1. Why does the director feel that Unorthodoxy is worse than Murder? What does the Director want to do with Bernard Marx?
Because murder merely affects an individual, and the individual is nothing in this society, while unorthodox behavior affects the entire community, which is everything, and can have negative effects on the society as a whole, which would destroy many lives; kill one to save a thousand.
2. What surprise does Bernard bring to the Director?
He bring the director Linda, and he brings the director the baby the director and Linda had in the reservation.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Journal Response
Science as it is meant to be practiced is about facts, but as it is actually practiced, Science veers away from facts and the scientists begin to manipulate the data for themselves. The facts aren’t always seen as good things. If you’re trying to prove one thing and your evidence shows something else, you won’t be able to continue studying that for long. But, if your data supports your hypothesis, you just might be awarded more money, and be able to continue your study.
And Science isn’t immune to politics or religion. There have been occasions where the data points one way, whereas their beliefs or movement tell them something else, and they side with their beliefs. For example, the article gives the example of Copernicus; he removed Earth from the center of the universe, but did NOT put the sun there, because his beliefs told him that God preferred circular orbits to convoluted circles in circles which it would be if he had put the sun at the center. Also the article gives the example where the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty condemned Bjorn Lomborg for publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, in which he stated that industrialized countries protect the environment whereas poor countries tend to destroy it. He was later exonerated by the Danish Ministry of Science who condemned the committee for “unsatisfactory and emotional conduct deserving of criticism.” I myself am guilty of this. In some physics labs I’ve done, there has been anomalous data that doesn’t fit with the rest, and I’ve thrown it out before, to keep the experiment simple and the conclusion to the point.
So there is always the possibility of the scientist corrupting the nature of science, but the idea of science, and ideal science, does lie within the realm of facts.
And Science isn’t immune to politics or religion. There have been occasions where the data points one way, whereas their beliefs or movement tell them something else, and they side with their beliefs. For example, the article gives the example of Copernicus; he removed Earth from the center of the universe, but did NOT put the sun there, because his beliefs told him that God preferred circular orbits to convoluted circles in circles which it would be if he had put the sun at the center. Also the article gives the example where the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty condemned Bjorn Lomborg for publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, in which he stated that industrialized countries protect the environment whereas poor countries tend to destroy it. He was later exonerated by the Danish Ministry of Science who condemned the committee for “unsatisfactory and emotional conduct deserving of criticism.” I myself am guilty of this. In some physics labs I’ve done, there has been anomalous data that doesn’t fit with the rest, and I’ve thrown it out before, to keep the experiment simple and the conclusion to the point.
So there is always the possibility of the scientist corrupting the nature of science, but the idea of science, and ideal science, does lie within the realm of facts.
Dogs shows promise in taking down cancers
1.)It presents the idea that dogs can smell cancer and assist in early detection of cancer.
2.)It utilizes authority based of the idea of the scientists being an authority figure
3.)Reason- The Scientists' reports use an amount of reason to come to thier conclusion
Language- The conclusion had to dbe conveyed some way
Emotion- A new detection method of cancer would be a monumental victory in the fight against cancer
Perception- The point of view of the scientists is their perception and you see the article through your point of view
The science of medicine is a natural science and the social sciences apply as well- you see what you want
4.) Yes there are results for 2 different studies in which the results aren't even given, but they say they support the claims, and the info on the other studies is vague at best.
5.)Should be peer-reviewed, and tried to prove wrong
6.)I don't believe in the idea presented in this article, due to the lack of evidence presented.
2.)It utilizes authority based of the idea of the scientists being an authority figure
3.)Reason- The Scientists' reports use an amount of reason to come to thier conclusion
Language- The conclusion had to dbe conveyed some way
Emotion- A new detection method of cancer would be a monumental victory in the fight against cancer
Perception- The point of view of the scientists is their perception and you see the article through your point of view
The science of medicine is a natural science and the social sciences apply as well- you see what you want
4.) Yes there are results for 2 different studies in which the results aren't even given, but they say they support the claims, and the info on the other studies is vague at best.
5.)Should be peer-reviewed, and tried to prove wrong
6.)I don't believe in the idea presented in this article, due to the lack of evidence presented.
Who says Science is about Facts?
What is Karl Popper's main argument?
His main argument was that Freud's assertion that an ego meditates between an id and a superego is invalid, because they are of the subconscious and therefore cannot be tested.
Who was his primary enemy?
Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx
Is Popper correct?
He was correct at the time, as there was no known method to observe the subconscious, but recent studies suggest it may be possible.
His main argument was that Freud's assertion that an ego meditates between an id and a superego is invalid, because they are of the subconscious and therefore cannot be tested.
Who was his primary enemy?
Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx
Is Popper correct?
He was correct at the time, as there was no known method to observe the subconscious, but recent studies suggest it may be possible.
Ideal Science
Ideals of Science:
Bias-less (rarely)
objective (sometimes)
A process:
Observation
Prediction
Testing
Results
Conclusion
Free of Social constraints (rarely)
Free of political influence (even rarer)
Independent of Religion (usually)
Bias-less (rarely)
objective (sometimes)
A process:
Observation
Prediction
Testing
Results
Conclusion
Free of Social constraints (rarely)
Free of political influence (even rarer)
Independent of Religion (usually)
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Abel Chapter 10
1. How does Science explain a fact? Please use the entire explanation on. p. 91 and 92.
Science explains fact by embedding it in a general law from which the fact to be explained can be logically deduced. The particular fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law.
Science explains fact by embedding it in a general law from which the fact to be explained can be logically deduced. The particular fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law.
2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?
That science merely describes, but doesn't explain; and he refutes this by stating that there is no clear line between explanation and description. Also that science explains the strange with the familiar, but typically is the reverse. And that scientific explanation is not the same as understanding, but understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance than science. A scientific explanation need not be a casual law, but can be a simultaneous existence.
That science merely describes, but doesn't explain; and he refutes this by stating that there is no clear line between explanation and description. Also that science explains the strange with the familiar, but typically is the reverse. And that scientific explanation is not the same as understanding, but understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance than science. A scientific explanation need not be a casual law, but can be a simultaneous existence.
