Does Philosophy Really Exist?

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

2005-06-30T23:14:00.000-07:00

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.

5 Good and Bad Slang Memes

2005-06-29T14:29:00.000-07:00

GOOD
a-ight blah
shah
whomsay
geenie
yasm

BAD
dim
shal
flam
muck
whicked

Reply to someone who Replied to my Argument

2005-06-28T11:47:00.000-07:00

Date: Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:43 am Subject: Re: Argument

#1 - I had to post in this group for a philosophy class.

#2 - In the early days of humans, our average life expectancy was 20-30 years. It hasn't been until recently that we've discovered that eating a lot of red meat will lead to heart disease/cancer.

#3 - I didn't say that it was obvious that we need meat. I said, "It is obvious that meat is a part of our evolutionary history (look at canines and the difficulty of our stomach enzymes in breaking down cellulose), but it's becoming clearer everyday that we can still live without it." Read and comprehend before you attack.

#4 - I said, "Meat provides humans with the essential nutrients and amino acids that our bodies are unable to make by themselves."You replied, "You do not have any background or knowledge." I'm a biology/neuroscience major - take a class and you'll learn for yourself. This reminds me of something I said in my original post and in #3 - cellulose isn't what you see on women's thighs, it's a complex carbohydrate in the cell wall of most plants. Our bodies have difficulty breaking down these walls. This is why if you don't chew your corn, you can see it in your shit.

#5 - You said, "We don't need supplements." I never said you did. I have many vegan/vegetarian friends who take these vitamins in orderto achieve their body's essential nutrients. My girlfriend is vegan and I witness this all the time. The supplements aren't necessary -but my vegan buddies argue that it's much easier.

#6 - I said, "I'm too culturally locked into appreciating and enjoying meat." You replied, "you enjoy support the pain and suffering of other animals." Yes. Yes, of course I take personal pleasure in the murder of animals. It brings a smile to my face and a glimmer to my eye everytime I eat. I shouldn't have to point out that this is sarcasm, but I'm not too sure about you.

I was talking about culture. It is estimated that about 97% ofAmericans aren't vegetarian. An estimated 75% of the US believes in God. It's culture. I understand that the industrialization of meat is a horrible thing. I'm not too proud of how we obtain our meat. I said in my original post that I'd like to try the vegetarian thing. But so far in my life, there's been no need. I'd always been surrounded by meat, so I ate it.

#7 - You said, "Instead, learn and you might add years to your life." I'm not claiming to know all there is, but I'm comfortable enough in what I do know. If I were to become vegetarian, it wouldn't be to add years to my life. By the time I'm 80 and close to death, a few years aren't going to make a difference to me (maybe to other people it will). I'd rather enjoy life and everything in it before I waste away. If that means eating meat, then I'll eat meat. I don't eat a lot of red meat anyways, so heart disease and cancer shouldn't be a problem there.

Look man, I didn't come to this group to piss anyone off. I wanted to post a vague argument to fulfill my class assignment. I wasn't expecting you to flip out and attack my post. Being closed-minded is the first sign of ignorance. Listen to other people, and respect their opinions. Like I said before, read and comprehend before you attack. This should be a group with civil conversations regarding the pros and cons of the issue. You didn't have to stereotype me as some bumbling, meat-eating buffoon. Because in doing so, I've now stereotyped you as - well, I'd rather not say.

--- In vegans2@yahoogroups.com, Bob C wrote:>> It is not obvious we need meat. Any study of structural anatomytells us> that. And every longevity study ties meat in with heart diseasean> cancer. Why are you posting in this group?> ..wrote:>> > I completely respect those who are able to give up meatentirely. I> > don't believe they are weird; in fact, I admire them.> >> > But...> >> > Meat provides humans with the essential nutrients and amino acids> > that our bodies are unable to make by themselves.>>> You do not have any background or knowledge.>> >> > It is obvious that meat is a part of our evolutionary history(look> > at canines and the difficulty of our stomach enzymes in breaking> > down cellulose), but it's becoming clearer everyday that we can> > still live without it.> >> > With our currect technology and vitamin supplement capabilities> > we're able to say "bye-bye" to meat. So why don't we?> >> we don't need supplements.>> > I'm too culturally locked into appreciating and enjoying meat.>> you enjoy support the pain and suffering of other animals.>> > I> > would need to gather all of the replacement foods and try tofigure> > out if I could enjoy eating that way forever. Maybe I should dothat> > this summer and see if I can handle it.> >>> Instead, learn and you might add years to your life.>

Argument posted in Vegan Club

2005-06-27T20:16:00.000-07:00

Date: Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:16 pm Subject: Argument

I completely respect those who are able to give up meat entirely. I don't believe they are weird; in fact, I admire them.

But...

Meat provides humans with the essential nutrients and amino acids that our bodies are unable to make by themselves.

It is obvious that meat is a part of our evolutionary history (look at canines and the difficulty of our stomach enzymes in breaking down cellulose), but it's becoming clearer everyday that we can still live without it.

With our currect technology and vitamin supplement capabilities we're able to say "bye-bye" to meat. So why don't we?

I'm too culturally locked into appreciating and enjoying meat. I would need to gather all of the replacement foods and try to figure out if I could enjoy eating that way forever. Maybe I should do that this summer and see if I can handle it.

Gentle Godlessness

2005-06-27T19:52:00.000-07:00

Date: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:56 pm Subject: Gentle Godlessness

Maybe I missed something or read O'Brien too quickly, but I didnt like it. It seemed like his major audience was the religious people, and since I'm not religious, it didnt grab me as such. I can see the religous reading it because it is sensitive to their beliefs and includes reasons for and against believing in God. 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 againsts without the counters attatched. Once again, I could have missed the bigger, better picture.

Why I Don't Eat Faces

2005-06-27T19:46:00.000-07:00

Date: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:39 pm Subject: Why i don't eat faces

I took a break from reading this essay to eat a steak. I wasn't able to enjoy the steak as much because of the neuro-ethical argument Lane provided. Some animal died just so that I could enjoy its flesh. It was grown for that sole purpose. This is a difficult subject for me because I can go back and forth on the topic. I understand the moral wrong-doing and would like to separate myself from participating. But I also think that meat eating is a part of who we are as humans - this may be culturally enforced as Lane mentions in his essay. I disagree with the industrialization of meat, and should become a veggie because of it. Maybe I need to witness the meat process in order to fully realize the horror of it all.

Pretext, text, context

2005-06-27T19:44:00.000-07:00

Date: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:17 pm Subject: pretext, text, context

very thought provoking. the simple analogy of letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, book, and setting that one reads the book. when related to the world, or consciousness, the only pretext without reducing too far is the brain. this could be another good argument toward Crick's astonishing hypothesis. so why not the spirit? because no one knows what the spirit is. you can't just stop at the spirit, and you can't start with it either. it can't be at the top or the bottom of this pretext, text, context laddar. it can't be in the middle either because there's no known relation to the top or bottom. i dont believe in a spirit, or spirits, or whatever anyways. so as far as the spirit is concerned, god/satan can keep my soul because i can't find it anyways. this could also be a useful critical thinking tool similar to occam's razor or others mention in the writing. i know i'm going to start looking at the world in terms of p, t, c.

Quantum Mechanics

2005-06-27T19:43:00.000-07:00

Date: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:24 pm Subject: quantum mechanics

Quantum mechanics is crazy. Everytime I read about it I understand and can see the logic behind it. But everytime I'm reading about it, I'm reading something completely different than before. There are so many different and confusing angles to QM that if anyone asked me to explain it I wouldn't know how. Like Einstein argued, there's something missing. QM isn't complete. There are too many holes and gaps in it. I could prove that myself is not myself but really myself in another dimension. Retarded.

Astonishing Hypothesis

2005-06-27T19:40:00.000-07:00

Date: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:19 pm Subject: astonishing hypothesis

i would like to argue that humans are more than just neurons firing, that we have a soul, that we have meaning, but i can't. i can't believe in a soul because i see it as something spiritual. Crick uses the material world to find answers, and i think everyone should do the same. maybe our consciousness is a bunch of neurons firing and maybe it's not. we won't know until further reasearch is conducted. i thought all of Crick's thinking and Lane's explanations were very insightful. i'm not so sure about the location of free will in the brain though. everyone's always trying to locate everything in the brain. but if we're looking at this materialistically, should "freewill" even be considered as part of our brain? because free will is something god supposedly gave us. shouldn't we call it our decision making part of our brain or something like that? i dont know, i'm not a research scientist yet. call me in five years.

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

2005-06-14T13:13:00.000-07:00

NAME: ..
USERNAME: Mrninjaturtle
WEB ADDRESS: http://mrninjaturtle.tripod.com/

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 midterm. 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 a skeptic explain the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba? How would a believer in Sai Baba argue against such skepticism (this may necessitate doing web based research).

A skeptic would emperically study the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba in order to explain them. These miracles include creating or materializing something (like a necklace or ring), which is physically impossible according to the laws that we presently know of. So a skeptic would study him to find evidence of his "miracles". That skeptic might see Sai Baba live or come accross video of him - like the video of him by the Korean documentary team (http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/saivideo1.html and http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/saivideo2.html ). The skeptic could then see how Sai Baba performs his miracles - by sleight of hand!

Believers in Sai Baba actually believe that he is God. Since God can do ANYTHING and is all-knowing and all-powerful, a little miracle like creating a necklace or ring is a small example of evidence of his apparent powers. If he can pull jewelry out of thin air, he must be God. These believers might argue that such skeptics have been created by God (Sai) in order to test their faith. Since God knows everything about everyone, Sai was willing to expose himself to such skeptics and cameras in order to really test the faith of his devotees. Sai knew they would be there and knew they would see what he wanted them to see. They might argue that it wasn't really a slieght of hand trick, but a double miracle - one was pulling the jewelry out of thin air, and the other was creating the false accusations in order to test his believers.

