Francis Bacon was a Christian with very different ideas than what was accepted or acknowledged by the Church. The protestant Church had given away land and made a whole new group of wealthy individuals. Bacon took away from the power of the church and believed them to be corrupt and etc. He believed that the church could teach you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go......Bacon also believed that one must give up things no matter what it costs you to reduce their suffering or add to their well being.
Bacon created four ideas as to why people have misunderstandings or misconceptions of the world and he called them the four idols
............. The four idols he used were................
1) Idols of the Tribe- This idea states that people are unable to understand things because of biases and therefore more than often jump to conclusions. We dont accept things that are strange and new to us because it is in our nature to do so. As humans this is just so
2) Idols of the Cave- This idea illustrated the biases created through the educational systems and how people often retrieve their biases through this way because of what they are taught
3) Idols of the MarketPlace- The use of language to mystify words. Philosophy is more concerned with winning arguments than revealing the truth.
4) Idols of the Theatre- This idol describes how the christian west has given reverence to four of the five greek scholars and has ignored any other understanding of the word. In other words this tells us how different institutions teach or put out the ideas that benefit themselves or their own beliefs.This limits the knowledge that is allowed due to biases and acceptance of only certain truths to be taught.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Just War Theory..........
St. Augustine's accomplishments are key to understanding his philosophy. One of his accomplishments was when he developed a doctrine of "Just War". This was of course his Just war theory as we have been learning about in class. This theory makes righteous conflicts preformed in the name of peace
What does this mean?
this simply means that instead of just going to war for no reason (in the name of peace) one would have to provide a reason as to why they were going to war. And of course if the outcome of the war wasnt going to be peace then it was decided that no war would take place at all.
It was in the middle ages he presented this theory to many.
He believed that war WAS A SIN but he did not deny the fact that war was also of course inevitable as has been proven throught time. Therefore in his mind the only justification to war was if the outcome would be peace.
The principles of Just war include..........
1) War can only take place if all the other non violent options have been tried.
2) An authoritive figure must declare war for it to be just
3) Obviously a war can only take place if there is a chance of success otherwise all the killing and so on would be for nothing. Also the killing and injurying of other during the war is morally justified.
4) A just war must be fought for the correct intentions. It could be fought to "re-adress a wrong suffered"
5) The goal of the war would of course have to be to establish peace...no surprise here
6) a minimum amount of force must be used
7) You cant attack any civilians....they are not the targets....that would be messsssed up
What does this mean?
this simply means that instead of just going to war for no reason (in the name of peace) one would have to provide a reason as to why they were going to war. And of course if the outcome of the war wasnt going to be peace then it was decided that no war would take place at all.
It was in the middle ages he presented this theory to many.
He believed that war WAS A SIN but he did not deny the fact that war was also of course inevitable as has been proven throught time. Therefore in his mind the only justification to war was if the outcome would be peace.
The principles of Just war include..........
1) War can only take place if all the other non violent options have been tried.
2) An authoritive figure must declare war for it to be just
3) Obviously a war can only take place if there is a chance of success otherwise all the killing and so on would be for nothing. Also the killing and injurying of other during the war is morally justified.
4) A just war must be fought for the correct intentions. It could be fought to "re-adress a wrong suffered"
5) The goal of the war would of course have to be to establish peace...no surprise here
6) a minimum amount of force must be used
7) You cant attack any civilians....they are not the targets....that would be messsssed up
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Galileo and his daughter <3
Mant people today recognize Galileo for all that he accomplished in his lifetime and the many important discoveries that he made.....
funny thing is that there is one person that contributed sooo much to his work that without this person Galileo's teachings/ writings would not be as popular as they are today. They might not even exist.
This very important person is his very own daughter.
She took care of him throughout his life, handled his financial matters, and she was his "medicine woman". She took care of him in every aspect. She even had a role in editing his manuscripts. She was the essential component to his sciences, works, and etc. We owe much of what we know to his daughter for she is the person that helped make the spread of his sciences possible.
funny thing is that there is one person that contributed sooo much to his work that without this person Galileo's teachings/ writings would not be as popular as they are today. They might not even exist.