3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (p. 93)?
That the wider the scope of the law, the better the explanation of the event is. The wider the scope the more it incorporates and the more elegant the explanation.
That the wider the scope of the law, the better the explanation of the event is. The wider the scope the more it incorporates and the more elegant the explanation.
4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (p. 94)?
He means that you can't explain everything relating to one situation; you've gotta pick the most important features and explain them.
He means that you can't explain everything relating to one situation; you've gotta pick the most important features and explain them.
5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (p. 95)?
Because they explain only what is necessary, and avoid going off on tangents.
Because they explain only what is necessary, and avoid going off on tangents.
6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?
Because that concept of system allows the integration of various laws, and as all things interact in the world, it follows that they would in science.
Because that concept of system allows the integration of various laws, and as all things interact in the world, it follows that they would in science.
7. Why is the theory of emergence used to explain how anything new came into the world? What counter-claim does Abel provide?
Because there is the lack of any other explanation, and able points out that even this is unable to predict most emerging elements.
Because there is the lack of any other explanation, and able points out that even this is unable to predict most emerging elements.
8. Why is theory and observation interdependent in scientific explanations?
Because nearly all theories require observations to gain evidence for the theories and observations are explained by theories.
Because nearly all theories require observations to gain evidence for the theories and observations are explained by theories.
9. Why is explanation in science theoretically identical to prediction? How does Abel feel about this?
Explanation is theoretically identical to prediction because they both explain a phenomena, but Abel feels that as you don't need a prediciton for a good explanation, there is a difference.
Explanation is theoretically identical to prediction because they both explain a phenomena, but Abel feels that as you don't need a prediciton for a good explanation, there is a difference.
10. What does Abel mean when he says: 'The growth of science is not a clear-cut, straightforward progression toward a unique, all-inclusive final truth." (p. 100)?
He means that science is not a strait shot, but rather many different fronts progressing down many different corridors, not necessarily aware of the others, and never seeking an all encompassing truth.
He means that science is not a strait shot, but rather many different fronts progressing down many different corridors, not necessarily aware of the others, and never seeking an all encompassing truth.
11. According to Abel, what situations are seen by scientists as requiring explanation?
Things that seem natural, or new, things that seem to defy the common knowledge, or everyday things that we may think are explained but aren't.
Things that seem natural, or new, things that seem to defy the common knowledge, or everyday things that we may think are explained but aren't.
12. What is the role of the human element in the progress of scientific explanation?
What we search for. In the end, science provides answers for our questions and our problems, and we're always limited by what we see, and what we perceive a being able to be studied; we will always be limited by our biological limitations.
What we search for. In the end, science provides answers for our questions and our problems, and we're always limited by what we see, and what we perceive a being able to be studied; we will always be limited by our biological limitations.
13. Abel claims that: "Our perceptual knowledge is delimited by our characteristic biological capacities, and there are limits to the completeness of our theoretical structures. But our observations and our theories mutually reinforce each other....The structure of our science is pragmatically justified; it is the most reliable knowledge there is." (p. 105) Does this hold true in History as well?
I believe it does. We aren't going to investigate things that we have no interest in, we search for what we want, and answer the questions we ask. If we don't have any interest in it, it doesn't get studied.
I believe it does. We aren't going to investigate things that we have no interest in, we search for what we want, and answer the questions we ask. If we don't have any interest in it, it doesn't get studied.
14. In Bullet form, and using information from this chapter and Chapter 15 (you wrote Study Questions on November 9), please list the similarities and differences between Scientific and Historical explanations.
- Both explain events
- One attempts to answer questions about the nature of things
- while the other about events in the past
- Both have established processes to go about finding the answers
- yet the processes are different
- both use investigative methods to answer their questions
- but again use different methods
Monday, December 7, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 9
1. What did Lenina do when she got back to the rest-house?
She took a huge dose of soma and gets high for the rest of the day into the afternoon of the next day.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
If he could study John away from the conservatory; try to introduce him into the society at large.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
He says "Her eyes" which is significant because he feels especially drawn by her eyes and her eyes are similar to those of Linda.
She took a huge dose of soma and gets high for the rest of the day into the afternoon of the next day.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
If he could study John away from the conservatory; try to introduce him into the society at large.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
He says "Her eyes" which is significant because he feels especially drawn by her eyes and her eyes are similar to those of Linda.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Essay
“People need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events” (Adapted from John Gray, Heresies, 2004). In what ways and to what extent would you say this claim is relevant in at least two areas of knowledge?
This quote is heavily relevant to all the areas of knowledge, but particularly to history and social sciences. In both the social sciences and history, there are numerous examples of patterns being discovered and applied to these respective fields.
In History, the historian is seeking to discover a pattern in the events of the past. Events that are not necessarily related, yet which are seen in an overall pattern. These events may not be related to each other. Yet in history there are various theories on the impact of certain events and patterns that have emerged throughout history. There are a great number of theories that exist as how history has developed in regards to a pattern: some see a steady march towards progress, while others see an endless cycle. These theories have come about as the result of fruitful study, yet have a fundamental weakness. The fact that there exist so many different interpretations of human history calls into question the validity of these “patterns.” There is a fundamental concept at work here that must not be misunderstood. Each historian coming up with these patterns is influenced by their respective specializations; a historian studying societies throughout the later part of the 19th century and the 20th century may remark that history shows an un ending march towards progress, yet there have been numerous halts to “progress” and soviet historians said their state and communism was the culmination and eventual objective of this pattern, and yet the Soviet Union fell over 20 years ago.
This is also true in the study of the social sciences. Every study that is done has the purpose of finding a pattern among the behavior of humans, and this quote is very relevant to these studies, as the purpose of these studies; psychology, anthropology, etc. aim to discover patterns in the “chaos of events” that society or the human mind is. The fact that the studies aim to discover patterns immediately make the above quote very relevant to the social studies.
For example, a social scientist studying the correlation between two social factors is looking for a pattern between the two. The social sciences almost expressly follow this quote, as they are always looking for a pattern or connection in events, even though sometimes there just isn’t a pattern.
