In Order For it to Be Science, It Needs to Be Falsifiable

The idea that a theory has to be able to be falsified in or der to be science amuses me. Originally, I didn't understand- I didn't understand how it could be science it would have to be false. but, that is not what they are trying to say. What thiss all means is that there has to be a way to test the theory to see if it is false. If there is no way to possibly try to prove it wrong then it cannot be science.

With the definition out of the way, we can now consider how religious people twist this around. Lately, they have been trying to find scientific evidence to prove various religious things are true. the thing is, they are twisting facts around, and that is how they are able to "prove" things. I realize that I am generalizing, but throughout the whole conversation on the topic, all I could think aboout was one thing. My father once talked with someone who was convinced that the dinosaur bones were put here to test our faith. All that this is doing, is taking science and saying that it is stupid and does not really exist.

Suicide of a child...

I have recently read about two different situations where cyber bullying has ended in a 13 year old girl to kill herself. the one I found the most information on was a girl named Megan Meier. The worst part about it was that the cyber bullying came from someone she met on myspace that she thought was a secret admirer-as it turns out, it was the mother of a girl that Megan stopped being friends with. I will post a link to some articles on the situation. I know that this has nothing really to do with the class, but it is something i want people's opinions on.

I think that the woman should be held accountable and shouldn't be getting any compensation for the vandalism of her property by the people in her neighborhood.

watch the clip on the first one

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3970339&page=1

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1120072megan1.html

http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/10/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.ii1.txt (this isn't as long as it looks, there are a lot of user comments)

there is also an article in the PEOPLE magazine issue for December 3

I ask that my classmates read this and please tell me how you feel on the topic.

Throwing the Blame

In class today we were talkign about zoos, and then the conversation turned to the cases where animals are executed for killing people. It would be one thing if the animals was extremely violent and viscious. An isolated case, where it is probably the fault of people.

It is a horrible when a child, or anyone, is mauled to death by animals, but how can it be the fault of the animal? They are acting upon instinct. if we are going to blame an animal for something instinctual, we are acknowledging that they are capable of reason and that they should have more rights and should notbe kept in cages. For some reason people dont look at it like this. They think along the lines of, "we need to blame something" so therefor they blame something that really cannot be blamed,

More on "Zoos and Eyes"

Originally I saw no connection between zoos and pornography other than the fact that I dislike both. After our class discussion I understood a little bit better, but still disagree. I feel that a better analogy would have been circuses and pornography.
There is another way in which the argument could have been better. Hannah brought to class the definition of pornography. According to her definition, pornography is essentially obscenity without any artistic merit. If this was the case in the argument in the essay, the argument would have been stronger. The essay specifically used sexual pornography that objectifies women. This is a bad example because it is far too specific. Pornography is no longer just for men to look at women. Women look at women, men look at men, women look at men. Also, because it can be anything obscene, I do not understand why he used the sexual type. People will read it and automatically connect it with sex and be confused as I was when I first read it.
I agree that with both, what is being looked at is an image of what is real, and is not actually true to life. Even with this, I think that pornography is an extreme example. So, I feel that it is pornographic in the sense that it is obscene without artistic merit, but I still feel that it cannot be compared with the sexual pornography.

Peter Singer

In my other philosophy class today, we discussed animal rights. We talked, specifically about Peter Singer. I totally disagree with a lot of what he says. One of the things he said (and they said in No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed) was that being a speciecist was as bad as being a racist. I totally disagree with that.

Singer went further to compare a chicken and a child, and a dolphin and a comatose person. I agree that animals have intelligence and the ability to reason, but i do not think that these things can be compared They are very different things that need to be looked at separately.

No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed: Got Rights

The video interested me, but I had a hard time following some of the conversation. This could be because of how informal it was.

I do not remember who said it, but one thing I liked was that moral rights are sometimes in conflict with legal rights. I mean, I liked the statement, not the idea. I feel that this is very true for both animals and people. I cannot remember if it was animals or people that the speaker was referring to. But, anyways, I feel that some of the rights that we as people have from birth are limited by the laws that we have created to make things "better."

One problem that I had with the movie was that one of the speakers, a blond lady who is a scientist, made a comment about our country being created four hundred years ago.

Zoos and Porn

I agree with the text that zoos are not a good thing. They do not really educate us on animals in their natural environment. Zoos, are to me, one of the most depressing things. The animals always appear sad and lonely.
I do not, however, agree that zoos are on the same level as pornography. I feel that pornography is a bad thing as well, but they are not on the same level. They are two totally different things that cannot be compared.