This very important person is his very own daughter.
She took care of him throughout his life, handled his financial matters, and she was his "medicine woman". She took care of him in every aspect. She even had a role in editing his manuscripts. She was the essential component to his sciences, works, and etc. We owe much of what we know to his daughter for she is the person that helped make the spread of his sciences possible.
Monday, February 23, 2009
St. Thomas Aquinas' Five ways....i believe.....
From what i have read of St.Thomas' Aquinas' five ways i have to say that a few of them make no sense and the others have ok arguments.
.....
The first way basically states....
1) Nothing can move itself
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover
3) This first mover is the unmoved mover called God
....uhhhh to begin i have to say that i find this argument to be the weakest. In a sense i agree that nothin can move itself. Outside forced such as gravity have a constant affect upon us and our actions. But i do have to say that the whole thing about God being the mover is trash. Im not denying that God isnt in control as being argued here but there isnt any real substantial proof that God exists so using him in this argument is pointless. In this case it would probably be best to leave religion out of science.
........
The Second way states......
1) There exist things that are caused (created) by other things
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist
4) Therefore there must be an uncaused first cause called god.
............. Out of all the arguments i find this one to make the most sense...at least to me. I agree that there must be some outside force thats creates all that exists. Obviously nothing can make itself....you can argue that something does but eventually you will find that it is a product of something else. Again the whole thing about God is not or may not be true. His existence cannot be proven therefore i believe that one should not assume that he is not the outside force. Rather he should be seen as an option instead of the only answer.
........
The third way states.....
1) Contingent beings are caused
2) Not every being can be contingent
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings
4) This necessary being is god
Again the whole god thing is basically the only thing i dont agree with but other than that this argument seems to make sense to me. It makes sense of the order in the universe and how things are dependent upon each other.
..........
The fourth way states.....
basically...perception..you will always look at two things and have an opinion of whether or not they are beautiful or ugly and so on. I dont agree with this argument because i dont believe that there is a standard for beauty...what one person sees as the most beautiful thing another may see as a hideous thing. Therefore we will never have just one idea of what perfection is. I also disagree with the idea that God has perfection. He throughout texts has shown that not even he is perfect. And according to the bible and the imperfections shown by God i would have to say if God isnt perfect then that goes to show that nothing is...im not saying that i completely support this idea of god and such but this is how it makes the most sense to me
............
The fifth way states.....
the idea of intelligent design...this topic is being revisited here and my opinion has stayed the same. This argument is in my point of view probably one of the weaker ones because it is speaking of god and etc. Im not saying that God does not exist or that he is not the creator but i am saying that there is no proof that he is. People simply have faith in what he has done but they dont have anything to back up these so called truths. He might be the intelligent designer responsible for the creation of the earth and heavens and such but he might not be...there might just be some scientific explanation somewhere that explains how the world was created and how everything has happened up til this point. So by St. Thomas saying that it is all by God i would have to say that he might be right but there is also the possibility that he is not therefore this argument is only half true.
the end :]
.....
The first way basically states....
1) Nothing can move itself
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover
3) This first mover is the unmoved mover called God
....uhhhh to begin i have to say that i find this argument to be the weakest. In a sense i agree that nothin can move itself. Outside forced such as gravity have a constant affect upon us and our actions. But i do have to say that the whole thing about God being the mover is trash. Im not denying that God isnt in control as being argued here but there isnt any real substantial proof that God exists so using him in this argument is pointless. In this case it would probably be best to leave religion out of science.
........
The Second way states......
1) There exist things that are caused (created) by other things
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist
4) Therefore there must be an uncaused first cause called god.
............. Out of all the arguments i find this one to make the most sense...at least to me. I agree that there must be some outside force thats creates all that exists. Obviously nothing can make itself....you can argue that something does but eventually you will find that it is a product of something else. Again the whole thing about God is not or may not be true. His existence cannot be proven therefore i believe that one should not assume that he is not the outside force. Rather he should be seen as an option instead of the only answer.
........
The third way states.....