The basis of this quote is contained within both of these areas of knowledge, and the idea of patterns in the chaos of events is inherent in both. History tends to focus exclusively on the past, while social sciences focus both on past and present patterns. In both there is the study of the effect of one event on another, the relation between events, and a pattern in the occurrences of something, whether it be a society or a battle.
In History, the investigation of a subject is limited in the way knowledge is gained, but all four ways of knowing are relevant in this area, as well as in the social sciences. In both History and the Social Sciences, information is conveyed and gained through Perception, Reason, Language and Emotion. For example, in history, I have used Perception to perceive the paper, Language to read it and Reason to analyze it. Sometimes you even use Emotion to gain knowledge, when someone’s done something particularly bad or something bad’s happened. The same process occurs in the social sciences.
This quote is heavily relevant to all the areas of knowledge, but particularly to history and social sciences. In both the social sciences and history, there are numerous examples of patterns being discovered and applied to these respective fields.
In History, the historian is seeking to discover a pattern in the events of the past. Events that are not necessarily related, yet which are seen in an overall pattern. These events may not be related to each other. Yet in history there are various theories on the impact of certain events and patterns that have emerged throughout history. There are a great number of theories that exist as how history has developed in regards to a pattern: some see a steady march towards progress, while others see an endless cycle. These theories have come about as the result of fruitful study, yet have a fundamental weakness. The fact that there exist so many different interpretations of human history calls into question the validity of these “patterns.” There is a fundamental concept at work here that must not be misunderstood. Each historian coming up with these patterns is influenced by their respective specializations; a historian studying societies throughout the later part of the 19th century and the 20th century may remark that history shows an un ending march towards progress, yet there have been numerous halts to “progress” and soviet historians said their state and communism was the culmination and eventual objective of this pattern, and yet the Soviet Union fell over 20 years ago.
This is also true in the study of the social sciences. Every study that is done has the purpose of finding a pattern among the behavior of humans, and this quote is very relevant to these studies, as the purpose of these studies; psychology, anthropology, etc. aim to discover patterns in the “chaos of events” that society or the human mind is. The fact that the studies aim to discover patterns immediately make the above quote very relevant to the social studies.
For example, a social scientist studying the correlation between two social factors is looking for a pattern between the two. The social sciences almost expressly follow this quote, as they are always looking for a pattern or connection in events, even though sometimes there just isn’t a pattern.
The basis of this quote is contained within both of these areas of knowledge, and the idea of patterns in the chaos of events is inherent in both. History tends to focus exclusively on the past, while social sciences focus both on past and present patterns. In both there is the study of the effect of one event on another, the relation between events, and a pattern in the occurrences of something, whether it be a society or a battle.
In History, the investigation of a subject is limited in the way knowledge is gained, but all four ways of knowing are relevant in this area, as well as in the social sciences. In both History and the Social Sciences, information is conveyed and gained through Perception, Reason, Language and Emotion. For example, in history, I have used Perception to perceive the paper, Language to read it and Reason to analyze it. Sometimes you even use Emotion to gain knowledge, when someone’s done something particularly bad or something bad’s happened. The same process occurs in the social sciences.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 8
How would you describe John's upbringing? Why do you think he says he is "Alone, always alone." (Pg. 137). How does Bernard fell about John?
John's upbringing was odd. His mother was from the Brave New World world, and had a baby and so could never go back; John. John grew up with his mother constantly telling him tales of the other word, and he constantly imagined going there, as he feels underprivileged; like he's missing out. Also, other boys made fun of his mother, and made him feel like he didn't belong. Bernard feels that he is like him, as he also feels alone.
Why does John at the end of chapter say "Oh brave new world!" (Pg 139)
Because he has found a friend- Bernard, and they're joking around and talking about marriage and he wants to see the brave new world.
John's upbringing was odd. His mother was from the Brave New World world, and had a baby and so could never go back; John. John grew up with his mother constantly telling him tales of the other word, and he constantly imagined going there, as he feels underprivileged; like he's missing out. Also, other boys made fun of his mother, and made him feel like he didn't belong. Bernard feels that he is like him, as he also feels alone.
Why does John at the end of chapter say "Oh brave new world!" (Pg 139)
Because he has found a friend- Bernard, and they're joking around and talking about marriage and he wants to see the brave new world.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Hard vs. Soft Sciences Part 2
How did the NAS need to change in the early 1970s?
The NAS needed to change in the early '70s due to the fact that they hadn't included social scientists in the NAS, and this was needed due to the expanding field that the majority of people did consider to be a science. It was decided that they needed to start to admit social scientists.What are the problems in “operationalizing” a concept?
The problems that are inherent in operationalizing a concept lies in the fact that you have to come up a way to measure something that is intangible, and there is no way to verify that the units they us are correct and if they are the right ones to be used. Also the issue of how to measure these comes up, and to operationalize, you need to come up with a way to measure something intangible.
Briefly describe how Diamond illustrates operationalizing in:
· Mathematics-
· Chemistry
In Chemistry ancient scientists had to operationalize the concepts of the elements as they were unable to determine the actual elements.
· Ecology
In Ecology it is evident that there are more birds in the rain forest than in a marsh, and its suspected that this has something to do with the habitat, but how do you operationalize the habitat?
· Psychology
In psychology, it was operationalizing the aspect of the attitude of doctors toward cancer.
What were Huntington’s operationalized concepts that provoked the wrath of Lang?
He tried to operationalize the concept of social frustration, which Lang felt was not possible, at least not the way Huntington did.
Why is the task of operationalizing more difficult and less exact in the soft sciences? Why does it lead to the ridicule of the soft sciences?
Because there is no exact units in the social sciences.
Why does Diamond believe that Lang might be ignorant of the measurements taken by social scientists like Huntington?
Because Lang doesn't have familiarity with the social sciences as Huntington is.
Does Diamond believe the labels associated with the sciences be replaced? Explain.
Yes, he believe that it could be replaced with hard and easy sciences, easy being the hard, and hard being the soft.
Does Diamond believe the soft sciences to be more valuable than hard sciences? Do you agree? Explain.
Yes, because he feels that the soft sciences, because they investigate human nature, are more valuable due to the fact they give insight into humans. I believe that they are equally important; one to understand nature and one to understand humans.