3. Why does Dawkins argue that religions are akin to viruses? How would a Biblical Christian argue against Dawkins' theory? Again, web based research may be necessitated. Be specific.

Dawkins writes, "Think about the two qualities that a virus, or any sort of parasitic replicator, demands of a friendly medium,. the two qualities that make cellular machinery so friendly towards parasitic DNA, and that make computers so friendly towards computer viruses. These qualities are, firstly, a readiness to replicate information accurately, perhaps with some mistakes that are subsequently reproduced accurately; and, secondly, a readiness to obey instructions encoded in the information so replicated." These two qualities exist in young people as they are absorbing the world around them. When a child is learning (not necessarily going to school, but learning), they are very impressionable. They believe what their parents tell them as true. Whether this be Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or God, the child believes what their parents say. This isn't limmitted to just the parents, children trust all authority figures. The child becomes influenced by whichever religion the parents are. Some (Catholic) babies are baptized only months after their birth. They accept the religion as their own, and create a bias against all others, because what their parents say is true. The child will grow up with the teachings and will soon pass them on to their children. The virus will be replicated through the generations. Religions are the viruses of the mind because once it's inside, it's difficult to kill. We are infected early, and as we grow up we defend our religion against criticism and deny any claims against it. It is very rare for someone to have a different religion than that of their parents.

A Biblical Christian might argue that Dawkins is full of himself (and possibly the devil). To them, every soul enters this world with original sin and free will. Religions are not forced upon children. It is their free will as God's children to make the decision of which church to follow. It just so happens that the kids often choose the right one (the one the parents belong to). But what about the people who are not Biblical Christians? Well, God's plan is different for everyone.

4. In light of Memetics, how would you explain the popularity of the Bible?

www.memecentral.com defines a meme as "the basic building blocks of our minds and culture, in the same way that genes are the basic building blocks of biological life." From an evolutionary standpoint, the Bible meme has been very successful. Christians use the Bible in their teachings and prayers. The Bible provides a basic building block for a healthy culture. The Ten Commandments are the moral rules to live by. They keep everyone in society in check, otherwise they go to hell. A lot of the Bible could be considered a scare tactic in order to keep the masses in line, but it works. And generation after generation keep accepting and embracing the traditions. The stories provide the reader with examples of happy, healthy, and holy families. Also, in the Good Book is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (The Blessed Trinity). Humans have the innate desire to accredit things to a higher being. The Bible provides the historic account of Jesus and his death in the name of God and all those who follow. So not only was it "proof" that God existed, but there becomes a personal connection with the man who died for their sins. This convincing book of why and how we were created as God's children becomes an essential part of society. If the generation after the previous wanted to be as happy and good natured, they would have to adopt the book too.

5. How would a skeptic "explain" why CREATIONISM is more accepted and popular than evolutionary theory in the USA?

In the early 1600s, when the persecuted Protestants of Europe colonized the Americas, Creationism was a fact. After a hundred plus years, when America won its independence from Britain, the Protestant faith was still massively dominant. It wasn't until Darwin released his book The Origin of Species in 1859 that people really started to question religion. Sure there was the Earth turning round from flat, and from the Earth centered universe to the Sun centered universe. But these two revolutionary ideas had factual, empirical scientific evidence to support them. Darwin had natural selection, which was a good theory, but not enough for Creationists. There were a good 250 years between predominant Protestant beliefs and Darwin, which would have provided quite a few generations of procreation and teachings of Creationism. That's a massive majority of people in the United States believing in Creationism. There weren't that many educated people at that time; the majority of the people were either middle class or working class people. As the years grew closer to 2000 and as the evidence kept piling up in favor of evolution, more people began to accept it. The small population of evolutionists is nothing compared to the huge population of Creationists. Throughout history, and even today, there is a significant amount of people who would rather ignore science, believe in Creationism, and go to heaven. People don't like to be wrong, they don't like their beliefs challenged, and they don't want to hear some mumbo-jumbo about humans evolving from monkeys. Most of those people probably couldn't tell the different between an ape and a monkey, let alone the contradictions of the Bible teachings. For the most part, people are stupid - and they seem to be happy that way.

6. What is Faqir Chand's most significant revelation concerning religious visions? How would a believer critique Faqir's revelations? Again, web-based research may be needed.

Faqir Chand once said, "People say that my Form manifests to them and helps them in solving their worldly as well as mental problems, but I do not go anywhere, nor do I know anything about such miraculous instances. O' Man, your real helper, is your own Self and your own Faith, but you are badly mistaken and believe that somebody from without comes to help you. No Hazrat Mohammed, no Lord Rama, Lord Krishna, or any other Goddess or God comes from without. This entire game is that of your impressions and suggestions which are ingrained upon your mind through your eyes and ears and of your Faith and Belief." (http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/prophecy/himalay.htm).

What Faquir is saying is that the visions of religious figures come from the individual with the visions. It is not the religious figure creating the vision, because he can attest to it. It is their self and faith that create the visions in time of need. Their desire to see such religious people turns into visions that they create subconsciously, and possibly consciously.

A believer in Faqir wouldn't accept his revelations. They might just think he's being modest or something like that. But since they were the ones who underwent the transformative experience, they are unable to accept Faqir's explanations. They saw him (or some other religious hero) with their own eyes and heard him with their own ears. As far as they are concerned, it happened. They can't dismiss what they saw.

7. How did Lane relate Faqir Chand's philosophy with UFOs? Why is Lane's correlation incomplete? What is the ultimate argument behind the film, THE SECRET OF FAQIR?

Faqir Chand had the philosophy that the guru didn't really do anything. "No Guru comes from without." People following the gurus had the common misconception that the gurus appeared to them in visions. Some approached Faqir and told him of their visions of him and his advice to them. He simply stated that he did not do such things. He would wonder who was appearing inside of them. He came to the conclusion that it was their "impressions and suggestions which are ingrained upon [their] mind through [their] eyes and ears and of [their] Faith and Belief"

This is similar to that of the sightings of UFOs. There is no scientific evidence that UFOs or ETs really exist, yet millions of people claim they see UFOs. So far, it can only be concluded that it is in their wonder, their imagination, and their belief that they see these objects. Most of the reported sightings can be examined and figured out that it was simply a natural phenomena, not visitors from outside our solar system.

In both instances, religious visions and UFO sightings, the people who see these things are not convinced otherwise. They saw with their eyes and ears what they saw and to them it's true.

I think Lane's correlation between Faqir Chand's philosophy of religious visions and UFO sightings is incomplete. There is a lack of evidence surrounding UFOs to declare whether they exist or not. Faqir is able to argue that he had nothing to do with the visions of himself. Faqir had visions of his own and accredit those to his beliefs and faith. He knows that these visions come from within the person. "No Guru comes from without," which is the ultimate argument behind the film The Secret of Faqir. It is not the Guru, not Rama, not Krishna, not any religious figure that appears to the person; it is the person's faith and belief that appears to them in the shape of these leaders. In the case of UFOs, most of the time there are scientific explanations for what the person saw in the sky. But for the scientifically unexplained instances, the sightings are still open. Sure they could once again be the person's imagination and belief in them, but it is still unknown.

8. What is the major problem with connecting quantum mechanics with the paranormal? Be specific.

Quantum mechanics is very complex, confusing, and doesn't really make much sense. Einstein didn't like it because the data isn't deterministic, it's probablistic. With quantum mechanics comes many theories. One of which is the possibility of tunneling - "a different movement through time and space: the ability to pass through barriers by other than normal means." In other words, by paranormal means. Rosemary Ellen Guiley writes, "Tunneling is demonstrated by the proven wave action of electron particles. For example, if you put an electron in a box, classical physics says it will stay there. Quantum physics says that the electron can mysteriously find itself outside the box by a phenomena known as tunneling. This is the principle behind quantum leaps." This "logic" allows people to create evidence for something that has no real scientific evidence. Just because quantum mechanics says something can "mysteriously" happen doesnt mean that it really will. Along with this mysterious evidence in quantum mechanics comes many other crackpot paranormal claims like UFO abductions, ghosts, mysterious disappearances, and even invisibility. Quantum mechanics is so open to possibility that I might even be able to use it to prove that we humans really are trapped in a Matrix world run by machines.

9. Who won the Lane/Caldwell paranormal debate and why? (no need to brown nose here; just explain the strengths/weaknesses in the debate).

In regards to the paranormal, and having skepticism produce more rational arguments than the other - Lane wins.

Lane wanted to get down to the nitty-gritty. Show me the thousand year old man or it's bullshit. If out of body experiences can be real in the physical world then let's do the five digit test. His approach was the classic skeptical philosophy of "show me some evidence."

Caldwell kept avoiding the issues at hand. He kept bringing up old writings of Lane to try to contradict him, while the entire time Lane is explaining repetitively that he's become more skeptical over the years. Caldwell never answers any of Lane's questions directly. It took a while, but Caldwell finally addressed the original question - whether or not Babaji (the 1000 year old man) could exist. And he answered with, "For all I know, Babaji doesn't even exist." Which was what Lane was arguing all along. Score for Lane. In later posts, Caldwell continuously tries to attack Lane for the only type of evidence Lane will accept as true (a TV appearance by Babaji). Lane continues to repeatedly reply that it would be cool and groovy (haha, so many Austin Powers references from Lane) to just meet Babaji and see him for himself instead of relying on historical accounts as evidence. Caldwell argues that the historical accounts and eye witnesses are proof enough. Lane says he understands and is all for history, but it's not acceptable enough as proof for these miracles. There must be emperical evidence, not the word of a believer.