Consumers and Producers

How could we be merely consumers? There has to be someone or something to provide for us. If people lived in the utopian vision, there would have to be some who did not. This would cause an even bigger rift between the classes. The lower classes would be lower because they would have to do everything, while the wealthy does nothing. If everyone does work, then there is less of a rift, and the classes are more equal. We all must produce and we all must consume. We cannot healthily do just one or the other.

In Response

In response to my last post, David Johnson said: "Rather than 'The unexamined life is not worth living,' perhaps what Socrates meant to say was 'The examined life, for those lucky enough to pursue it, is especially satisfying.'" I agree that this may have been what he wanted to say, but the fact that he did make that slip suggests that he did look down upon those who had to toil. I do not know much about Socrates, but just from that statement, he does sound like he feels that because he is an intellectual that he is a higher person. I am not sure if this really was the case, but that is just the impression that I get.

And I am looking very foreward to ending our discussions on work and moving on to animal ethics!

more on why we work

one of the things we discussed yesterday was the things that various philosophers have said in the past on the topic of work. Socrates said that workers have a lower form of life because they cannot take the time to examine their life. another philosopher said that work was equivalent to pain and since we avoid pain at all costs, we should avoid work as well. yet another said that work is evil because we only do it because we have to. i do not know where they came up with this, but it is totally wrong. i mean, you can examine your life if you are a worker. not that i think that you should have to examine your life to make it fulfilling. as for the second philosopher, not all work is painful, and no work really has to be painful. finally, the third one, we do have to work, but that does not make it evil. people need to work for the world to run smoothly.

i personally like the statement that we are producers as well as consumers. this is so true. we do not merely sit back and get everything handed to us. things just don't work that way. we need to work, to produce.

This is going back a bit...

Remember when we discussed the death penalty?
Well, in my other philosophy class, we are discussing it now. Today we watched a movie on it called Judgement At Midnight.

I noticed some things during that movie. First of all, there were three men involved in two murders (only one was involved in both). The man involved with both, Antonio James, was executed, even though there was reasonable doubt that he had actually been the one to pull the trigger. There was convincing evidence from both sides. There for he should have just been kept in jail for life without parole. One of the other men went to jail for four years. The other didn't serve any time whatsoever. This led me to an interesting idea. When there are more than one person involved in a murder, and it is unknown which one was actually the murderer, all involved should be incarcerated for life. None should be executed, none should get parole, all should have to serve life.

Another thing that I noticed was that when the family goes for a visit before the execution, it is set up like a big party. To me this is just a way for the executioners to feel better bout what they are doing.
The final thing that I noticed was how we have so many stereotypes. There was a radio station in the movie that aired some one calling in and saying something to the effect of "He is taking the easy way out. i mean, there are plenty of really good trees around." One student was very disturbed by the fact that this was publicly broadcast. The general response to her being upset was "Well, it's Louisiana, what do you expect?" This seems like quite the stereotype.

Anyways, I am still for the death penalty in some cases, but I just wanted to add this to the previous conversation on the topic.

Why Work?

I'll be completely honest here, I did not understand quite a lot of the article. This could be, though, because of the bias that I am reading it with. I feel that work has to get done, and that some things will never be desiarable. Yes, they can be made more desirable, but still, many jobs would just be a means to an end. This is, in my view, the way that the world works. There really is not much that we can do about it. I realize that reading with a bias is something that I shouldn't be doing, but I am human, and therefor imperfect.

A Means to an End

During our discussion of Bertell Ollman, the subject came up of jobs being a means to an end. This is true for many people, but there is really nothing we can do about it, in my opinion. There will always be jobs that no one wants to do, but that have to get done. Also, sharing these undesirable jobs would not work. There are far too many people that shun jobs such as cleaning and taking out the trash, that when it was their turn to do the job, it would not get done, or at leas not done well. It is sad that we have to have people clean for us, but if we did not, it would not get done. There was also talk of everyone having multiple jobs and having more generalized training. That, too, would not work all that well, since there are jobs that you need specified training for, and if you were more generalized, the job would noto get done as well. Personally, I like the capitalist system, and think that we should keep it.

what defines an honors student

1. They actually want to be there. What I mean by this is that the student does not take the classes merely to get early registration or to look good on a resume- they take these classes because they genuinely find these classes to be interesting.
2. They work hard at the classes. This does not mean that they do not mess up every now and again. These students are human, not some higher being. This was the problem in my high school there was too much pressure to be perfect. Essentially what I am saying is that the students should work hard and do their best in almost all circumstances.
3. They can discuss diverse and controversial topics without fear. What I mean by this is that they are not too shy to say their opinion and have knowledge to back it. If you are higher level, you should be able to communicate well with others.