In Chemistry ancient scientists had to operationalize the concepts of the elements as they were unable to determine the actual elements.
· Ecology
In Ecology it is evident that there are more birds in the rain forest than in a marsh, and its suspected that this has something to do with the habitat, but how do you operationalize the habitat?
· Psychology
In psychology, it was operationalizing the aspect of the attitude of doctors toward cancer.
What were Huntington’s operationalized concepts that provoked the wrath of Lang?
He tried to operationalize the concept of social frustration, which Lang felt was not possible, at least not the way Huntington did.
Why is the task of operationalizing more difficult and less exact in the soft sciences? Why does it lead to the ridicule of the soft sciences?
Because there is no exact units in the social sciences.
Why does Diamond believe that Lang might be ignorant of the measurements taken by social scientists like Huntington?
Because Lang doesn't have familiarity with the social sciences as Huntington is.
Does Diamond believe the labels associated with the sciences be replaced? Explain.
Yes, he believe that it could be replaced with hard and easy sciences, easy being the hard, and hard being the soft.
Does Diamond believe the soft sciences to be more valuable than hard sciences? Do you agree? Explain.
Yes, because he feels that the soft sciences, because they investigate human nature, are more valuable due to the fact they give insight into humans. I believe that they are equally important; one to understand nature and one to understand humans.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Soft Science vs. Hard Science
Please describe the background of the dispute between Dr. Samuel Huntington and Dr. Serge Lang.
Dr. Serge Lang decided to find fault with Dr Samuel's statement that the correlation between frustration and instability is .50 in 62 countries of the world.
How did Lang respond to Huntington’s “pseudo mathematics?”
He felt that it was ridiculous; he stated that you can't quantify human charateristics, and felt that Huntington's reasearch did not count as science.
What aspects of the dispute between Lang and Huntington are “political?”
The idea of the connection between frustration and instability; the idea that economic factors are a factor in the instability of the society has been a raging political debate for years.
How does the author, Jared Diamond, feel about “Academic Freedom?”
He feels that it is a fundamental right but that it is undermined by the ability of other scientists to question others results.
Why does the NAS exist?
It is supposed to isolate the scientific community from political views.
Why does this make that attacks against Huntington seem peculiar?
Because they violate the supposed rules of the NAS, but nonetheless the attacks against Huntington continue.
Why does Diamond find fault in the traditional perceptions of the hard sciences?
Because they are so narow in thier view; everything's about facts, facts, facts, but Diamond feels there is more information out there.
Why are soft sciences difficult to study?
Because they are full of interpretation and interpretation is not always right.
Dr. Serge Lang decided to find fault with Dr Samuel's statement that the correlation between frustration and instability is .50 in 62 countries of the world.
How did Lang respond to Huntington’s “pseudo mathematics?”
He felt that it was ridiculous; he stated that you can't quantify human charateristics, and felt that Huntington's reasearch did not count as science.
What aspects of the dispute between Lang and Huntington are “political?”
The idea of the connection between frustration and instability; the idea that economic factors are a factor in the instability of the society has been a raging political debate for years.
How does the author, Jared Diamond, feel about “Academic Freedom?”
He feels that it is a fundamental right but that it is undermined by the ability of other scientists to question others results.
Why does the NAS exist?
It is supposed to isolate the scientific community from political views.
Why does this make that attacks against Huntington seem peculiar?
Because they violate the supposed rules of the NAS, but nonetheless the attacks against Huntington continue.
Why does Diamond find fault in the traditional perceptions of the hard sciences?
Because they are so narow in thier view; everything's about facts, facts, facts, but Diamond feels there is more information out there.
Why are soft sciences difficult to study?
Because they are full of interpretation and interpretation is not always right.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 7
1. How does Lenina feel about their appointed guide?
She did not like their guide and feels that he is hostile, and he smells.
2. How does Lenina react to "naked Indian"(p. 110)? Does it remind you of anyone else we have studied?
She reacts in shock; she had never seen a man so old; it disqusts her.
3. How does Bernard react to the pueblo of Malpais?
He is also repulsed, but tries to seem strong and unorthodox by taking it all in stride.
4. Who is Linda? What is her relationship to Tomakin?
Linda is Tomakin's mother, and she is from the "other place."
5. Why does Linda believe that "everything they do is mad"(p. 121)? Please be specific.
Because everything they do is so completely different from what she sees as normal, and they seem completely differenet to her. The fact that someone could "want" to be whipped, or the fact that the mothers nurse the children or the fact that there are mothers at all contribute to her view that they are all mad.
She did not like their guide and feels that he is hostile, and he smells.
2. How does Lenina react to "naked Indian"(p. 110)? Does it remind you of anyone else we have studied?
She reacts in shock; she had never seen a man so old; it disqusts her.
3. How does Bernard react to the pueblo of Malpais?
He is also repulsed, but tries to seem strong and unorthodox by taking it all in stride.
4. Who is Linda? What is her relationship to Tomakin?
Linda is Tomakin's mother, and she is from the "other place."
5. Why does Linda believe that "everything they do is mad"(p. 121)? Please be specific.
Because everything they do is so completely different from what she sees as normal, and they seem completely differenet to her. The fact that someone could "want" to be whipped, or the fact that the mothers nurse the children or the fact that there are mothers at all contribute to her view that they are all mad.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 6
Part I
1. Why does Lenina think Bernard Marx "odd" - please use specific references from this chapter in your answer.
Lenina thinks that Bernard is "odd" due to the fact that he seems to view everyone around him as odd. The fact that Bernard wanted to talk a walk and just talk with her seemed weird to her; no one does that.
2. Please provide more lines from Lenina that she learned from hypnopedia (there are some great ones in this chapter!). Do any of them remind you of sayings that we may use - please don't use commercial jingles. i.e. "1-800-54-Giant!"
Lenina also uses more inference from hypnopedia as she says "A in time saves nine" which was drilled into her by hypnopaedia. Also "one cubic centimeter cures ten gloomy sentiments" which is also another example of hypnopaedia.
3. What is Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior?
Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavoir was that it was the alcohol that "they" had put in his surrogate.