Caldwell did come up with one good zinger though: "I personally would accept Babaji's appeareance in my living room with Michelle and me as witnesses. This would not be scientific evidence; but good enough for me. Of course, those who were not present would probably be skeptical of such a "story". But since Babaji probably won't be appearing to me, --- either I can just set aside all of the "stories" about him and do something more productive or else I can approach the "stories" from a historical point of view and see if I can come to any tentative conclusions." He's making a good point reguarding what Lane would require as good enough evidence. If Babaji did show up at Caldwell's house and it was the kind of proof Lane wanted, just not viewed by Lane. Since it was not viewable by Lane it would still only be considered another story according to Lane. At least that's what Caldwell is trying to say. Even though this was a good retort - it was his only one compared to the many that Lane provided.

10. KEY QUESTION: What is the most "non" rational thing you believein and why. Now critique this belief in light of the critical thinking guide provided during the second week. If you have sufficiently critiqued your idea (and we need to see evidence of that), then the follow-up question that needs to be answered is this: Why do you still believe in it?

It is difficult to phrase the most "non" rational thing I believe in. At a restaurant or fast food place, I have to use a napkin from the middle of the stack. I believe that it is the cleanest and therefore the best napkin to use. I'm not a germophobe, and I've never been diagnosed with OCD because the symptoms I express have never really disrupted my life in a significant enough way. But I can't use the top napkin because the person who pulled the one on top of that one may have touched it, plus it has been sitting there exposed to all the dust and dirt in the air. I most definately can't use the bottom one because it's touching the table and who knows what's been there. I would rather use one from the middle that hasn't been exposed yet. My friends laugh at me because what I do is stupid and irrational.

I will now use the FiLCHeRS guide to test whether or not my belief that the top napkin is dirty and the middle ones are clean is true:

Falsifiability - my "true" claim is that the top napkin is dirty. It can be falsified in finding that the napkin is, in fact, clean.

Logic - All top napkins are dirty; this napkin is the top napkin; therefore this napkin is dirty. According to this guide, my argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise isn't necessarily true without an emperical study to show that top napkins are, in fact, dirty.

So, I guess I would stop here in the guide since I didn't pass the logic test. The next step would have been Comprehensiveness which would have shown all of the evidence and would have really been able to determine if the napkin was actually dirty.

So now that I've proved that my belief is irrational, why do I still believe in it? Well, because it calms any anxieties I might have. It makes me feel better and more comfortable. Sometimes irrational thinking can make a person feel better about something, even though it's stupid.

11. What is the skeptic's manifesto and how does it relate to critical thinking in every day life?

The Skeptic's Manifesto is about skepticism - a different way of thinking. Skeptics believe in evidence. They are rational scientists who use the scientific method to test and research a claim's validity and credulity. If something is lacking in supportive evidence or shows enough evidence against it, it is rejected and considered false. This kind of thinking should be practiced everyday to all things. This is relative to critical thinking in every day life because a skeptic is not going to simply accept every idea thrown at them. "It's going to rain tomorrow" the weather man says. A skeptic's reply is, "Show me proof. Show me a weather map with today's leading technology. Show me the cold fronts, the warm fronts, the pressure variations, etc. Prove to me that by what you show me and by what science already knows about the weather, that it will rain tomorrow." Or how about "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" A critical thinking skeptic could look up at the sky and see for himself that the sky isn't falling. There has to be some other explanation for the hysteria. He could figure out that everyone is chanting "the sky is falling" so that chant must have come from someone originally yelling it. He could notice a large man laying on the side walk with a good samaratian woman saying "this guy fell." He could ask her, "When he fell, did you yell out 'This guy is falling'?" She nods her head, and he realizes that it was just phonetics. The people mistook her "This guy is falling" for "The sky is falling."

12. How would a skeptic explain experiences of synchronicity? How would he critique the idea of reincarnation and karma (think Hume)? You may have to do some research on this one.

Synchronicity is about meaningful coincidences. These coincidences supposedly defy ordinary probabilities. It's like two guys laughing and talking about their girlfriends' bad habbits, and one of the girlfriends calls. So they are like "Oh shit, she caught us," when all she wanted to do was talk to her boyfriend. Well of course guys are going to talk about their girlfriends, and of course girlfriend are going to call their boyfriends. Statistically, this event should occur eventually. But since we're human, we find meaning and importance in this event and accedit it to something else - the paranormal perhaps. But in reality, all it is is a coincidence, and we as humans add the meaning to it and create what Carl Jung defined as synchronicity.

The idea of reincarnation is that when someone dies, their immortal soul transfers into a new body. This could be people moving into people; people moving into animals; or animals moving into people. This is a purely spiritual claim with no scientific evidence. The entire thing is in the imagination and belief system of those who claim it to be true. For example, take a married couple with the wife being pregnant. Let's say that in the last month of her pregnancy the father is killed. When the baby is born, she believes that a part of her husband is in the baby (if we were talking about DNA, it would be true). But it is more comforting to her to believe that her husband's soul is still with her and in the body of the new born baby. It is easier to cope with the loss of a loved one if there is the possibility that they are still around. The same goes for people who are about to die. It is more comforting to think that their soul is going to be reincarnated into something else. In a sense, it provides the idea that we're immortal. Since I don't believe in reincarnation and there is no proof in support of the claim, as a skeptic I would have to denounce reincarnation as false.

The idea of karma is that everyone gets what's coming to them. You are in a spiritual debt to someone for doing something. This can be good or bad. If you do something good, there is a debt that must be repaid to you in the form of something good. If you do something bad, there is debt that must be repaid to you in the form of something bad. This is rediculous. Good and bad things are going to happen to everyone no matter what. People who do more bad than good don't necessarily recieve more bad things in return. A great example would be war. Both sides are fighting and killing the other. Since killing is bad, should those servicemen be punished? Of course not. And what about the sweetest, kindest person in the world who has the worst things happen to him? According to the rules of karma, what did this guy do to deserve all that?

13. Among all the posts on the Sikh Issue, whose did you find more persuasive and why? Be sure to copy that post here.

I felt that this was the most persuasive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/occamsrazor/message/7468
From: "mhvoodoo"
Date: Tue May 31, 2005 9:52 pm Subject: That Scamming Sikh!
First off, this apparent "miracle" that the mysterious Sikh manperformed is nothing special. A random man from a large shoppingcircle like New Delhi is probably a random theft. Knowing thieves,they're very clever and quick. The Sikh which is probably anotherthief who just happen to steal this American's wallet. Within thewallet theres likely to be a picture of the American's family andpictures usually have some kind of writing on the back stating when itwas taken, where it was taken, and who was in it. After looking atthese information, the Sikh man, in an attempt to earn some moremoney, offers the American $10 in order for him to tell the americanthe names of his sister and his mother.Secondly, out of personal experience, a apparent foreigner in acountry will most likely to be the prime target for scammers. I'vebeen back to Vietnam once ever since I came here in 1993. When I wentback there to visit, people were trying to scam me for my money leftand right. Being from another country, you dress different, you talkdifferent, and what makes you the prime target for scams is; you don'tknow much of the surrounding society-- gullible in other words. Irecall this one time when I went out to buy a vietnamese sandwich fromthis cart on the streets. Its an wierd Vietnamese thing to not post amenu with prices or anything, they expect the customers to know theregular going price. Not knowing anything about the regular prices, Ipurchased a sandwich and when the cashier told me the price I was abit skeptical. I can't recall what the exact price was or how much theperson tried to scam from me. Fortunately, I went with a cousin, whomI was staying with, come with me and she was able to set the pricestraight otherwise that cashier would've gotten away with a junk of mymoney. END OF POST.

Right away, it seemed to me that this psychic performance had to be some sort of scam. My post mentioned the sikh coming accross the American's mail to find the names of his sister and mother. I never thought about a pick-pocketer as one of the possibilities. It makes sense - a busy market place with a lot of people walking around. The sikh could have picked the wallet and even investigated right in front of the American without the American realizing. In a crowd, you don't really pay too much attention to everyone around you. People blend in with other people. A quick scam like this every few minutes could be quite profitable. Here is another point: the sikh wouldn't keep the wallet. Why? Because he'd only manage a few scores a day, and only a few days a week before the authorities caught on to all of the wallets missing in that market square. It would be easier and safer to just return the wallet and offer a few "psychic" facts in exchange for a few bucks. The American's wallet is back in his pocket and there is no suspicion of foul play. The American said that no person knew both his sister's and mother's name, and how else would the sikh know how to write out and spell the names correctly without seeing them for himself.

14. How would a skeptic analyze the Iraq/USA war? Be sure to support your answers.

A skeptic would analyze the Iraq/USA war for what it was - unjustified. It all started with Sept. 11, 2001. Some people don't think that 9/11 is related to or is a reason for war with Iraq. It is indirectly both. When the US was attacked in 2001, they were attacked by a terrorist group. Evidence pointed to Al Queda. The leader of that group was Osama Bin Laden. President Bush swore to the people that he would protect America, fight terror, and catch Bin Laden. After months and months of no result in finding Bin Laden, while at the same time bombing the shit out of Afghanistan (Bin Laden and Al Queda's home country), the American public began to grow weary of the results. President Bush needed to produce results. The only other "threat" that he could attach was Saddam Hussuein, the dictator of Iraq. For about four to six months, UN inspectors were sent into Iraq to do a routine inpsection of their arsenal. The UN knew from previous experience with Iraq that in the first Gulf War, Hussuein used mustard gas to kill the Kurds. So it was known that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WOMD). As a part of the end of the war, Iraq agreed to destroy their WOMD and they did over the next eight to ten years. When these UN inspectors were not allowed to enter certain areas, Bush took this as a sign that Hussein was hiding something. And what else could he be hiding other than the WOMD from the first Gulf War and possibly even more that they could have constructed. This was enough "evidence" for Bush to convince Congress and the people for war. But it's not enough for the skeptic. A skeptic would need empirical proof, not connections that could be considered circumstancial. Bush gave Hussein a time limit ultimatum - either allow the UN investigators to do their jobs, or prepare for war. This isn't proof of anything. The fact that Hussein didn't allow investigators doesn't necessarily implicate anything. There needed to be cold, hard evidence. This is a war we are talking about, and we can't attack on a whim. After fighting the war and removing Hussein from office, there were no WOMD found. There were remains found which could have been from the long process of removing them from the arsenal of the Gulf War. The evidence and reason for going to war turned out to be false. Now the only reason to remain is to help the people, but the people are attacking the soldiers. They don't want the soldiers there. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, and we shouldn't be there now.