Feuerbach

One of the criticisms that Marx made of Feuerbach was that Feuerbach criticized the way that the worl was working but did absolutely nothing to change it. I do not know exactly what it was that Feuerbah said, but I think that not taking action is not necessarly a bad thing. Someone needs too come up witht the ideas for change. In theory these changes may work, but that does not mean that in practical use that they will. There needs to be someone who takes the ideas and puts them to practical use. There are some people who can do both, but there are some who cannot.

the horrors of modern science

last class we discussed nature versus nurture as well as other factors that make us who we are. i asked if there were currently scientists trying to figure out what genes cause certain traits. the answer was yes, they are. this is an absolutely horrifying thought. if, for example they find a gene that causes homosexuality, there will be people who will have abortions because of finding out that their unborn child has it. i am personally against abortions except in extreme circumstances, and this is extreme in the other direction. it is so wrong to end a life just because you think that they will have a particular trait that you find undesirable. the people who are studying this and who, if they do figure out what genes cause certain traits, choose to terminate an unborn child based solely on the fact that they have an undesirable trait are just as bad as nazis. they would be practicing eugenics and trying to purify the species. that is the point of evolution- to better the species. let nature do her job, don't do it for her. science is not exact. what if the think they have it figured out and then they were wrong? what happens if there are unforeseen consequences of either eradicating a trait, or putting more of a trait out into the world? there is no way of knowing, and people should leave certain things alone. by attempting to get rid of a trait completely, it will only cause discrimination against the people who are living today with that trait. the whole thing is just ridiculous and should be forgotten. there are things in this world that i believe we were not meant to know. i think that this is one of them.

I can't believe I'm doing this...

Ok, I can't believe I am going to go back to the discussion of Faces of the Enemy. But, I feel that I have to. I realized today that dehumanizing the enemy does not have to be for war or violence. it can be with anyone. I thought of this, because earlier today I was trapped on the elevator with my boyfriend's ex. I was very nervous about this. Anyone who knows me knows that I hate silence, especially awkward silence, so I did what I usually do, and started talking. it was a imple, rather pointless conversation, but I realized that she is not as horrible as I had convinced myself she was. This has lead me to a theory on how to stop dehumanizing large groups of people. We each need to stop the little dehumanizing that we do in our personal lives. If none of us are doing it on a small scale, how could all of us collectively do it together on a large scale.

Now, I swear that we are done with our discussion of military ethics....

Linguistic Determinism and Free Will and Determinism

Earlier in the semester I suggested that we had free will before language. I continued by saying that we now have our lives determined because of language. This connects directly with the idea of linguistic determinism. This is the theory that language shapes thought. I just thought that i would point out these connections because it has made me realize that all of the things that we talk about in this class are connected somehow. So, don't lament when a topic is over,I'm sure that somehow we will come back to it later!!

tying up of loose ends

David Lee Rice is ALIVE. But only by a technicality. I really do feel that that man needs help.

I found the other famous movies that William Broyles wrote the screenplay for: Flags of Our Fathers, The Polar Express, and the newest version of Planet of the Apes.

Ok, I just thought that I would tie up those loos ends for now.

grrrr

for some reason, one word got highlighted during spell check and would not unighlight. if anyone knows how to fix this, please tell me.

Rethinking My Opinion On the Death Penalty

After watching Faces of the Enemy, I have changed my views on the death penalty.

You're probably thinking: Wait....wasn't that about war?

It was, but it also did a case study on murderer, David Lee Rice. He had gotten informatiton from somewhere that a family of four were communists. From what I understand, he had intended only to get information out of them, but in a panic brutally murdered them. He thought that he was a soldier in the US army, fighting the communists in our country. He was sadly delusional, and I do not think that he knew exactly what was going on. I think that putting him to death would not be a good idea. Keeping him in an institution for life would be better.

I feel that people that are that delusional should just be put into criminal mental institutions. I am not saying though that every person who claims insanity for reason of murder should go there though. there are many people who will claim temporary insanity. This is just a way for them to get out of being sentenced. I think that people who genuinely are delusional should get help.