Part II
4. What did the Director tell Bernard about his own trip to the Reservation? Why did it initially make Bernard feel uncomfortable?
He tells Bernard that he had gone there to look at the "Savages" and went with the girl he was with at the time, and the girl died. Because the Director couldn't remember how long ago he had gone to hte reservation, and the fact the girl died.
5. What does the Director threaten Bernard with if he doesn't change his behavior? Why does it elate Bernard?
That he would transfer him to a Sub-Centre, mabye Iceland, if his behavior did not improve. This elated Bernard because to him, it confirmed his indviduality, his differentness.
Part III
6. How does the Warden describe the Reservation?
He described it as massive, and that they do not know how many people live in the "Savage" reservation. He describes them as INdians and half-breeds, and have marriage, and religion and extimct languages, and animals and diseases.
1. Why does Lenina think Bernard Marx "odd" - please use specific references from this chapter in your answer.
Lenina thinks that Bernard is "odd" due to the fact that he seems to view everyone around him as odd. The fact that Bernard wanted to talk a walk and just talk with her seemed weird to her; no one does that.
2. Please provide more lines from Lenina that she learned from hypnopedia (there are some great ones in this chapter!). Do any of them remind you of sayings that we may use - please don't use commercial jingles. i.e. "1-800-54-Giant!"
Lenina also uses more inference from hypnopedia as she says "A in time saves nine" which was drilled into her by hypnopaedia. Also "one cubic centimeter cures ten gloomy sentiments" which is also another example of hypnopaedia.
3. What is Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior?
Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavoir was that it was the alcohol that "they" had put in his surrogate.
Part II
4. What did the Director tell Bernard about his own trip to the Reservation? Why did it initially make Bernard feel uncomfortable?
He tells Bernard that he had gone there to look at the "Savages" and went with the girl he was with at the time, and the girl died. Because the Director couldn't remember how long ago he had gone to hte reservation, and the fact the girl died.
5. What does the Director threaten Bernard with if he doesn't change his behavior? Why does it elate Bernard?
That he would transfer him to a Sub-Centre, mabye Iceland, if his behavior did not improve. This elated Bernard because to him, it confirmed his indviduality, his differentness.
Part III
6. How does the Warden describe the Reservation?
He described it as massive, and that they do not know how many people live in the "Savage" reservation. He describes them as INdians and half-breeds, and have marriage, and religion and extimct languages, and animals and diseases.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 5
1. What would Michael Pollan (Remember? The Omnivore's Dilemma) say about the first paragraph in Chapter 5?
Michael Pollan wold say that this almost what we have now; as we currently do process cattle in a very similar way; the cattle is all crowded together, and they are all "enhanced" with hormones, as we also do now, and they are slaughtered in a factory-like way, as we do now.
2. Do you see any similarities with World State views death as compared to the Hindus? How does Lenina's remembrance of hypopedia compare with Plato's Republic?
The World State's view of death is almost like death is just an inexorable part of life; just another part of the cycle, although it is unclear what their views are on the afterlife, or if they believe there is one.
3. What do you think of Lenina's and Henry night out on the town?
I think that Lenina's and Henry's night out on the town seems to be superficial; they seem to glide through it, not really noticing anything, or actually reflecting on any beauty.
4. Why do you think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters?
I think Huxley uses the word pneumatic to refer to some female characters because they seem to be almost robot-like.
5. What is Solitary Service and what are Bernard's feelings towards it?
Solitary Service is a almost prayerish service in which the entire mass of people attending participate in an orgy. Bernard does not like it; all he can see are the women's eyebrows.
Michael Pollan wold say that this almost what we have now; as we currently do process cattle in a very similar way; the cattle is all crowded together, and they are all "enhanced" with hormones, as we also do now, and they are slaughtered in a factory-like way, as we do now.
2. Do you see any similarities with World State views death as compared to the Hindus? How does Lenina's remembrance of hypopedia compare with Plato's Republic?
The World State's view of death is almost like death is just an inexorable part of life; just another part of the cycle, although it is unclear what their views are on the afterlife, or if they believe there is one.
3. What do you think of Lenina's and Henry night out on the town?
I think that Lenina's and Henry's night out on the town seems to be superficial; they seem to glide through it, not really noticing anything, or actually reflecting on any beauty.
4. Why do you think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters?
I think Huxley uses the word pneumatic to refer to some female characters because they seem to be almost robot-like.
5. What is Solitary Service and what are Bernard's feelings towards it?
Solitary Service is a almost prayerish service in which the entire mass of people attending participate in an orgy. Bernard does not like it; all he can see are the women's eyebrows.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Nacirema
What happened yesterday?
We were given a packet on "Nacirema", in which thier culture was described, which to us seemed very different, but the description turned out to be a description of our own culture.
Why couldn't we recognize our own culture?
We could not recognize our own culture, because we do not see our culture the way the culture in the packet was described. It was filled with refrences to magic and rituals and the use of the word strange, and barbaric, which we automatically think to mean that it is another culture, due to the fact that we don't think we're like that. It mentioned that the culture was primitive.
We were given a packet on "Nacirema", in which thier culture was described, which to us seemed very different, but the description turned out to be a description of our own culture.
Why couldn't we recognize our own culture?
We could not recognize our own culture, because we do not see our culture the way the culture in the packet was described. It was filled with refrences to magic and rituals and the use of the word strange, and barbaric, which we automatically think to mean that it is another culture, due to the fact that we don't think we're like that. It mentioned that the culture was primitive.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Abel Questions
1. Why is history being rewritten constantly?
Histroy is being rewritten constantly because it is always being written wrong. History is a process of reinterpretation and reconstruction; we want it to be meaningful to us in the present.
2. What factors influence the process by which the historian picks and chooses his/her "facts"? Please provide a specific example for each factor.
The factors that influence the historian is society's intrests (what we want to read about; wars vs. peasantry's life), our conceptual apparatus changes (new insight's; advances in pscyhology, new social ideas etc.), our views of the of the basic historical segments (different ideas about history), the historians change (the intrests of the historians), and the audience for whom the historian writes changes (the ideas of the historical community and society at large).