15. How would you critically analyze the issue of gay marriage? What are the arguments pro and con. Take a position but defend it VIA RATIONAL (not emotional) arguments.

Currently, the issue of gay marriage is a legal one. Courts accross the country are making decisions left and right on the legality of gay marraige. Personally, I don't think the United States government has a right to make gay marriage legal or illegal. Anyways, the issue is mainly whether or not gay marraige is right or wrong. Most of the people against it are religious people who believe that marraige should be between a man and a woman. Most of the people for it are obviously gay people, and anyone else with enough compassion and smarts to realize that gay people are people too.

The religious people (or just people in general) who are against it argue a few points:
1) Marraige is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.
2) Marraige is meant for procreation.
3) A gay marraige would be an unhealthy environment for a child.
4) Homosexual sex is unnatural.

The people in favor also argue a few points:
1) Homosexuals are human and deserve equal rights.
2) Marraige is a sign of love and commitment to one another.
3) Marraige can be legal and not necessarily involve religion or a church.

The first argument against GM is a religious argument. Under the Constitution, every citizen has a right to freedom of religion - or lack there of. Also, I was always taught that there was a separation of church and state. Religion can be an argument outside of the law to determine whether they think it's right or wrong, but religion shouldn't be included in the lawmaking decision of whether it is right or wrong. A few people have petitioned and sued to have the word "God" removed from the Pledge of Alligence and other religious symbols and references from many flags and seals. So why allow religion to create an impact on this decision? Even if this argument is being used out of court - one person's god could be the other's devil. Just because one god and one bible say that marraige belongs to a man and a woman, doesn't mean that that god is correct. This is, after all, the same Christian god who claims to have created the world in six literal days; the same book that says it's okay to send your wife or child to be stoned to death for disobedience. Some people against GM also argue that if gays we able to wedd, it would ruin the sanctity of marraige. News Flash: with the extremely high divorce rates among heterosexual marraiges, there is no threat to the "sanctity" of marraige, because they've already ruined it. I remember when my parents got divorced (my dad was one of those hardcore Catholics) and my dad told me that divorce was a sin in the eyes of the church. So if divorce and gay marraige are both sins, why can't they both just co-exist? The heterosexuals have messed up marraige enough with the high divorce rates, that we should let homosexuals have a try and see how well they do.

The next argument against GM is subjective. The act of marraige isn't necessarily meant for procreation. After all, gay people want marraige and they obviously can't procreate together. So from their standpoint, marraige is meant for something else. If marraige does anything for the act of procreation, it merely gives the "go ahead." But many people are having babies without being married. Using the same "logic" we should be making a rule against that as well. Also, many heterosexual people wedd, not necessarily to have children, but because they love each other and want to express their finality to one another (not to mention a few other perks to being married). But what about sterile heterosexuals? Should they not be allowed to wedd because they can't procreate? Of course not, because they're not homosexual! Only the homosexuals who can't procreate should be banned from marraige, duh!

The third argument against GM is lacking in supportive evidence. Modern psychologists have done extensive studies and found that a child living with homosexual parents will be no more negatively affected than with heterosexual parents. In fact, it is quite possible that the child be raised better by homosexuals. Since gays can't procreate, they have to attain a child by other means. Which, if they are willing to go through the trouble and efforts of getting a child, they more than likely going to be very loving and appreciative. With heterosexuals, a child could be an unwanted accident, and could recieve negativity from the parents. Also, recent studies have shown that heterosexuals are more likely than homosexuals to commit child molestation. So which environment would really be the healthier? I'm just trying to make a point that gay parents wouldn't make a worse environment then straight.

The last argument against GM is true. Gay sex isn't natural in the evolutionary sense to preserve the species. But are sexual fettishes and paraphilias natural? In her book Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People, evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden argues that homosexual acts are all around us in nature. We are not the only species to engage in it, so it must be natural to some extent. Neuroscience has been able to show a link between homosexuals and the structure of their brain. It has been found to be that homosexual men have the same size hypothalamus as heterosexual women, which is different from heterosexual men's. The hypothalamus regulates homeostatic mechanisms, sexal urges, emotions, and our biological clock. In his book The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker argues that we are born pre-wired and predisposed to be what we will become in the future. More and more evidence shows that homosexuality is biological, not a social choice. So if these healthy human beings come into this world pre-wired to be gay, doesn't that make them and their actions natural?

If GM were accpeted and made legal, homosexuals would be able to take advantage (in a good way) of the legal bindings and responsibilities entitled to them. For instance, they would be able to make medical decisions on the other's behalf. Without the binding of marraige, that significant other has no voice because they are not related. Issues like these and many others would be resolved if GM were widely accpeted.

16. Did you read Michael Shermer's SCIENCE FRICTION? If so, write a 750 word review, making sure to refer to key sections of the book.

I read Michael Shermer's Science Friction and thoroughly enjoyed it. I liked how he separated his essays/articles in the four sections of the book. This really helped with the flow of the book. His introduction was a fun start with the mysteries being explained by science. The entire book seemed like some huge lecture on skepticism. The first chapter was a good jump into a scientific observation of psychics and their fallacies. It was funny to see him bullshit his way through several different readings with different people. All gave him positive feedback, some more than others. He was able to prove that someone with no psychic abilities and just a little knowledge of the tricks can produce the same results as a supposedly gifted psychic. The next chapter was about the new but odd name for skeptics, "brights". Shermer thought it would be the new "gay" for homosexuals. After several written complaints, he took a few surveys and everyone decided that "brights" was a stupid name for skeptics. The 3rd chapter was about six different heresies of science. This was one of my favorite chapters because it provided convincing evidence in favor of six claims that have always been known to be false. With five of the six heresies I was able to follow and understand the evidence that pointed in the other direction. The "Cancer is an Infectious Disease" part was lame with only circumstantial evidence. The next chapter was kind of a boring story about the author and his skepticism. The beginning was interesting with his debate with another guy over passages in the Bible. I was hoping he'd go more into that, but it went on a tangent. The next chapter was about the anthropology wars. This was a good chapter because I had just taken an anthropology class last semester and I was able to read about a few of the people and events that we learned about in class. I cracked up when I read tha name the natives gave Jacques Lizot - "Bosinawarewa," which translates politely as "Ass Handler" and not so politely as "anus devourer." The chapter talked about the spin-doctoring of science and it's effects. Chapter 6, was about sports psychology and other science in sports. This was a fun chapter that dealt with hot streaks and training methods and other things athletes do to enhance performance, but one can't really determine whether or not it works because there has never been a controlled experiment. I was fascinated with the hot streak myth being debunked. Now every time I watch the news, hear a commentator at a game, or friend discussing sports I can refer to this book and remember that's it's all statistics. The next chapter was a very sad chapter. It was about the author's mother and her fight against cancer. It also talked about several of her experimental treatments and everything they did to try to save her. I almost cried. Chapter 8 was about the story of the Bounty, which I had never heard of before. It was interesting to see how many variations and different angles people could come up with to tell the same story. I think one of the movies attempted a homosexual angle at why the two sea men didn't get along. It's always good to get more of the background to the story instead of just the climax. The next chapter was about history in general and the repetitive movements, hysterias, panics, and chaos. Chapter 10 was an awesome look at the "What If?"s of history. It's fun to try to see what might have happened, what could have happened, and what might have been. I especially liked the "What if Neanderthals won and We Lost?". We would still be living in a stone age culture. While they were physically fit to survive, they probably weren't culturally fit to reproduce and survive - so they went extinct. Chapter 11 was my favorite chapter because it talked about Intelligent Design Theory and the counter-arguments to it. I have always wanted to know what ID was exactly, and I'm glad it was shown to me alongside good science so that I could compare the two. Even though Shermer was biased and so was this chapter, it was a great insight into a continuing controversy. I loved the arguements and attempts of both sides, even though I agree with and feel that science won in the end. The next chapter was a comical look at the human need to list things. It was cool to see how similar, yet different each list was from each other. I was pleased to see the author suggest Darwin's The Origin of Species as the Single Most Important Contribution to History. The next chapter about Star Trek was fun because I knew nothing about it or how amazing the creator of it was. I never knew about any controversy surrounding some of those episodes, but it was definately entertaining to read about them. The last chapter was kind of like a recap and recount of all of Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould's work. I didn't understand Shermer's desire to categorize over and over again how often Gould wrote about certain topics. Overall, I really enjoyed this book. It was full of new and interesting facts and insights that I'd never read about before. The relation of science to so many different aspects of life makes it clear that I can use it in my everyday life.

UFOs

2005-06-12T15:21:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:10 pm Subject: UFOs

After reading the article on UFOs, I find myself even more convinced that they don't exist. I've never seen proof that they existed before, and the added transpersonal ideas provide an interesting viewpoint. Like religious sightings, UFO sightings are from the person's imagination and beliefs. But to them the sightings or experiences are very true, because they saw everything firsthand. A scientist isn't going to be able to say, "Hey, it's all in your head" and have the guy convinced. Even with evidence about what the person saw as being some natrual phenomenon isnt going to change their minds. I once had a dream that my girlfriend cheated on me. It was so real and so vivid that I didnt call her the next day. She asked what was wrong but I wouldnt respond because I was pissed. I knew what I saw and that was that. It wasnt until a few days later when a friend was talking about the night I had the dream - we were reminissing of the fun everyone had. Then I remembered - Oh ya! The night ended with my girlfriend and me leaving his house, I dropped her off at home, went to bed and woke up the next day pissed off. It was all just a dream.