1) Contingent beings are caused
2) Not every being can be contingent
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings
4) This necessary being is god
Again the whole god thing is basically the only thing i dont agree with but other than that this argument seems to make sense to me. It makes sense of the order in the universe and how things are dependent upon each other.
..........
The fourth way states.....
basically...perception..you will always look at two things and have an opinion of whether or not they are beautiful or ugly and so on. I dont agree with this argument because i dont believe that there is a standard for beauty...what one person sees as the most beautiful thing another may see as a hideous thing. Therefore we will never have just one idea of what perfection is. I also disagree with the idea that God has perfection. He throughout texts has shown that not even he is perfect. And according to the bible and the imperfections shown by God i would have to say if God isnt perfect then that goes to show that nothing is...im not saying that i completely support this idea of god and such but this is how it makes the most sense to me
............
The fifth way states.....
the idea of intelligent design...this topic is being revisited here and my opinion has stayed the same. This argument is in my point of view probably one of the weaker ones because it is speaking of god and etc. Im not saying that God does not exist or that he is not the creator but i am saying that there is no proof that he is. People simply have faith in what he has done but they dont have anything to back up these so called truths. He might be the intelligent designer responsible for the creation of the earth and heavens and such but he might not be...there might just be some scientific explanation somewhere that explains how the world was created and how everything has happened up til this point. So by St. Thomas saying that it is all by God i would have to say that he might be right but there is also the possibility that he is not therefore this argument is only half true.
the end :]
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Common Fallacies/... Mein Kampf by Hitler
So In Class today we went over the most common fallacies which include.....
*Hasty Generalization
*False use of Authority
*Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause
* False Analogy
*Ad Hominem
*False Dilemma
*Slippery Slope
*Begging the Question...and lastly
*Straw Man
Basically a Fallacy is not true yet can easily be mistakened as so. We really have to pay attention when we read things or study arguments because fallacies can be hidden within them and can often times go on undetected!
A great (but poorly written) example of Common fallacies can be seen in Hitler's Mein Kampf.
One of the common fallacies that immidiately stuck out to me was this one.
" There are some truths which are so obvious that for this very reason nthey are not seen, or at least not recognized by ordinary people."
hmmmmm.... well first off this quote is known as an Ad Hominem and secondly to the reader this should make absolutely no sense at all. So to make it simpler Hitler basically called all common people stupid which seems a bit odd since he himself at this time was simple.....very messed up but still simple. Hes basically calling all people stupid by saying that the answer or truth is right in front of our eyes but we are too low/ idiotic to see it.
Another example of a fallacy from this text would be.......
"Every animal mates with a member of the same species"
Well first things first...this would be classified as a False analogy. This is because a false analogy is descriptive but does not offer proof of a connection between the two things being compared.
Here Hitler is referring to animals and giving examples using animals yet this has nothing to do with humans. Hes saying that a lion breeds witha lion, a dog breeds with a dog, etc etc etc but he always goes on to say how humans of a certain backround cannot breed with humans of another background. I dont know about anyone else but this doesnt make any sense whatsoever!. He is stating that dogs go with dogs and etc but that humans cannot breed with certain humans......?? its confusing because according to his logic humans should be able to breed with all other humans no matter what their background or race or skin color and so on. Its almost as if he was contradicting what he was saying. No matter what though, this argument of his is still a fallacy because of the definition of false analogy.
*Hasty Generalization
*False use of Authority
*Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause
* False Analogy
*Ad Hominem
*False Dilemma
*Slippery Slope
*Begging the Question...and lastly
*Straw Man
Basically a Fallacy is not true yet can easily be mistakened as so. We really have to pay attention when we read things or study arguments because fallacies can be hidden within them and can often times go on undetected!
A great (but poorly written) example of Common fallacies can be seen in Hitler's Mein Kampf.
One of the common fallacies that immidiately stuck out to me was this one.