3. What is the "Baconian fallacy?"What would the Positivists think? Would Carr agree with Namier?
The Baconian fallacy is the idea that all a historian has to do is to collects facts. The posivists would completly disagree, whereas Carr would tend to agree with Namier's idea that there is more to the historian then merely finding facts.
4. How does History differ from Geology?
History is not fixed, unlike Geology, which is fixed. Our interpretations of past events is constantly changing and evlolving, wheras geology is fixed.
5. According to Abel: "The patterns to be found in past events are selected by the historian; like the hypothesis of the scientist, they may be suggested, but are neither imposed nor dictated, by "the facts (p. 166-7)." Based on your experience with the Cheques Lab, how far do you agree with this explanation of history?
I agree with this statement; everything we did supposed in the Checks Lab was suppositioned from our own experiences and our own beliefs. Our ideas shaped what we came up with.
6. In your opinion, "how will future historians so elect to describe what is going on now(p. 167)?"
I do not think it's possible to see how future historians will see us because we won't be able to know how they see the world, which shapes how you see history, so it isn't possible for us to know how they'd see us.
7. What is historical pluralism?
Historical pluralism is the idea that every event is not related to every other event.
8. The list of events (or non-events) listed on p. 168 makes Abel ask the question: "Is there, then, no hard core or bed-rock of indisputable facts that the historian must recognize." Does it matter if there ever was a man named Trotsky?
Yes, because Trotsky was a major theorist of communism, and there are still people around today who consider him to be a major figure in communism's creation.
9. How is a historian like a physicist?
Because, like a physicist, a historian gathers information, and then interprets that information to determine its meaning.
10. What are the Five Frameworks or Hypotheses of History? Please provide an example from your HL or SL history class of each.
cyclical (Rome), functional (WW1-WW2), progress (Capitalism-Communis,), Christian (Rise of Chritianity), Organismic (society's live and die)
11. Do you believe in Historical Inevitability?
No
12. What does Abel mean when he says: "No crucial experiment can test the validity of a theory of history, any more than than it can the truth of a metaphysical theory (p. 174)."?
Because, both history and metaphysicality are unable to confirmed, due to the fact that there are areas in both which are gray; this might have happened, but we don't know.
13. Abel writes: "Macaulay regards history as a branch of literature (p. 174)." How would Jill Lepore of Just the Facts, Ma'am respond? Please provide to specific quote from the article to justify your claim.
She would tend to agree, as she seemed to lean toward the idea that history was merely a branch of literature, and said as much.
14. How does the footnote at the bottom of page 175 relate to the Shaper from Grendel?
It relates to the Shaper, in that like the Shaper does, we see events through the lens of our culture. If there is something we don't consider important, we ignore it, and we tend tto exagerate our side of the story, just like the Shaper
Histroy is being rewritten constantly because it is always being written wrong. History is a process of reinterpretation and reconstruction; we want it to be meaningful to us in the present.
2. What factors influence the process by which the historian picks and chooses his/her "facts"? Please provide a specific example for each factor.
The factors that influence the historian is society's intrests (what we want to read about; wars vs. peasantry's life), our conceptual apparatus changes (new insight's; advances in pscyhology, new social ideas etc.), our views of the of the basic historical segments (different ideas about history), the historians change (the intrests of the historians), and the audience for whom the historian writes changes (the ideas of the historical community and society at large).
3. What is the "Baconian fallacy?"What would the Positivists think? Would Carr agree with Namier?
The Baconian fallacy is the idea that all a historian has to do is to collects facts. The posivists would completly disagree, whereas Carr would tend to agree with Namier's idea that there is more to the historian then merely finding facts.
4. How does History differ from Geology?
History is not fixed, unlike Geology, which is fixed. Our interpretations of past events is constantly changing and evlolving, wheras geology is fixed.
5. According to Abel: "The patterns to be found in past events are selected by the historian; like the hypothesis of the scientist, they may be suggested, but are neither imposed nor dictated, by "the facts (p. 166-7)." Based on your experience with the Cheques Lab, how far do you agree with this explanation of history?
I agree with this statement; everything we did supposed in the Checks Lab was suppositioned from our own experiences and our own beliefs. Our ideas shaped what we came up with.
6. In your opinion, "how will future historians so elect to describe what is going on now(p. 167)?"
I do not think it's possible to see how future historians will see us because we won't be able to know how they see the world, which shapes how you see history, so it isn't possible for us to know how they'd see us.
7. What is historical pluralism?
Historical pluralism is the idea that every event is not related to every other event.
8. The list of events (or non-events) listed on p. 168 makes Abel ask the question: "Is there, then, no hard core or bed-rock of indisputable facts that the historian must recognize." Does it matter if there ever was a man named Trotsky?
Yes, because Trotsky was a major theorist of communism, and there are still people around today who consider him to be a major figure in communism's creation.
9. How is a historian like a physicist?
Because, like a physicist, a historian gathers information, and then interprets that information to determine its meaning.
10. What are the Five Frameworks or Hypotheses of History? Please provide an example from your HL or SL history class of each.
cyclical (Rome), functional (WW1-WW2), progress (Capitalism-Communis,), Christian (Rise of Chritianity), Organismic (society's live and die)
11. Do you believe in Historical Inevitability?
No
12. What does Abel mean when he says: "No crucial experiment can test the validity of a theory of history, any more than than it can the truth of a metaphysical theory (p. 174)."?
Because, both history and metaphysicality are unable to confirmed, due to the fact that there are areas in both which are gray; this might have happened, but we don't know.
13. Abel writes: "Macaulay regards history as a branch of literature (p. 174)." How would Jill Lepore of Just the Facts, Ma'am respond? Please provide to specific quote from the article to justify your claim.
She would tend to agree, as she seemed to lean toward the idea that history was merely a branch of literature, and said as much.
14. How does the footnote at the bottom of page 175 relate to the Shaper from Grendel?
It relates to the Shaper, in that like the Shaper does, we see events through the lens of our culture. If there is something we don't consider important, we ignore it, and we tend tto exagerate our side of the story, just like the Shaper
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 4
PART ONE
1. What puzzles Lenina about Bernard Marx's behavior?
The fact that he seems uncomfortable confuses her, as in this world it is commonplace to discuss their relationships in public, whereas Bernard feels uncomfortable doing this, as he is different than the normal person in that world, and in many ways is more like us.
