February 24, 2007
Good 2 Go
Is there going to be a study group before Thursday at the library again. I have lab until 4 but after that I'm able to go.. ? Anybody?
February 22, 2007
Makeup date
I have just received word that the makeup date for our missed class is going to be on Friday, March 7th, so start clearing your calendars for that night... it's going to be two days of philosophy in a row... woo-hoo! or boo-hoo... whatever the case may be.
I should have an updated class calendar by tomorrow, so check back on that later.
I should have an updated class calendar by tomorrow, so check back on that later.
No school today!
Class, be advised that there is no school meeting tonight; school has been closed. I'll post a new entry letting you about schedule changes later. Please pass the word around to those students you know. I'll send out an e-mail to everyone I can in a moment.
February 21, 2007
Complex Argument Examples
Ok - here are three examples of complex arguments. The first one (if you follow the link) actually has the answer at the bottom of the page and it happens to be a little different from what we have gone over in class (hint: it may have more than one conclusion!) I followed the professor's guidelines on how to find complex arguments, surfing a few white-supremacist web-sites...waste of time (plus I feel like my retinas are burning to cleanse themselves from the hate I read) - no clear stated premises - barely any of them have truth value to them...so I decided to poke fun at evolution instead! :) So, print them out, give them a try, and we'll go over them tomorrow at the Study Group to see if we're on the same page.
The theory of evolution is not acceptable. It is just a hypothesis that has very little supporting evidence. It contradicts commonsense, the Bible, and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. It is impossible to believe that something so complex as the eye can come about through random processes. That leaves creationism as the only viable theory of the origin of life. This of course means that God exists. It also means that many biologists are just dead wrong.
(Borrowed from: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/complex.php)
While a good deal has been written about the potential threat of hate online that targets youth, this is often framed around the issue of “recruiting” young people to join white supremacist groups. To me, this is an unlikely outcome and a misguided concern. The much more likely, and pernicious, threat is an epistemological one. That is, the epistemological threat of cloaked websites is the ability to change how we know what we say we know about issues that have been politically hard won, such as civil rights for African Americans. Because search engines have replaced libraries for young people (and, they have), young people find information about race, civil rights, and white supremacy online. Teaching critical digital media literacy has to be combined with teaching critical thinking about race and racism.
(Jessie Daniels: The Epistemology of White Supremacy 11.17.06)
There are 2 or 3 types of evolution. The first would be "guided" from above. Certainly this is possible, and we have many examples in the world (cars have "evolved" tremendously during the 20th Century, with the guiding hand of engineers and designers). Many believers ascribe to such theories, but they still compromise the literal Genesis record. Secondly, there is what is termed: "micro-evolution", which I prefer to call: "genetic remnant variation". This refers to changes made within a biological "kind", i.e. mutations and other changes related to natural selection and environmental adaptations. Let's say that two calves are born and the one with longer fur survives the harsh winter allowing it to breed the next Spring, thus perpetuating longer fur in the herd. Sure, this is scientific. Within the DNA coding God has placed varying factors; thank the Maker for his forethought in allowing for automatic adaptability! But the third type (related to the first, but with no God "guiding" the outcome), as best as I understand, is unbiblical and also unscientific. There are no fossils which prove any transitional life forms have ever come about through "natural selection" or otherwise. The third type of evolution is what is believed and preached to our children in the public schools today, but to the best of my understanding there is no scientific evidence to support its tenets.
("A Defense of Creationism" by Paul Abramson)
The theory of evolution is not acceptable. It is just a hypothesis that has very little supporting evidence. It contradicts commonsense, the Bible, and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. It is impossible to believe that something so complex as the eye can come about through random processes. That leaves creationism as the only viable theory of the origin of life. This of course means that God exists. It also means that many biologists are just dead wrong.
(Borrowed from: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/complex.php)
While a good deal has been written about the potential threat of hate online that targets youth, this is often framed around the issue of “recruiting” young people to join white supremacist groups. To me, this is an unlikely outcome and a misguided concern. The much more likely, and pernicious, threat is an epistemological one. That is, the epistemological threat of cloaked websites is the ability to change how we know what we say we know about issues that have been politically hard won, such as civil rights for African Americans. Because search engines have replaced libraries for young people (and, they have), young people find information about race, civil rights, and white supremacy online. Teaching critical digital media literacy has to be combined with teaching critical thinking about race and racism.