" There are some truths which are so obvious that for this very reason nthey are not seen, or at least not recognized by ordinary people."
hmmmmm.... well first off this quote is known as an Ad Hominem and secondly to the reader this should make absolutely no sense at all. So to make it simpler Hitler basically called all common people stupid which seems a bit odd since he himself at this time was simple.....very messed up but still simple. Hes basically calling all people stupid by saying that the answer or truth is right in front of our eyes but we are too low/ idiotic to see it.
Another example of a fallacy from this text would be.......
"Every animal mates with a member of the same species"
Well first things first...this would be classified as a False analogy. This is because a false analogy is descriptive but does not offer proof of a connection between the two things being compared.
Here Hitler is referring to animals and giving examples using animals yet this has nothing to do with humans. Hes saying that a lion breeds witha lion, a dog breeds with a dog, etc etc etc but he always goes on to say how humans of a certain backround cannot breed with humans of another background. I dont know about anyone else but this doesnt make any sense whatsoever!. He is stating that dogs go with dogs and etc but that humans cannot breed with certain humans......?? its confusing because according to his logic humans should be able to breed with all other humans no matter what their background or race or skin color and so on. Its almost as if he was contradicting what he was saying. No matter what though, this argument of his is still a fallacy because of the definition of false analogy.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design??
..............In Schools across the country there has been a science that has been used to explain the world and the ways in which it works. This is evolution which includes natural selection and individuals who support it such as Charles Darwin. Evolution and its submatters explain how things have come about in this world such as people and different species. We use fossils such as those of dinosaurs to help us get a better understanding of what existed. Also through these sciences, scientists can provide us with logical explanations of how things work, how they have worked in the past, and how they might evolve to work in the future.......
This system has been taught across the world for a long time but lately it is apparent that evolution is being threatened.......by......Intelligent Design!
Intelligent design is an explanation of how the world works (much like evolution)...so what's the difference? Intelligent Design is basically the opposite of evolution because evolution and such can be explained through the sciences. Intelligent design is an explanation of how GOD has formed our world. Those who believe in this intelligent design believe that god is and has always been responsible for the way the world has come about and why things happen as they do...
Therefore if one was to ask a scientist (who follows the laws of evolution) how the world works the scientist would go on to say something like, "Well you see when we look at the scientific evidence and the fossils we can make the connection that this and that happened occuring in the evolution of the..." the point is that this scientist would explain that science is responsible for the way things are and that just about everything can be explained using science.....
Yet if we were to ask someone who believes in intelligent design how the world works they would probably tell us, " Well you see God has caused this to happen because he was either angry with us or because he is rewarding us for doing something good." These individuals explain everything through biblical terms/ as if god were responsible.
Those who support intelligent design say that natural selection simply could not be because something so fine and perfect could just not be made by mere people. It must be an object made by god or a divinity. Both Christianity and Islam believe in this Intelligent design. Christianity believes that because the world was created by God we should not study it because it is for God's knowledge only. However the Islam believes that God is the creator of the world and we must study the marvel of creation in order to understand God's intelligence. Either way both these religions support the ideas of intelligent design and what they stand for.....
In my opinion i would have to say that Intelligent design is not a credible argument to evolution. I can see how those who are religious/ others look to God for answers in this world but it is hard for me to see how others can deny the proof provided by scientists. I do believe that there might be some sort of divinity because many things in this world have no explanation or cannot be explained. There are many questions that have gone unanswered simply because there is literally no way to prove them. How can one in this day explain how the earth was formed? We cant go back in time to see so we either make a theory which makes sense or we turn to religion to god to explain things. In this case I can see how others look to God yet there are so many thing that can be proven correct by Scientists. How can one deny what has been proven true? One plus one is two. How can someone turn around and say that this is false? Where would God come into this? How does religion answer these questions? These questions are a few of the many that one must ask themselves. To me Science makes a bit more sense when it comes to answering these types of questions when compared to religion. Scientists can study fossils and such from the past and tell us dinosaurs existed and this was their structure. We can see the bones, touch them, and see that this is the truth. One cannot deny this. Religion on the other hand simply says ok you must have Faith that God is there and that he is responsible for all that happens. One who supports intelligent design would say how can men come from monkeys? God made man as they are and they would go on to use the biblical text to back up their words. These people have faith that what they say is correct and that God is the creator and so on. Scientists actually have proof to back up what they say. It just makes sense to me that there is an explanation for most things in this world and that everyday people such as scientists are finding them. So when I think about this situation taking place in several school in the country and even the world I consider all that ive stated and both viewpoints.....
