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.