I really would like to know what happened to Rice after his interview on the movie. I have been trying to search for information but cannot find any. If any of my classmates can find anything, please post it for me.

hmmm

i just realized that it puts the wrong time down for my posts. i hope that that didnt confuse anyone

Please Excuse Me While I Rant

Before watching Faces of the Enemy, we were warned that there would be disturbing images in the movie. I found something far more disturbing than the gore we were warned about: crazy delusional people. There was one lady who was giving a speech on how things were better when we lived by the law of God. She discussed the old days. She discussed a time when murderers were put to death. It sounds alright, but there is something wrong, it is not known yet what is wrong, the realization has not yet hit that this lady is crazy. Her next statement asserts any suspicions that the viewer has on her insanity. She says that in the good old days, when God ruled all, we executed the homosexuals. Now, it is obvious that she is anti-gay. I am sure that she is horrified by the gay rights movement. I would really like to point out to her that in those good old days, when gays had no rights, she probably wouldn't either. In the good old days, when God ruled all, men ruled all. She would not be making a speech, she would be at home cooking dinner for the man. Seriously, these people make no sense (and I hope as I am typing this that I make sense).

I apologize that this was a rant not on the topic of torture or anything that we have been talking about, it was just something that caught my attention. i felt everyone else should see it too. Thank you for enduring this rant to the end. :)

i'm sorry for the mess, but my brain has exploded

well, thanks to all of the talk on torture my brain has exploded. i am very confused. i had been very set in my idea that it was definitely ok in certain circumstances. then i heard about water boarding. i had never really thought that in today's world that anything other than beatings were used. now that i see that there are other horrible things, i think that only certain torture is ok in certain cases. but what cases, and what torture? thinking about this is what caused my brain to explode. in the dialogue, erica points out that maybe the person doesn't really have the information. what if that happened? and now i'm questioning myself too. i had always thought that i had been apart from the reach of television's desensitization. but the fact that i think that beatings aren't as bad as other forms of torture shows that i must not have been. so now that i have a headache from all of this (or is it from the stale gum i've been chewing?) i think i will end here. and, i promise that i will eventually get around to cleaning up the mess that i made when my brain exploded.

more on torture

the first thing that i would like to say on the subject of torture is a reaction to something that Betsy said today. she brought up the fact that she doesn't like it that animals are never included in the topic of legalized torture. personally i think that there is a reason for it. my understanding of the debate over legalizing torture has nothing to do with animals. legalizing torture has to do with being allowed to torture criminals into giving information. this really doesn't have anything to do with animals.

the next thing that i would like to discuss is the concept of nonintervention in the wild. personally i think that we should leave nature alone. animals are sometimes violent. this is just the way that the world is. it is hard to be this way, but i think that it is important to be this way.

The Ticking Bomb

Ok, you are an officer of the law. you have in custody a terrorist. Said terrorist has put a bomb somewhere in the city. it will go off and kill many innocent people. the Terrorist will not talk. Do you torture him for information?

YES

In my eyes, terrorists, murderers and rapists have no rights. it does not matter how much pain you cause them, they have caused a lot more to innocent people. In the instance where torture will save innocent lives, it is, in my mind, perfectly alright. Those people are more important than the scum that sits before you with his mouth shut.

BUT

I have a question: What kind of mental effect does all of this have on the torturer? You are just a law enforcement agent doing your job. How do you feel after seeing someone writhing in pain. No matter how horrible they are, it has got to do something to you mentally and emotionally. I am pretty sure that I wouldn't be able to handle it.

I would like it very much if the people in my class would tell me what they think the effect is on the torturer. I'm very curious about this.

To Love Or To Kill: Man Against the Animals

We watched a movie today in class with the same title as this blog entry. it was discussing the way that we treat animals. And "we" was not just Americans. It was everyone in the world.

The movie opened with talking about using animals to help the criminally insane. The animals help to calm them and there are less suicides and such when there are animals present. this makes sense, animals do have a very calming effect on people. This is why we love them so much.

Later in the movie, they were discussing a pet cemetery. Many people I know would say that this is a crazy idea and it is a ridiculous waste of time. But, I feel that it is not. I for one know that a pet often becomes a family member and is very much loved. My cat recently died, and I had a hard time functioning for a few weeks afterwards. She was more than a pet to me, I got her shortly after my uncle died and if not for her I am not sure how messed up I would have been. After showing the pet cemetery and such, they talked about dressing your pets up. I think that is ridiculous, but now I think I am a hypocrite: when my family went on vacation this summer, we had our dog stay in a dog hotel and spa. This is overboard, but it is because we love our pets as if they were family.

Shortly after this I had to stop watching the movie and plug my ears. From what I gathered, the movie was talking about how they eat cats and dogs in the east. I find this disgusting and horrifying. But, then I have to stop and think about it. There are places in the world where it is horrifying to eat a cow. They would probably be appalled at seeing a video where people are eating such creatures. In the east, it is normal to eat cat and dog meat. This is mainly based on custom. This means that the moral status of an animal is not constant throughout the world. This creates a bit of a problem. if we as humans are supposed to be responsible for moral patients, shouldn't the moral status of these moral patients be constant throughout the world?