The Unknowing Sage

2005-06-12T15:19:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:38 pm Subject: The Unknowing Sage

This was an interesting book/biography of Faqir Chand. Even though in the end he is happy, the guy had a hard life. He faced depression and anxiety often while experiencing life. His religion seemed toc ause him more pain than pleasure. When he ate and enjoyed meat, he disappointed his relatives and then he became depressed. He was enjoying sex (like all humans should), but cursed himself for it. This was just an average guy trying to enjoy life, but his religious background kept bringing him down.

Then he was forced to be a guru leader by his own guru. He didnt want to and didnt think he'd be very good at it since he didnt really know the Truth. He kept having these visions that were able to guide him through life. The one that told him of his guru/God's address, the one that saved him and his men during WW1, etc.

He kept going to his guru for advice on how to deal with all this stress. His guru kept telling him to go out and be a leader.

From what I read and understood, Faqir didnt want any of this. Hewanted to live his life the way he wanted - not by other people's rules. He might have been a very intelligent and wise guru to some, but I think he would have been much happier if he had just listened to himself.

Naive Thinking

2005-06-12T15:17:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:19 am Subject: Naive Thinking

My "naive thinking" isnt like everyone elses seems to be. And I'm not trying to say that I'm less naive or smarter, I just don't believe in very many questionable things. It seems like most of the posts deal with religion. Well, my naive thinking has to do with science - biology in particular.

For as long as I can remember, every time I ate Mexican food I had to shit minutes after. I can't explain it. And after taking a Biology class and learning about the digestive system and excretory system, there was no explanation for what I do.

I continue to think that it is the Mexican food that makes me shit right after. Possibly something in the spices that triggers something in my body. I'm not sure.

Other explanations that I just came up with include: a placebo effect - every time I'm eating Mexican food I'm thinking to myself what will happen shortly after. So as I'm eating, my body is processing and getting ready for exit. By the time I've finished eating, it's time to poop. Another explanation would be some kind of mathmatical or statistical answer - it takes me X amout of time to crap, and it just so happens that eating Mexican food slides into the correct time slot.

That's just more naive thinking. Heh.

FiLCHeRS

2005-06-12T15:14:00.000-07:00

Date: Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:08 pm Subject: FiLCHeRS

This acronym should be on a card in everyone's wallet, so that when something new comes along they can whip out the card and follow the steps. Just think of all the new bullshit we could avoid if everyone had one of those. Each main point makes sense and is probably just a reiteration of many other angles to the scientific method. The author was able to clearly and concisely lay out his main points in a way that someone with no critical thinking skills could read it and soon apply it themselves.

Should Skeptical Inquiry be Applied to Religion?

2005-06-12T15:11:00.000-07:00

Date: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:26 pm Subject: Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?

I think I'll have to agree with the author - yes. He made a good point that as skeptics, we should also question one of the largest parts of human behavior - religion. Billions of people put their "faith" in something with no real scientific evidence behind it. So shouldn't that be a reason for looking deeper into the realms of religion? Shouldn't this warrant a justifiied analysis of some of the more popular religions?

Yes it should. And if I were one of those believers, I would want science to examine what I call my faith. I would want to know if I'm being lied to or not. Science is such a huge part of our world today, so I'm not sure why so many people of religion are so quick to turn it away when it wants to investigate. Well, I know why - it's because they dont want it to be a lie - they dont want to be proven wrong - they are happy the way they are. Not everyone is like me; not everyone would want their religion investigated.

But that doesnt mean that we shouldnt do it.

Occam's Razor Post: Mon May 30, 2005 8:58 pm

2005-05-30T20:59:00.000-07:00

Date: Mon May 30, 2005 8:58 pm Subject: Physics behind unthinkable feats

This article was exactly how the author likes his subject matter: attention grabbing and interesting.

The first feat - walking on a bed of glass - was more of a magician's trick than a physics explanation. They guy hammers the glass down and moves and pointy edges to the side. This seemed like more of an illusion than an explanation in physics.

The next feat - dipping fingers in molten lead - was very fascinating. now that's actually using physics and thermodynamics to perform an otherwise impossible act. very cool stuff. that would've certainly grabbed my attention in class. I would've actually payed attention to how it worked (my physics teacher sucked).

The third act - bed of nails and brick smashing - was cool too. This time, it was more of a combination of physics and illusion. Physics explains the bed of nails and the distribution of weight and pressure. But the author explains that he chooses easily broken bricks and has his wife smash them. This creates the illusion that she's actually providing all her strength to crush the "strong" bricks, while her husband rests safely between a bed of nails.

The last thing was picking up a piece of orange-hot spacecraft. This was more of a physics explanation. Newton's Law of Cooling would seem much more fascinating after watching this demonstration.

Then, I suppose physics can explain such optical illusions as making an elephant disappear. (Mirrors, misdirection, light rays from elephant blocked and replaced by something the mirror is reflecting). Isn't science great!

Attempt at Finding Pseudo Science in Yahoo Philosophy Group

2005-05-30T20:09:00.000-07:00

Date: Mon May 30, 2005 8:08 pm Subject: Re: The blank slate --- 1

--- In msacphilosophygroup@yahoogroups.com, "baoguan82" wrote:> This book is very different than the universe in a nutshell. Ilike> this book better than the other one so far. The black slate didnot> talk about science like the other one did. I guess that¡¯s why the> other book title as a science book and this book is not. I am more> interested in reading the blank slate because it talked abouthuman> nature other than scientific facts.>> I am totally believe Pinker¡¯s idea about ¡°The Noble Savage¡±which> means human beings are born good and as people grow up they slowly> corrupted by the society. There is no way that some people areborn> evil because as an innocent child human being can not distinguishwhat> is evil and good. As people grow up, they adapt the culture, valuethat> created by the society which contains many impurities andcorruptions.

that's cool that you like this book, but it is still a science book. it's not a physics book, but it is a biology/evolutionary book.

i'm only guessing that you are enjoying the first couple chapters so far. As you might have noticed, a few of your classmates have posted similar posts. But you might not have noticed a few people replying who have already read the book and know that it flips on you.

Pinker introduces you to ideas like The Blank Slate and the Noble Savage and the Ghost in the Machine in order to later refute them. It's good that you are warming up to them now, because you'll better understand Pinker's arguements as he progresses.

and people can be born biochemically predisposed to be "evil"

Enjoy the book. It was one of my favorites of the semester.

Occam's Razor Post: Mon May 30, 2005 7:11 pm

2005-05-30T19:12:00.000-07:00

Date: Mon May 30, 2005 7:11 pm
Subject: My Critique of Viruses of the Mind

It was a very interesting approach to analogize computer viruses to our brains. It took a while to get the point across, but once it hit, the build up was worth it. It did seem like Dawkins had a target in mind with the Catholic Church, but I completely understand. Even for those who are Catholic can see the relationship and significance of the points in this paper.

It was kind of scary when he was talking about viruses evolving - learning and adapting. It's like a mini-Matrix kinda thing. Well it struck a chord with me, so...

Dawkins didn't go into this but i was thinking about how viruses evolve, and how he compared the Church to a virus. Well the Church has evolved. It it's almost scary to see how advanced it has become.

Hypothetically speaking, if some scientist proved that God didn'texist, there would still be a massive number of Catholics, Christians, Jews, etc. They wouldnt believe the man. Even if he had visible (i don't know how - this is hypothetical) evidence, these religious people would go on with their religious lives.

It's like that one rabbi in Dawkin's paper - he does it because he has been told to do so. If you tell and show these people that their God(s) are false, they are only going to believe it is a test of their faith.

The Viruses of the Mind are too strong.

I think this is the entire point of the paper. It's because of his sweet little six-year-old was going to be under the influence of nuns (Catholics = the most contagious virus of all). If she were infected, it would take extreme effort and will to convince her otherwise. And even that might not be possible.

Occam's Razor Post: Fri May 27, 2005 4:31 pm

2005-05-27T16:31:00.000-07:00

Date: Fri May 27, 2005 4:31 pm
Subject: Response to Cold Readings

I'm glad I read the first chapter of Science Friction before I read this article because in the book Shermer gives specific examples of the general statements and questions.

Anyways, in both texts the cold readings are exposed as immoral, dishonest, and evil practices. I agree, but people enjoy them.

I've only had one reading, and it was pretty lame. It was at my Senior Grad Night a few years back. Some dude in a tent moved some rocks around and said something as general as "You'll be experiencing something new." It wasnt that exactly, but I remember thinking how stupid it was.

But I didnt have anything wrong with me when I went. People who go to psychics seek help. And help (bull shit) is what they get. Like the Cold Reading article said, someone just listened to them. I suppose it is cheap therapy.

It was entertaining to read Shermer and see how he was able to fool several people with only one day's practice.

Occam's Razor Post: Fri May 27, 2005 4:05 pm

2005-05-27T16:06:00.000-07:00

Date: Fri May 27, 2005 4:05 pm
Subject: Hey Lane, are you a Bright?

I finished chapter 2 in Science Friction where Shermer talks about Brights. From what I know, you are a skeptic. And a Bright is just another name for one.

Is this why you always say, "Be happy. Be radiant. Be stoked."

Radiant =-=-= kinda Bright-ish....

yes? no?

Occam's Razor Post: Thu May 26, 2005 2:26 p

2005-05-26T14:39:00.000-07:00

Date: Thu May 26, 2005 2:26 pm
Subject: My Critique of the Skeptical Manifesto

What I got from this Manifesto was that skepticism is required in science. If you approach science in a "believe everything" way, you're not practicing "good" science.

Then does this mean that all real, factual scientific findings should no longer be tested by skeptics (scientists), since there is nothing further to doubt?

If this is the case, then why are people still trying to either prove or disprove evolution?

Michael Shermer called evolution a fact, and I agree with him. But there are still some skeptical people who try to disprove evolution.

We have one group of skeptics who, through repeated testing and analysis, have determined the evolutionary theory might as well be fact.