In several ways both Intelligent design and evolution/ science make a lot of sense. Both are important in understanding the world and culture yet people try to force that only one be taught in schools. So the question becomes...should evolution be used to explain the world? or is Intelligent Design the only explanation that we can rely on? This can be debated over and over but I dont think a common ground will be found. Both have great arguments as to why one is true or why it makes sense. Even for me i cant decide which one is true. I side most with evolution because it makes sense to me but if i completely deny intelligent design then how can i be sure that im right. How can i be sure that Intelligent design is far off from the truth? I have to consider both because both have strong arguments. Both have claims that are strong and that makes it that much harder to decide between the two.But in the end Evolution has better explanations (in my opinion) and therefore intelligent design is a bit of a threat to evolution but its arguments are not strong enough to completely blow evolution out of the water......
the end!!!
This system has been taught across the world for a long time but lately it is apparent that evolution is being threatened.......by......Intelligent Design!
Intelligent design is an explanation of how the world works (much like evolution)...so what's the difference? Intelligent Design is basically the opposite of evolution because evolution and such can be explained through the sciences. Intelligent design is an explanation of how GOD has formed our world. Those who believe in this intelligent design believe that god is and has always been responsible for the way the world has come about and why things happen as they do...
Therefore if one was to ask a scientist (who follows the laws of evolution) how the world works the scientist would go on to say something like, "Well you see when we look at the scientific evidence and the fossils we can make the connection that this and that happened occuring in the evolution of the..." the point is that this scientist would explain that science is responsible for the way things are and that just about everything can be explained using science.....
Yet if we were to ask someone who believes in intelligent design how the world works they would probably tell us, " Well you see God has caused this to happen because he was either angry with us or because he is rewarding us for doing something good." These individuals explain everything through biblical terms/ as if god were responsible.
Those who support intelligent design say that natural selection simply could not be because something so fine and perfect could just not be made by mere people. It must be an object made by god or a divinity. Both Christianity and Islam believe in this Intelligent design. Christianity believes that because the world was created by God we should not study it because it is for God's knowledge only. However the Islam believes that God is the creator of the world and we must study the marvel of creation in order to understand God's intelligence. Either way both these religions support the ideas of intelligent design and what they stand for.....
In my opinion i would have to say that Intelligent design is not a credible argument to evolution. I can see how those who are religious/ others look to God for answers in this world but it is hard for me to see how others can deny the proof provided by scientists. I do believe that there might be some sort of divinity because many things in this world have no explanation or cannot be explained. There are many questions that have gone unanswered simply because there is literally no way to prove them. How can one in this day explain how the earth was formed? We cant go back in time to see so we either make a theory which makes sense or we turn to religion to god to explain things. In this case I can see how others look to God yet there are so many thing that can be proven correct by Scientists. How can one deny what has been proven true? One plus one is two. How can someone turn around and say that this is false? Where would God come into this? How does religion answer these questions? These questions are a few of the many that one must ask themselves. To me Science makes a bit more sense when it comes to answering these types of questions when compared to religion. Scientists can study fossils and such from the past and tell us dinosaurs existed and this was their structure. We can see the bones, touch them, and see that this is the truth. One cannot deny this. Religion on the other hand simply says ok you must have Faith that God is there and that he is responsible for all that happens. One who supports intelligent design would say how can men come from monkeys? God made man as they are and they would go on to use the biblical text to back up their words. These people have faith that what they say is correct and that God is the creator and so on. Scientists actually have proof to back up what they say. It just makes sense to me that there is an explanation for most things in this world and that everyday people such as scientists are finding them. So when I think about this situation taking place in several school in the country and even the world I consider all that ive stated and both viewpoints.....