2. Please provide examples of Lenina using what she learned from hypnopaedia.
Lenina uses various examples of her hypnopaedia "learning" throughout this chapter. On page 63 Lenina says "My word, I'm glad I'm not gamma." which was driven into her through hypnopaedia, and earlier on page 62 says "What a hideous color khaki is." which is the color of Deltas and another and demonstrates further evidence of hypnopaedia.
3. Where are Lenina and Henry going?
They are going to Stoke Poges, an obstacle golf course.
PART TWO
1. What makes Bernard Marx distressed? Why?
He is made distressed by the fact that Lenina is just like everyone else and isn't "special" like him. He is distressed by the fact that she discussed thier relationship in public like the rest of the people in the Brave New World.
2. Where does Helmholtz Watson work? What is his job?
He works in the Propaganda House, the center for propaganda distribution in the Brave New World.
3. What does Bernard have in common with Helmholtz Watson?
He lives in the same appartment as him; they are roommates.
4. What is troubling Helmholtz?
Bernard's behavoir; he does not seem to be acting normally, like the rest of the world, he seems a bit off.
1. What puzzles Lenina about Bernard Marx's behavior?
The fact that he seems uncomfortable confuses her, as in this world it is commonplace to discuss their relationships in public, whereas Bernard feels uncomfortable doing this, as he is different than the normal person in that world, and in many ways is more like us.
2. Please provide examples of Lenina using what she learned from hypnopaedia.
Lenina uses various examples of her hypnopaedia "learning" throughout this chapter. On page 63 Lenina says "My word, I'm glad I'm not gamma." which was driven into her through hypnopaedia, and earlier on page 62 says "What a hideous color khaki is." which is the color of Deltas and another and demonstrates further evidence of hypnopaedia.
3. Where are Lenina and Henry going?
They are going to Stoke Poges, an obstacle golf course.
PART TWO
1. What makes Bernard Marx distressed? Why?
He is made distressed by the fact that Lenina is just like everyone else and isn't "special" like him. He is distressed by the fact that she discussed thier relationship in public like the rest of the people in the Brave New World.
2. Where does Helmholtz Watson work? What is his job?
He works in the Propaganda House, the center for propaganda distribution in the Brave New World.
3. What does Bernard have in common with Helmholtz Watson?
He lives in the same appartment as him; they are roommates.
4. What is troubling Helmholtz?
Bernard's behavoir; he does not seem to be acting normally, like the rest of the world, he seems a bit off.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Seeing and Understanding
7. "We see and understand things not as they are but as we are." Discuss this claim in relation to at least two ways of knowing.
How we reason is shaped by our experiences. We all have different experiences and these shape how we view the world. The idea is that we all register things differently, and therefore we draw different conclusions about them. We all reason differently, yet follow the same basic cultural lines of reasoning, though each cultural idea of reasoning is different. But every person's reasoning is slightly different. The reasoning process can lead us to the same place, yet the method to reach that place is not always the same. There are always subtle differences in the way different people think, because each mind is perfectly unique, and therefore in and of itself it is that person, and can only reason as that person can.
Our experiences and therefore how we perceive is directly related to how we see the world. Our perception is that of ourselves. In the way that all the prejudices, biases, pre-formed ideas, beliefs, and concepts we carry effect the way we perceive the outside world. For instance, in the Elephant Man, most of the city folk found John Merrick to be terrifying, as they had been predisposed to think that something different and deformed is a terrifying mindless monster. This way they have been primed through experience, and authority that differences are bad, as well as deformities, and that ones who look radically different, and no longer resemble humans, are said to be "monsters." When in reality that difference is merely on the outside, but they are primed to ignore anything on the inside and focus on the external; what separates "it" from "us." In the same way, something one person perceives as harmless could be percieved by another as the devil incarnate.
How we reason is shaped by our experiences. We all have different experiences and these shape how we view the world. The idea is that we all register things differently, and therefore we draw different conclusions about them. We all reason differently, yet follow the same basic cultural lines of reasoning, though each cultural idea of reasoning is different. But every person's reasoning is slightly different. The reasoning process can lead us to the same place, yet the method to reach that place is not always the same. There are always subtle differences in the way different people think, because each mind is perfectly unique, and therefore in and of itself it is that person, and can only reason as that person can.
Our experiences and therefore how we perceive is directly related to how we see the world. Our perception is that of ourselves. In the way that all the prejudices, biases, pre-formed ideas, beliefs, and concepts we carry effect the way we perceive the outside world. For instance, in the Elephant Man, most of the city folk found John Merrick to be terrifying, as they had been predisposed to think that something different and deformed is a terrifying mindless monster. This way they have been primed through experience, and authority that differences are bad, as well as deformities, and that ones who look radically different, and no longer resemble humans, are said to be "monsters." When in reality that difference is merely on the outside, but they are primed to ignore anything on the inside and focus on the external; what separates "it" from "us." In the same way, something one person perceives as harmless could be percieved by another as the devil incarnate.
Checks and History: Similarities/Differences
Similarities:
- You never have all the information
- There is always ambiguous information; information that is not related to what you are trying to discover
- There is always Misleading info
- There is always a measure of uncertainty
- There is the deadline which restricts your scope of inquiry
- There is always information that doesn't survive or is never recorded in the first place
Differences:
- In actual historical investigations you look at other sources; not just one
- You can't put all your faith in one source, because there is always the chance it is unreliable
- In historical investigations you usually have more time to investigate, not 2 days; usually months
- In actual historical investigations, you have time to confirm the information you have gathered
- You usually have the chance to actually visit the historical sites if you're actually seriously investigating a historical event
- You actually have the capability of going out and interviewing witnesses, if any are still alive
Throughout historical investigations, in the end it is the investigator who decides what is in their book, and to a lesser extent their publisher. What they are convinced of becomes their historical record. Their work is shaped by their perceptions and their perceptions shape the way the see the facts they are presented with and effects how they interpret theses facts. This in the end determines the course of the book, as what they believe is true is what the will try to convince you of.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 3
The idea of Romance, sex and monogamy in the book a Brave New World is completely different than in our own. It is discouraged to have only one sexual partner at a time, and that you should have a relationship with more than one person at a time, as this keeps people from forming to close a bond with one another. The idea of Romance is completely discouraged, and is considered an abomination. It is widely considered unthinkable, to give yourself to one person, instead, as it is put, they are supposed to give themselves to everyone.