But then we have another group of skeptics who don't buy the results and data, and still see evolution as just a theory, or even a hypothesis still.

So why have the first group of skeptics stopped and accepted something while the second group is still searching for answers?

Is there a correct degree or level of skepticism?

My skepticism tells me that the second group of skeptics dont want to believe in evolution because they are trying, in turn, to prove that creationism is correct. But if they used the same determination and skeptic rationality, they would be able to find that creationism is bull shit. As skeptics they shouldn't even be following a religion. All religions are filled with so many gaps and holes that a real skeptic would question and find erroneous.

So then are these second skeptics really skeptics at all? They are trying to disprove evolution scientifically, which would make them skeptics. But if they were skeptics, they would see the error of their ways and eventually realize evolution is correct. But they dont see this, and never look at themselves skeptically.

So can Shermer define a skeptic? By definition, the second group are and aren't skeptics.

One cannot label a skeptic, since there may be several variations to the definition of one skeptic.

I guess that's why he was including those definiions from the OED, so that whoever was reading it would know his angle.

Occam's Razor Post: Wed May 25, 2005 8:25 pm

2005-05-26T14:36:00.000-07:00

Date: Wed May 25, 2005 8:25 pm
Subject: Response to Letter #1

My answer:

The "Sikh" intercepted mail that the American was sending home to his sister. In the letter to his sister, he would obviously spell his sister's name correctly, and possibly even mention their mother. Since I took the advice and did a web search, I found that the Sikh only perform miracles "out of compassion or to set an erring person right" (http://allaboutsikhs.com/mansukh/036.htm). So after finding this and remembering the Key Point #1 - "The Sikh approached the American saying he could do this psychic name telling for a price (100 rupeesor so... about 10 bucks)", I think this guy wasn't exactly a good sikh, and possibly a shifty fellow. I came to the conclusion that he found the mail and a chance at a quick buck.

END

2005-05-26T14:35:00.000-07:00

END OF PHIL 8 - SUMMER '05
BEGINNING OF PHIL 5 - SPRING '05

Final Question 1

2005-05-01T19:36:00.000-07:00

Final Question 2

2005-05-01T19:35:00.000-07:00

Final Question 3

2005-05-01T19:34:00.000-07:00

I received a C, but I was one of the two people that passed it on the first try.

Final Question 4

2005-05-01T19:33:00.000-07:00

I’m on the C track.

Final Question 5

2005-05-01T19:32:00.000-07:00

List all the books you read for this class this semester? How fully? Be honest.

I’ve read every book for the C track, with the exception of the second half of Modern Mind.

5a. LIST any extra credit films.

I had a great idea for one but never found appropriate software.

5B. How many classes have you missed? How many classes were you late to?

I’ve never missed a class and I was about four minutes late to one class.

5c. How well did you do at vertex?

I kicked ass at vertex! I got all the way to Father Yod (50), but choked on my T/F question. I worked my way back up to 42 though. If we hadn’t have stopped that day, I would’ve made it to 51 and won. I had that entire damn dictionary memorized too.

5d. What was your favorite thing in class?

Thinking. Listening. Walking out of class boggled and jam packed with new ideas. Comparing the lecture to my daily life and trying to improve and raise the bar. This is the most satisfying class I've ever taken, and I'll never forget it.

Final Question 6

2005-05-01T19:31:00.000-07:00

List ALL the posts you have done for this class (including EVERY POST YOU HAVE ONE).

All of my posts have been re-posted here, in my blogger.

6a. WHAT GRADE DO YOU DESERVE FOR THIS CLASS AND WHY?

I deserve an A because as agreed upon with you on the very first day of class, I’ve read every book, attended every 6:30am class, and passed the midterm. You said, "Stay on the C track," do all the work and you'll go up to a B. And because we needed inspiration to show up every day at 6:30, you said that if we had perfect attendance, we'd go up another letter grade. Also, on April 26th, you said that I “should get an A.” So I’m only holding you to it.

Final Question 7

2005-05-01T19:30:00.000-07:00

Nietzsche would criticize Ramana Maharshi as not much more of an influential thinker then that of our daily blue collar worker. First off Nietzsche believes that there lies no real truth, while Ramana Maharshi’s truth is some what of a monistic thought where truth is found by realizing that everything is rooted to an ultimate truth - the doctrine of Advaita. This doctrine has an entire chapter dedicated to it. By Ramana’s acknowledgement of the existence of truth, and claims of interpreters of him having found the absolute truth makes Nietzsche red flag him. “[...] true knowledge is not ‘knowing’ but ‘seeing’. Realization is nothing but seeing God literally.” Since Nietzsche doesn’t believe in God or truth, he would say that Ramana never really realizes anything. Maharshi couldn’t be a real thinker if he isn’t able to come to any conclusions. Because Maharshi’s true knowledge is seeing God, Nietzsche would say that Maharshi will never see true knowledge. And since he couldn’t come to any conclusions, he wasn’t really a philosopher at all. His own book says that “his teaching was not ‘philosophy’ in the usual sense of the term may be seen from the fact that he did not instruct his devotees to think out problems but to eliminate thought” (83). Another way Nietzsche would criticize Maharshi is that Ramana believes in the existence of god, and not only of his existence but takes on a pantheistic view where he believes “God is everything, and everything is God” (104). Nietzsche does not believe in the existence of god so he would definitely not acknowledge that god is everything and everything is god. Nietzsche and Maharshi seem to be on exact opposite standpoints on the ethical system of thought; Nietzsche would not even acknowledge Maharshi as a philosopher, as Maharshi is not. Maharshi rarely challenges problems, instead he teaches his followers to deny the question ever existed. Nietzsche would criticize every view, thought, and aspect of life and truth that Ramana Maharshi believes to have found.

Final Question 8

2005-05-01T19:29:00.000-07:00

Flynn takes the blame for everything he does, he knows he’s a New Guinean bastard. He just does it. He acts on his impulses. He does what pleases him. He doesn’t bother or waste time beating around the bush. He’s very straight forward. And by what he’s written, he seems very honest. Even when he slept with other guy’s women, he would admit blame and stand his ground. He wouldn’t pull some, “its not what it looks like” bullshit. He took nature for granted once on a boating trip, which kicked his butt because of a storm. He enjoyed real, raw beauty in nature. He built his house Jamaica. He really enjoyed the outdoors. He went through the jungles in Africa and really had a respect for nature. He saw it for what it was and didn’t really look at the spiritual side of nature. Same with women, they were beautiful things to him.

From what I grasped from reading about Ramana Maharshi, he was a hypocrite. So he lead a life of lies. He lied to his family when he left home, and he never really stopped contradicting himself. To me, this would make him a very dishonest man. He once said “whatever teasing or annoyances there was, I would put up with it quietly.” But this was not the case when the other guru on the mountain was throwing rocks in order “to kill Sri Bhagavan or frighten him away from the hill”, and Ramana “knew well what was happening and on one occasion he quickly and silently climbed the hill and caught the old man in the act.” If he claimed he was so peaceful and submissive, why did he bother to challenge this other guru? (64)

On another instance, one of his early devotees, Mudaliar who had “[an] eagerness and desire to make every effort drove [him] to the idea of renouncing home life and going forth as a penniless wanderer. As in other cases, Sri Bhagavan discouraged this” (93). Maharshi tells him not to and that the road is too difficult for him. While Sri Bhagavan had himself left home and everything behind to follow his believes, contradicting his actions and his teachings.

Throughout the entire book it seemed as though Maharshi was speaking what was supposed to be heard or what was wanted to be heard by his followers. If he was speaking from the heart, or if he was trying to speak the truth, he wasn’t following his words as he should have.

Final Question 9

2005-05-01T19:28:00.000-07:00

Six weeks before he left, he had a sudden fear of death. He needed to figure out what to do about it. So he looked inward to find out. He found that he was a deathless spirit and that his “I” was separate from his body. This was his great change – his awakening. He started neglecting his schoolwork, and began to meditate. His brother yelled at him and then he realized “that one who wished to live like a sadhu had no right to enjoy the amenities of home life.” He then decided to leave and leave everything behind. His truth was life. Maharshi found that everything that ever existed in the spiritual and physical world defines god.

Final Question 10

2005-05-01T19:27:00.000-07:00

Horgan seemed to really like Wilber. He agreed with everything that he said and did. It wasn’t until he realized this that he tried to find something wrong with him. He noticed that Wilber was “an arrogant asshole” (Wilber’s words, not Horgan’s), even though Horgan claims that that was not what he was getting at. He pointed out that although Wilber seemed modest in person, he was only appearing that way. Really, Wilber was a bragging know-it-all. He just hid it very well. Horgan kept remembering Wilber’s comment, “I’m enlightened, and you’re not.” Just that statement alone is screaming ARROGANT ASSHOLE. So I would say that Horgan’s chief critique of Ken Wilber is that Wilber thinks he knows it all.

Final Question 11

2005-05-01T19:26:00.000-07:00

Houston Smith and Ken Wilber were both huge proponents of the perennial philosophy. While smith believes that science is an enemy to the perennialist cause, Wilber embraces science as an ally. Wilber thinks that science is a crucial addition to our society and its progression. Even though smith thought very highly of religion as opposed to science, he doubted the ability of reaching enlightenment or whether enlightenment even ever existed. Wilber on the other hand, “makes enlightenment the be-all and end-all of existence,” and claims to have achieved enlightenment. Smith defines enlightenment as “a quality of life” instead of how Wilber sees it as a state of mind. Also, Wilber is against the use of mind-expanding substances to achieve mystical experiences and doesn’t believe that they are able to produce a “stable, long-term spiritual growth.” Smith isn’t against the use, and uses(used) them himself, but has a similar standpoint saying “Entheogens (what he thinks is the more appropriate term for the drugs) alone do not constitute a spiritual path. [...] they cannot deliver you to that realm permanently.” So they both acknowledge the fact that the drugs can open a path or trigger a “genuine breakthrough”, but they’re not the correct tool to approach or achieve enlightenment.