(Jessie Daniels: The Epistemology of White Supremacy 11.17.06)
There are 2 or 3 types of evolution. The first would be "guided" from above. Certainly this is possible, and we have many examples in the world (cars have "evolved" tremendously during the 20th Century, with the guiding hand of engineers and designers). Many believers ascribe to such theories, but they still compromise the literal Genesis record. Secondly, there is what is termed: "micro-evolution", which I prefer to call: "genetic remnant variation". This refers to changes made within a biological "kind", i.e. mutations and other changes related to natural selection and environmental adaptations. Let's say that two calves are born and the one with longer fur survives the harsh winter allowing it to breed the next Spring, thus perpetuating longer fur in the herd. Sure, this is scientific. Within the DNA coding God has placed varying factors; thank the Maker for his forethought in allowing for automatic adaptability! But the third type (related to the first, but with no God "guiding" the outcome), as best as I understand, is unbiblical and also unscientific. There are no fossils which prove any transitional life forms have ever come about through "natural selection" or otherwise. The third type of evolution is what is believed and preached to our children in the public schools today, but to the best of my understanding there is no scientific evidence to support its tenets.
("A Defense of Creationism" by Paul Abramson)
February 20, 2007
Rumsfeld and Epistemology
As I mentioned last week, ex-secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld was perhaps a bit more philosophical and smart than we are used to giving him credit for. In a Department of Defense news briefing in February 12th of 2002, Rumsfeld had a bit of an epistemology lesson for us. This is the relevant part (broken up for easier understanding):
I'd love to see some discussion arise out of this fairly short lesson on knowledge, and by discussion I don't mean insulting Rumsfeld and talking about how poor a job he might or might not have done as defense secretary (that would be a fallacy of relevance).
I'd love to see people:
By the way, don't forget we have a logic test this week and that the reading is an excerpt of Descartes' Meditations. Check the online class calendar for details.
As we know,This breakdown suggests a fourth possibility: unknown knowns. But why stop there? There are other possibilities once you get to the next meta-level (combinations of three clauses): unknown known unknowns, for instance.
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
I'd love to see some discussion arise out of this fairly short lesson on knowledge, and by discussion I don't mean insulting Rumsfeld and talking about how poor a job he might or might not have done as defense secretary (that would be a fallacy of relevance).
I'd love to see people:
- Provide concrete examples that illustrate what each of the different possibilities entail,
- Describe what combination possibilities are actually meaningful, and why,
- Analyze Rumsfeld's conception of knowledge with respect to the definition of justified true belief Plato offered in the Theaetetus,
- Offer new insights into what constitutes knowledge, etc.
By the way, don't forget we have a logic test this week and that the reading is an excerpt of Descartes' Meditations. Check the online class calendar for details.
February 18, 2007
Answer key to logical fallacies
Class, click here to access the document where I have saved the answers to the logical fallacies exercises. If anyone has a problem with any of the answers, post a comment below. I know there are some cases where more than one fallacy could be identified, so it's possible that I may have missed something while rushing to get this done this morning (I think I lost my answer key, ha ha).
By the way, thanks for the reminder, Jen.
By the way, thanks for the reminder, Jen.
February 13, 2007
Study Group - Take Two
Another attempt at the study group will definitely be held this Thursday (weather permitting) at 5 pm at the Library. Find me or Angel - we'll be there! No need to post any comments to let me know if you'll be there...I learned my lesson. :)
February 6, 2007
Pascal's Wager
Click here to listen to an interesting Logically Critical podcast presenting a bit of a comical breakdown of Pascal's wager. The narrator doesn't explicitly state the problem with the logical structure of the wager, as I did in class, but he does show the practical implications of betting on any given characterization of God as not being rational, so the point is ultimately still the same.
February 5, 2007
Study Group
It seems as though some people are having trouble fully grasping the logic diagrams that we are going over in class. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but I have a pretty good handle on how to dissect an argument and figure out the conclusions, etc. So - in an effort to help anyone that might be having problems in class - let me know if it would be conducive to meet before class this Thursday, at approximately 5:00 in the library, to go over anything people may have questions about and we can all figure it out together. I know that Angel said that she might help, and there were a few people outside who had expressed an interest, so let me know by responding to this post if you intend to go - and I'll be there. If anyone has any questions in regards to the group, you can email me at 'maryparish@yahoo.com'.
~Mary
~Mary
All about mormons...
http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=712
Don't mean to offend any mormons out there, but this is funny stuff, and relevant to our class discussion about God.
Don't mean to offend any mormons out there, but this is funny stuff, and relevant to our class discussion about God.
February 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
