she was able to balance the egg, he only focused on how she believed the eggs did it on the equinox. He did a good job debunking her idea of why the eggs balanced by mentioning ancient China and how they claimed it worked a month earlier than Henes' equinox date. So the date wasn't a factor. So how did she do it? Well Gardener talks about the different conditions that would allow an egg to balance, but how does he know that those conditions applied to Henes? After reading this chapter, I grabbed an egg and couldn't get it to balance. And it wasn't because I was skeptical about it - I really wanted to see it balance. This was another argument posed by Gardener: that since she believed they would balance on the equinox, she tried harder and was able to do it. Well I tried and believed that if she could do it, so could I, but I failed.

His habit of focusing on a person's stupid beliefs in order to discredit their other thoughts ran rampant throughout the book. Any chapter with a person's name (with the exception of "Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax" and "The Religious Views of Stephen Jay Gould and Darwin") in the title was an example of this. In the Phillip Johnson and Freud chapters, he looked at their ideas the same way he did the others, but in both cases, science had proven them wrong. He didn't have to focus on their contradictions, but he still included them. In the Edison and Newton chapters, he wasn't using their paranormal beliefs to discredit their great achievements; I think he did it because he was exposing everyone else, and he would be wrong to leave out other people who held outrageous beliefs too.

17. Why does Shermer argue so passionately in Science Friction on behalf of science? Give three examples from the book where science explains what is perceived to be an inexplicable phenomenon. Finally, point out any flaws in Shermer's reasoning, if possible.

Shermer argues that in the land of uncertainty, "where the known meets the unknown," science is the best tool in determining which is which. Science is the self-correcting and self-updating field where empirical observation and research can achieve logical conclusions. There isn't a better system in determining what's real or not - fact or myth. And science works. By repeating studies and experiments, we are able to confirm scientific findings. No other method has these capabilities.

Shermer's first chapter uses a simple experiment to show that the psychic phenomenon is nothing more than lucky guesses and playing off of the person's appearance, reactions, and gullibility. With only a day of preparation, Shermer was able to convince a few people that he had psychic powers. He confesses that he doesn't posses these powers and that he was only using the techniques provided to him by Ian Rowland's book The Full Facts Book of Cold Readings. By being able to fool these people and perform convincing readings, he's able to show that there's no phenomena behind it. How are Shermer and the psychics able to do it? They just reinforce the hits (lucky guesses) and ignore the misses. The people, so amazed with the hits, forget about the misses.

Another instance where science explains a phenomenon, is in the "Psyched Up, Psyched Out" chapter. Statisticians studied the "hot streaks" of professional athletes and found that "nothing happens beyond what probability says should happen" (98). I found this section to be most pertinent to Americans because just about everyone has played sports and a lot of people watch sports - and just about all of these people, including myself before reading this, think that "hot streaks" are real. The athlete's performance percentage is directly related to how often these "streaks" appear. Shermer mentioned an example with coins. Their performance percentage is 50%, but there are bound to be times where there are five heads or tails in a row. The previous event doesn't effect the next one. Same with a basketball player's shooting. Just because he made the last one doesn't mean he's going to make the next. And if it happens that he's sunk six in a row - statistically he should eventually.

In Shermer's "The New New Creationism" chapter, he's able to take ten arguments in favor of Intelligent Design creationism, and refute them with ten scientific arguments against it. This was my favorite chapter because he was able to use science and logic to refute the arguments of IDers. Needless to say, it struck a chord with me. The strongest ID argument was their idea of "Irreducible Complexity." However, Shermer was able to argue that they eye could have worked its way up to its present state. He states that different eye conditions are the result of non-functioning parts in the eye, but the person is still able to see. The eye is still able to see without one or more of its parts functioning properly. Shermer argues, "For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye backward and upside down? This 'design' makes sense only if natural selection built eyes [...]" (185). Another argument against the IDers is that the wing would not have been "bad" or "non-functional" as a half a wing, but it would have been working and functional as something else along the evolutionary path. The last reputable argument of the IDers had was that of the bacterial flagellum. But science is able to show that there are simple and more complex flagellum living and swimming around.

The only flaw in Shermer's reasoning could be that he's probably a little too skeptical of everything.

18. What grade do you deserve and why?

Well, other than the fact that I wasn't able to finish Sagan's book, I thought I did quite well in this class. I got an 'A' on the midterm. So if I average the B+ (for not finishing Sagan) with my A, that would still put me within "A" range.