In several ways both Intelligent design and evolution/ science make a lot of sense. Both are important in understanding the world and culture yet people try to force that only one be taught in schools. So the question becomes...should evolution be used to explain the world? or is Intelligent Design the only explanation that we can rely on? This can be debated over and over but I dont think a common ground will be found. Both have great arguments as to why one is true or why it makes sense. Even for me i cant decide which one is true. I side most with evolution because it makes sense to me but if i completely deny intelligent design then how can i be sure that im right. How can i be sure that Intelligent design is far off from the truth? I have to consider both because both have strong arguments. Both have claims that are strong and that makes it that much harder to decide between the two.But in the end Evolution has better explanations (in my opinion) and therefore intelligent design is a bit of a threat to evolution but its arguments are not strong enough to completely blow evolution out of the water......
the end!!!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Three Different Types of Deductive Logic!!!
Deductive logic is basically all the saame but there are three specific types.
These three are Syllogism, Modus Ponens, and Modus Tollens.
...During the middle ages people looked to the Church for various answers of how things worked. The Church of course provided their answers from the bible, their only source of knowledge at this time. Science was not used to explain common phenomanas and such. Rather the bible was the thing to read if you needed answers as to how the earth came into existence or why your family member caught the plague.
Deductive logic fit this time period well because the bible was the answer and one couldnt reach outside of it to learn more of how things work. Deductive logic is the same. One is limited to their options/answers.
...........
1) SYLLOGISM!
Syllogism is based on facts. Not necessarily the truth but the validity of the statements.
The events of a syllogism must be in a very strict and specific order in order for it to be correct/understood.
This order is.......
*A=B
*B=C
*A=C
An Example of this would be:
Midterms require alot of writing
Something hat requires alot of writing is stressful
Midterms are stressful
.............
2) MODUS PONENS!!
Validity in a Modus Ponen only has to do with correct construction of the problem. Both statements have to be consistent therefore both must have the same outcome.
So if P equals Q then in the next statement Q must equal P. There are NO negatives.
An example of this would be:
If im happy, then I have no homework
If i have no homework, then im happy
.................
3) MODUS TOLLENS!!!
These statements include negatives and therefore have a negative outcome un like a Modus Ponen which does not have this result. If something is not present then the other thing is false or cannot be present as well. Usually P is equal to Q but in this statement if Q is false then P is as well
An example of this would be:
If you are smart then you have good grades
If you do not have good grades then you are not smart
...this statement is also used in Geometry/mathematics and is referred to as contraposotive......
THE END!!!
best blog in core!
These three are Syllogism, Modus Ponens, and Modus Tollens.
...During the middle ages people looked to the Church for various answers of how things worked. The Church of course provided their answers from the bible, their only source of knowledge at this time. Science was not used to explain common phenomanas and such. Rather the bible was the thing to read if you needed answers as to how the earth came into existence or why your family member caught the plague.
Deductive logic fit this time period well because the bible was the answer and one couldnt reach outside of it to learn more of how things work. Deductive logic is the same. One is limited to their options/answers.
...........
1) SYLLOGISM!
Syllogism is based on facts. Not necessarily the truth but the validity of the statements.
The events of a syllogism must be in a very strict and specific order in order for it to be correct/understood.
This order is.......
*A=B
*B=C
*A=C
An Example of this would be:
Midterms require alot of writing
Something hat requires alot of writing is stressful
Midterms are stressful
.............
2) MODUS PONENS!!
Validity in a Modus Ponen only has to do with correct construction of the problem. Both statements have to be consistent therefore both must have the same outcome.
So if P equals Q then in the next statement Q must equal P. There are NO negatives.
An example of this would be:
If im happy, then I have no homework
If i have no homework, then im happy
.................
3) MODUS TOLLENS!!!
These statements include negatives and therefore have a negative outcome un like a Modus Ponen which does not have this result. If something is not present then the other thing is false or cannot be present as well. Usually P is equal to Q but in this statement if Q is false then P is as well
An example of this would be:
If you are smart then you have good grades
If you do not have good grades then you are not smart
...this statement is also used in Geometry/mathematics and is referred to as contraposotive......
THE END!!!
best blog in core!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)