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

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.