Final Question 12

2005-05-01T19:25:00.000-07:00

I’d say that drugs and mysticism are connected, at least more so than following some crazy guru. At least with drugs it is a personal pathway to guide one’s own divergence into one’s own spirituality. No one can tell you if you’re doing it right or wrong. No one can tell you what you did or did not see. Your experiences are your own. And whether nightmarish or spiritual gateways to the universe, it’s up to the user. I believe mysticism should be judged on a case by case basis, and only by the person experiencing. These judgments can then be generalized or categorized or whateverized, by whomever in order to come to some conclusion about them. But really, it will still be left up to the person experiencing. So Ken Wilber admits that drugs can trigger a “genuine breakthrough” in some people but doesn’t believe it will lead to a stable, long-term spiritual growth. But he only tried LSD once. How does he know it’s not a stable, long-term spiritual growth? He still admits that there is a connection between drugs and mysticism. Stanislav Grof took LSD many times and seemed like he has a nice, stable spiritual growth. Grof’s experiments and research definitely produce a strong positive correlation with drugs and mysticism. Some may disagree. Some might not like it. But drugs are connected to mysticism. It doesn’t discredit the other ways and forms of acquiring mystical experiences. Merely, it’s another option as to how to obtain one.

Final Question 13

2005-05-01T19:24:00.000-07:00

Saint Augustine walks into a bar and notices three gentlemen sitting on the barstools. There sat Plato, then Nietzsche, and next to him sat Aristotle. Augustine walked behind the three and listened to them for a while.
Plato: “It’s in your soul, man.”

Nietzsche: “Guys, guys, guys. There is no ultimate truth. It just doesn’t exist.”

Aristotle, pointing to his napkin: “But take a look at my Forms. They clearly lay out truth.”

Plato then says: “Forms do not exist in the physical world. Truth can be conjured in the mind, but not expressed in the physical world in the shape of the Form.”

Nietzsche interrupts and says: “I don’t know why you guys are arguing with me because, as I stated earlier there is no such thing as truth.”

Plato leans over Nietzsche and says to Aristotle: “Dude, he’s just never seen the fire” (fire = enlightenment/truth page 52-56).

Aristotle laughs and then says to Nietzsche: “Dude, you know the truth, its just that you don’t know that you know.”

At this moment, Augustine has had enough. He leans over Nietzsche’s shoulder and brings his head into the argument. He says, “Dude, Nietzsche, you’re so wrong.” He then looks at Plato then Aristotle and says: “you guys have the right idea, but are misguided. The real truth lies in God. You must look to Him, and there you will discover truth. But beware of Evil, because it lurks behind every corner.”

Nietzsche shakes his head and says: “I can’t believe you’re bringing God into this. Don’t you know that GOD IS DEAD!”

Augustine removes his head from the conversation and takes a few steps back. He is speechless.

Nietzsche has had enough and says: “Whatever! There are no original texts! What am I even doing talking to you incorrectly interpreted buffoons?!”

At this very moment, Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine all vanish in three clouds of smoke. Naturally freaked out, Nietzsche spins around on his barstool to find Hume and Kant staring at him with their mouths gapping open.

Nietzsche, eager to explain himself, walks over to their table and sits down. He begins: “He guys, look...

But he’s cut off when both Kant and Hume yell: “Shut up!”

Kant begins: “Look, we were trying to have a discussion until your noise interrupted us. What were you screaming over there?”

Nietzsche replies: “We were discussing truth and then some asshole came in with God this and God that.”
Kant and Hume laugh and say: “We were talking about that very same issue. So what’s your stand?”

Nietzsche rolls his eyes and says: “Well I think that there is no absolute truth, no God, no anything.”

Hume slaps his hand on the table in triumph. He looks at Nietzsche and says: “that’s the conclusion I keep coming to too. You see I have this system of question set up that are able to determine what’s real and what’s not.”

Kant cuts him off and says to Nietzsche: “Ya, but I’ve already proved those wrong.”

Hume frowns and turns to Kant and says: “how so?”

At this moment, their waiter came up to the table and began to pick up the empty glasses. The young, tan, and handsome waiter then asked if there was anything he could get for the gentlemen. Nietzsche shook his head but Kant suggested another round. The waiter nodded and went to retrieve their order. Just then, the manager of the bar walked past their table and Hume grabbed his sleeve gently to get his attention.

Manager: “Is there anything I can help you with, sir? Any problems?”

Hume replied: “No sir, I just wanted to complement you on your staff. Your waiter was extremely courteous and polite.”

The manager nodded and said: “Ya, that David Lane’s a great guy. He enjoys working here because he believes he can gain something from gentlemen like yourselves talking about life, love, truth, and philosophy.”

Hume whispered into the manager’s ear: “We’ll be sure to speak up then.”

After the manager walks away, Hume turns back to Kant and says: “As you were saying”

Kant said: “well I was able to take your two questions which you’ve based this system upon and fixed a flaw. With this correction I’ve obtained my own question, 'is it a synthetic a priori truth?' I’ve been able to use this question to prove that truth, and even God exist”

Hume’s eyes were lit up, and his face became red: “You cant do that. There’s no such thing as a synthetic a priori truth”

Kant then said: “Ah, but there is. It’s more of a meaningful statement about reality whose truth is known independently of observation”

Hume was now speechless.

The beers arrived, and Nietzsche downed his instantly. He said, hoping it would work: “You know guys, Whatever! There are no original texts! What am I even doing talking to you incorrectly interpreted buffoons?!”

At that very moment, Kant and Hume disappear in two clouds of smoke. Nietzsche grabs their beers and drinks them. “Fuck, I’m going insane.”

Final Question 14

2005-05-01T19:23:00.000-07:00

Other than occupying Grof’s interests and investigations, LSD changed his life. Horgan writes, “Although he began his career as a strict Freudian and an atheist, over the years his views changed radically as a result of his research on LSD and other drugs.” LSD was the reason behind his work. Grof originally studied to be a Freudian psychoanalyst in college. After college he tried LSD and obviously enjoyed it enough to base his career around it. He argues that LSD can unlock unconscious memories, including scenes from childbirth and infancy. I think his Freudian teachings had a large impact on how he interpreted his research on LSD. He derived many other logical ideas that went along with psychedelic use. I also think that without LSD, Grof wouldn’t have work or a career, or at least famous ones. He’d still be dream interpreting and listening to people’s free associations if he hadn’t experimented with LSD. LSD was essential to his work because that’s mostly what he worked on. It gave rise to his different thinking and different approaches to research.

Final Question 15

2005-05-01T19:22:00.000-07:00

From what I understood, Kant’s most significant contribution to philosophy was how he was able to defend philosophy against Hume’s attack on it. Hume had these two yes or no questions that he used to determine what actually existed or not. According to these two questions, God didn’t exist, self didn’t exist, etc. they all received “no”’s for their answers to the question and therefore couldn’t exist. These questions could also state that philosophy didn’t exist. This is where Kant comes in to save the day. Using logic and reasoning he was able to prove that God did in fact exist. Kant took Hume’s two questions and turned them around into a “synthetic a priori truth”, which was “a meaningful statement about reality whose truth is known independently of observation.” So you didn’t have to see God in order for his existence to be true.

Final Question 16

2005-05-01T19:21:00.000-07:00

I didn’t read all of Modern Mind. I’ll do my best.

Midterm Question 1

2005-02-28T22:35:00.000-08:00

I am one of the early 6:30 AM students every Tuesday and Thursday. I have not missed or been tardy to any class.

Midterm Question 2

2005-02-28T22:33:00.000-08:00

I am on the “C” track. I am finished with My Wicked, Wicked Ways and I am started on Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self Knowledge. I'm on page 4.
I have re-posted each and every post that I’ve posted in the yahoo group on this site.
They are below my midterm answers.

Midterm Question 3

2005-02-28T22:32:00.000-08:00

Imaginary time is this mathematical model that Hawking introduces to explain the shape of time and space. These imaginary numbers in the model are supposed to be at right angles to the regular real numbers. Imaginary time is just an idea to help us understand the different directions of the universe. In real time, as time (or the history of the observer) increases, space also increases. In imaginary time, as time increases, space can either decrease or increase. Einstein’s theory of relativity combines real time and three other dimensions of space that together make up a four-dimensional spacetime. In this spacetime, even though time increases in the direction of real time as described earlier, the other three dimensions of Einstein’s theory could cause an increase or decrease in the direction of space, similar to that of imaginary time. Then, as time is increasing, space could be going in the other direction.
This brane theory is a part of the M-theory, in that it can have a variety of spatial dimensions. A brane (p-brane) is one of many objects that can be extended in more than one direction. A brane has a length in p directions and can have a variety of spatial dimensions. So a brane with length p = 1, would be equivalent to a string. A brane with p = 2 would be a surface. A brane with p = 3, would be equivalent to a four-dimensional (3 space, 1 time) surface. According to the equations of the supergravity theories, the p-branes could be found to be 10 or 11 dimensions. Most of these (like 6 or 7) dimensions are so small we don’t really notice them. The remaining four dimensions are big enough for us to see and feel their effects. The brane theory then has four (the others are too small) dimensions – three space dimensions and one time - which are just like the model from Einstein's theory. Spacetime then, can move in any direction.

Midterm Question 5

2005-02-28T22:31:00.001-08:00

I’m not sure how superstring reconciles general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics, but I did find this line on page 52, “Instead, it was claimed that a theory named supersymmetric string theory was the only way to combine gravity with quantum theory.” From what I understand, gravity/supergravity are what hold Einstein’s theory together. Somehow, these superstrings are what hold general theory together with quantum mechanics. The four forces of the universe are electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity. Hawking didn’t write much about strong and weak nuclear forces, and nothing about electromagnetism. All I know about these three are that they are small and that quantum mechanics explains the small. In order to combine them all into one super force, you'd need the help of superstring theory.