Just a little side note: I almost threw up, because I could still hear the screaming of the dying animals, and would absolutely prefer to not watch the rest of the video. it was quite sickening.

More on Animals and Morals

I don't really have all that much new to say on this topic. but, i do know that we had talked in class about beings that were merely alive, and the point was brought up about plants responding better when you talk nicely to them. I think that things that are merely alive should not even come into the conversation about morals.

I do think, though that we do need to look at the sentient beings that we are not sure if they can feel pain and pleasure or not. This means things like oysters. I thing that since it is a sentient being, we should give it the moral respect. Since we do not know if it can feel pain or pleasure, we should give it the benefit of the doubt, and try our best to not inflict pain upon it.

Animals and Morals

Ok, I first have to set everyone straight: I am probably thebiggest animal lover in the world. I do believe that animals are capapble of intelligent thoguht and of loving someone. I also feel that there are instances when animals "know" you and "know" how to make you happy. What I don't believe, however, is that they are capable of metacognition, or of moral thought. They do not reflect upon their actions, and wonder later if they did the right thing. They do what they think of at that moment, and then it's done. It's over, on to the next thing. Saying that they are not capaable of this reflection is not saying that we should love them any less. They are no less to us because of this, if anything, this may be part of why we love them so much. I mean, who doesn't want to spill their secrets to someone who will love them no less, no matter what it is they have done?

The World Without Religion

Ok, yesterday someone asked what would happen to morals if naturalism took over and people no longer believed in religion. personally, I do not think that this could EVER happen. There are so many people that depend on their religion so much, and these are the people that will believe no matter what evidence is put to them. But, I know of plenty of people who do not believe in any religion, or any higher power, and they still have morals, and they still act as many of the religious people that I know. There of course will be those that do not care, but I think that for the most part people will continue to be moral.

Bertrand Russell

Ok, so I agree with some things that Bertrand Russel said, but not with others.

I like his idea that religion is a fight against death. That is true, it's a way for people to fight off the thought of dying and there being nothing.

One thing that he said that I totally disagee with is that war is an act of passion, not reason. A lot of times there is reason behind wars. They may not be the reasons that you think, but there are strategetic reasons for it.

Coexistence is Futile

I do not think that naturalism and supernaturalism can peacefully coexist. There are people who believe so fully in one or the other that they are willing to kill. I mean, if we got rid of them, then they could peacefully coexist, but then we would be as bad as them.

In theory it is beautiful, but that is all it can be, a theory.

ethics are an illusion

Okay, today we were given four statements regarding ethical behavior. It truly does appear that ethical behavior is merely an illusion. But, if everything is determined, then why was the concept of ethical action ever creeated? I mean, if everything is planned out as to how it is going to be in the future, why even vex our minds with it? Going along with this logic, why even have the concept of free will? This is the main problem I have with determinism. If everything was determined, why have these things?

I still think that free will has been weeded out, but...

Ok, earlier today I had said that i felt that at some point in time the human race had free will, but now all we have is determinism. Now that I have had time to think it out, I think that i can word it better so that it actually makes sense.

Ok. First, we had cavemen. Originally they probably did not have language. They had the free will to do whateve they chose. They develop language. They begin to communicate with one another. They begin to decide what is right and what is wrong. This is passed down to their children. As time goes on, and language becomes more refined, they begin to make more guidelines and refine the ones that they already had. This allows the later generations even less free will as to what to do. At the current point in time, very much is determined for us by the rules and guidelines that date all the way back to the cavemen.

Example: A prelinguistic lives in a hut. Another prelinguistic breaks into his hut to steal something. The first prelinguistic, fearing for his life kills the prelinguistic breaking in. No repercussions. time goes on, this is shunned. you should not kill or attempt to kill, no matter what the circumstance. today if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, if you maim them and they survive, you are the one who is going to get punished.

Does this make any sense? Maybe I used a bad example....But, all I am trying to say is that very far in the past, we had free will, but we lost it, because once language and communication came about there were rules. the rules got stricter-even the rules that are not neccessarily legal rules, the mores of the culture-and now our lives are determined.

Am I really doing this of my own free will?

I am almost finished reading the article on free will and determinism. To me, the logic seems kind of circular. But it does bring up a very good question: do we do ANYTHING of our own free will? I am now beginning to wonder this, and probably will not sleep tonight, because this will be all that i will be able to think about. And then i will have to start wondering if I am staying awake because it was determined, or if it is because I want to stay up and think about these things. im off to bed, when you see me in class tomorrow, i will have dark rings around my eyes, because I will seriously have been up all night thinking about this.