Midterm Question 4

2005-02-28T22:31:00.000-08:00

Hawking writes about these six theories for the universe. Five of these are string theories and one of them is the eleven-dimension supergravity theory. All six of which have very strong mathematical support for them. Hawking explains that these six theories are all trying to prove the universe. These six are pretty much combined to make up the M-theory (believed to be the Theory of Everything). So M-theory is surrounded by mathematical theories supporting it. It would be for this reason that Hawking believes M-theory to be correct. He acknowledges that there are some holes, but it has a very strong framework.
This is as opposed to astrology which has no other theories to back it up, it isn’t consistent with other theories, and the tests result in such broad answers that they don’t provide any real evidence.

Midterm Question 6

2005-02-28T22:30:00.000-08:00

The mind cannot be a blank slate, because blank slates don’t do anything. Pinker repeats this line a few times.
Personality – our genes provide us with our personality traits. To quote Pinker: “Psychologists have discovered that our personalities differ in five major ways: we are to varying degrees introverted or extroverted, neurotic or stable, incurious or open to experience, agreeable or antagonistic, and conscientious or undirected.” Depending upon our genetics, we could have any combination of these.

Intelligence – we as humans, are designed to think. We have several cognitive processes running all the time. It is with intelligence that we are able to incorporate logic and reason into everyday situations, recognize and respond appropriately to the actions of others, and communicate efficiently amongst others.

Behavior – how we are going to behave has already been determined by our genes. Whether we act shy, crazy, calm, etc is dependent upon our genes.

Prejudice – since everyone is born different and unequal with different talents and skills, it is a natural response to notice and recognize these differences, and to be prejudice.

Recognition – Pinker talked about how a robot could replicate the action of washing dishes, but it couldn’t understand or recognize the reason behind it. We see the act of washing the dishes, and can replicate it while recognizing the idea of trying to get the dishes clean. We as humans have the brain power to do that. We use reason, recognition, and logic to overcome everyday obstacles. Most of us were born with this gift.

Morals – Our morals come from our biology. We are not going to hit another person because deep down we either fear the retaliation, or we know the pain caused and do not wish it upon our neighbor. We know the feeling of right and wrong.

Midterm Question 7

2005-02-28T22:29:00.000-08:00

Just as Pinker critiques the Blank Slate as “how can we do anything if nothing’s there,” his critics might reverse it on him and say “how can we attribute everything to genetics.” Where does nurture fit in? How can you explain the affects of abuse or trauma with genetics? Sure you could suggest that the person is epigenetically predisposed to have a psychological disorder, but what about the people who aren’t? What about an average Joe, who doesn’t have any history of any problems amongst any of his relatives, who is walking the streets of New York when the planes hit the towers? He develops PTSD from the trauma he was exposed to that day.
If we’re not all blank slates, that means that genetically some people are better than others, that we aren’t all equal. A critic could say that Pinker is using biology as justification for prejudice.
If we’re not blank slates, our genes map out our behavior and lives. Then how can we explain changes in people if Pinker writes that a person’s nature is unchanging (criminals turned into Born Again Christians)?
If we can attribute everything we do to our biology, how can we find a person guilty of a crime? Blame it on their biology? What’s the point of prison or correctional facilities if the person isn’t going to change?
Do we even have free will if our biologies are what control us?

Midterm Question 8

2005-02-28T22:28:00.000-08:00

Evolution has given us morals. We have been able to discover right from wrong. We are not going to hit another person because we either fear the retaliation, or we know the pain caused and do not wish it upon our neighbor. We know the feeling of right and wrong. And from that we, as humans, across all cultures, have created punishments for moral wrongdoings like violence, rape, and murder. Thanks to evolution we have a moral sense that controls how we behave amongst our fellow man.

Evolution has also taught people to cooperate and work together to help each other out. Both partners succeed and everyone’s happy. This helps both partners become a part of the efficient that are able to survive. This has also helped our relationships between one another. If you’re nice to your neighbor he’ll help you out.

Along with cooperation, evolution has taught us to work together in a different way. People have learned to provided favors for one another in return for something in the future. This could be by providing food, protection, and help with other needs. This helps the one in need in the present, and the one in need in the future.

My next example goes back to the prime directive. The caveman bonked the girl over the head and dragged her home. This was rape back then. We've evolved since then and court our women with flowers, not clubs. This makes the child raising easier without the difficulty between the two parents. This is how we procreate and live.

Somehow over evolution, we have been able to control a lot of our sexual urges with the emotion of love. Yes, we are still driven by sex and the need to make a copy of ourselves, but we have managed over the years to practice more fidelity. We have learned to be faithful to our partners, whether it is because we are truly and deeply in love or if we do it to better raise our genes and prepare them to pass them on further. There are still animals in the animal kingdom that will "cheat" on their mates. The African songbird females will go and fuck the other male in order to get the better genes, while the other male has no idea and continues to raise the babies as his own. We, as humans, still have the potential to cheat on our mates, but I think we've evolved the emotion of love to help form stronger bonds between mates.

Midterm Question 9

2005-02-28T22:27:00.000-08:00

What I’ve always understood from the “philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly is religion/theology” is that when you’re in your daily life, do you find the answers to your questions from a scientific standpoint, or are you turning to religion? Lane has always talked about what I like to call the “scientific ladder,” where math is at the bottom and theology is at the top. If you want to lead a good philosophical life, you should live your life from the bottom of the ladder up. Meaning that you should always look first to math for the answer; if you cant use math, try physics; if not physics, try biology; if not biology, try psychology; if not psychology, try sociology; and if all of those fail, then you’ll turn to theology – which then means that you cant find an answer and you “don’t know.” By turning to theology for life’s answers you’re admitting that you don’t know. You should approach things scientifically in order to practice “good philosophy.”

Midterm Question 11

2005-02-28T22:26:00.001-08:00

For Flynn being a philosophical hedonist, it becomes obvious that if something must be done anyway, it might as well be thoroughly enjoyed.

"[...] or how to make a horrible experience look like fun, or very important. Personally, i made it fun. I went there mentally determined, whatever kind of hell it was going to be, i was going to make it merry for myself and for everybody else, if i could." Page 375

The whole time he’s paying out of his ass for Lili, he's laughing about it. He says, "I am bitter about what Lili Damita did to me, but i also laugh about it." Page 362

Even when he goes on trial for statutory rape, he manages to find another pretty girl to try to have sex with. If i was on trial for all of that, i wouldnt be in the market for another girl at that time, but he was.

Flynn was always trying to make the better of every situation.

Midterm Question 10

2005-02-28T22:26:00.000-08:00

I looked up the term “materialism” to help me with this question. I found that it is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material. So materialists believe that a spiritual substance does not exist and that any phenomena considered to be paranormal, supernatural, or occult are either delusions or can be reduced to physical forces. If you’re a materialist and you’re trying to answer philosophical questions, you’re going to answer all questions scientifically. You’ll be able to observe, study, and test hypotheses until you come to a sound conclusion based upon physical facts. I believe the biggest “help” to one who is a materialist is that they’ll never be tempted to try to explain something using theology.

Here’s an example: I’m a villager, and I want to know why one of my fellow villagers is ill.

I could look at the question spiritually and say that his illness is a curse brought upon him by god. I could decide to give reasoning for the curse, such as, “the gods do not favor this man. Look they have been cursing his crops all season. This is a bad man, and it will only do harm to associate yourself with him.”

Or I could look at that same question materialistically and test to see what’s wrong with him. After observation, I notice that he’s vomiting and shitting repeatedly. I could then hypothesize that it was his bad crops that gave him the food poisoning. I could then test this by seeing if the rest of his family develops similar symptoms, or I could take it a step further and test the effects of the man’s crops on another man of similar features.

The question of why was this man sick was answered by both types of philosophers. Only one of them has a sound and structured answer to the question. The other searches for answers that aren’t even testable.

If after a month, a different man (who is widely well known for being a holy and sacred friend of the gods) develops the same symptoms as the first, which philosopher would have the more accurate answer?

The spiritual philosopher would have to change his diagnosis of the original sick man in order to come up with a believable reason for the holy man getting sick.

The materialistic philosopher wouldn’t have to change a thing. He would simply observe the physical surroundings of the holy man and determine what it was that cause this man’s food poisoning. This materialistic way of philosophy is much more helpful because you don’t have to change your ways of reasoning. The physical world is a scientific one. If for some reason one of your scientific theories needs to be altered, it would only be due to new information that was not previously available which would provide an even more accurate theory.

Midterm Question 12

2005-02-28T22:25:00.000-08:00

Flynn mostly views women as sexual objects. He's one of those guys that just wants to get laid. But its not like he treats women badly. He likes them as friends too. He's just not one of those guys who's looking for companionship with a woman. He seems content with getting laid and being friendly with them. He still views them in a positive light. They add to his experiences. All of his marraiges failed, and his wives lived in different houses than his own. So it's not like he feels lonely without a wife. He would cheat on his wives, but he didnt seem to view the marraige as a big deal. Marraige to him was like a new toy, it was fun at first, but then he got bored and wanted the next new thing. It wasn't anything personal against the women. Except for Lili, she was a bitch.

Midterm Question 13

2005-02-28T22:08:00.000-08:00

Flynn's philosophy in life was to make the best out of his life. Kind of just go with the flow. This entailed, of course, having fun with women, traveling, doing what he wanted, and buying what he wanted. With the exception of women, he was a very rational and reasonable man. It made sense to him to do things that he likes. He liked the ocean, so he bought a boat. This was rational to him. It made sense to him. He did what he wanted, but it's not like her hurt anyone in the process. He always made sure everyone around him had a good time. He is, in his own way, a philosopher.

First one...

2005-01-13T20:12:00.000-08:00

Hello to my site.