Sports in Brave New World is also completely different than in our world. In our world, sports are a form of entertainment and enjoyment, while in thier world, it is merely a method to create more jobs; it must be complex in order to increase the society's production.
In there world, the concept of entertainment is different then ours; almost all there "entertainment" takes the form of porn and sex. They do not engage in other types of entertainment, games or anything other than sex and porn.
The society from A Brave New World also believes that Parenthood is up to the state and children staying with "parents" is absurd.
there seems to no real materialism in this world, as they lack the freedoms that created materialism. Everything is for the state; there is no time to worry about their material posesions.
There is absolutly no religion, and is viewed as utterly ridiculous, wheras in our world, religion is the most important thing in billions of peoples lives.
Also the view of intoxicants is completely different. While most here think they are negative and derode your mind, in thier world it is perfectly acceptable to use it, in fact it is encouraged.
Sports in Brave New World is also completely different than in our world. In our world, sports are a form of entertainment and enjoyment, while in thier world, it is merely a method to create more jobs; it must be complex in order to increase the society's production.
In there world, the concept of entertainment is different then ours; almost all there "entertainment" takes the form of porn and sex. They do not engage in other types of entertainment, games or anything other than sex and porn.
The society from A Brave New World also believes that Parenthood is up to the state and children staying with "parents" is absurd.
there seems to no real materialism in this world, as they lack the freedoms that created materialism. Everything is for the state; there is no time to worry about their material posesions.
There is absolutly no religion, and is viewed as utterly ridiculous, wheras in our world, religion is the most important thing in billions of peoples lives.
Also the view of intoxicants is completely different. While most here think they are negative and derode your mind, in thier world it is perfectly acceptable to use it, in fact it is encouraged.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Brave New World #2
1. How do babies sent to the Neo-Pavlovian Conditioning Rooms develop an "instinctive hatred of books and flowers?" Why were Deltas exposed to such treatment?
They are made to associate bangs with books and electric shocks for flowers, so they are "protected" from botany and books.
2. What is a State Conditioning Center? Does it remind you of anything from Plato's Republic?
The state conditioning center is where the children produced by the hatchery. It reminds me of the place where all the silver, gold and bronze go, because they are seperated in a similiar way.
3. What is hypnopaedia? Why wasn't it used for Science? What was it used for? Does it remind you of anything from Plato's Republic?
It is the teaching of kids through voices during sleep. It wasn't used for science due to the fact that it was found that it didn't really work for science.
4. How does the Caste system work in the World State? What are the similarities and differences between this and the Hindu Caste system?
The caste system works similiarly to the Hindu system, with slight differences. Alphas at the top, Beta below them, and Deltas below them, then Gamma and finnaly Eplisons. The Alphas form the leadership, while Betas fill out the higher positions below them, while Deltas and Gammas are distributed through the rest while Eplisons do the manual labor. This reflects the caste system of the Hindu, in the effect that the top are the leaders, while the rest are correspondingly lower classes. The Brahmin are the top, while the lower classes fill it down to where the Eplisons are like the Untouchables.
5. What does the Director mean when he says, "Not so much like drops of water....rather, drops of liquid sealing wax."?
He means that there sealing the minds of the children into their social order and that they will forever be thiers.
They are made to associate bangs with books and electric shocks for flowers, so they are "protected" from botany and books.
2. What is a State Conditioning Center? Does it remind you of anything from Plato's Republic?
The state conditioning center is where the children produced by the hatchery. It reminds me of the place where all the silver, gold and bronze go, because they are seperated in a similiar way.
3. What is hypnopaedia? Why wasn't it used for Science? What was it used for? Does it remind you of anything from Plato's Republic?
It is the teaching of kids through voices during sleep. It wasn't used for science due to the fact that it was found that it didn't really work for science.
4. How does the Caste system work in the World State? What are the similarities and differences between this and the Hindu Caste system?
The caste system works similiarly to the Hindu system, with slight differences. Alphas at the top, Beta below them, and Deltas below them, then Gamma and finnaly Eplisons. The Alphas form the leadership, while Betas fill out the higher positions below them, while Deltas and Gammas are distributed through the rest while Eplisons do the manual labor. This reflects the caste system of the Hindu, in the effect that the top are the leaders, while the rest are correspondingly lower classes. The Brahmin are the top, while the lower classes fill it down to where the Eplisons are like the Untouchables.
5. What does the Director mean when he says, "Not so much like drops of water....rather, drops of liquid sealing wax."?
He means that there sealing the minds of the children into their social order and that they will forever be thiers.
Brave New World Chapter 1
1. What is the World State's Motto?
The World State Motto is "Community, Identity, Stability"
2. Please describe Bokanovsky's Process. Why does The Director call it the "major instrument of social stability?"
Bokanovsky's Process is the process in which the scientists produce a result called budding, in which the egg splits into multiple other eggs, and there fore one egg can produce up to 98 children.
3. Why did the doctor wish to keep the Epsilon "embryo below par?"
Because the Epsilon embryo is supposed to form the lower classes of the society, and the upper levels of the society do not want the lower levels getting any ideas about how unfair their situation may be. They don't' want them revolting.
4. What does Mr. Foster mean when he says: "We condition them to thrive in heat...that is the secret of happiness of virtue - liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny."? How does this connect to what is happening in Rack 10?
That they aim to eliminate identity from all their creations- they aim to create a perfect obedient being. They also want to make the people define themselves by thier group, in order to better control them.
The World State Motto is "Community, Identity, Stability"
2. Please describe Bokanovsky's Process. Why does The Director call it the "major instrument of social stability?"
Bokanovsky's Process is the process in which the scientists produce a result called budding, in which the egg splits into multiple other eggs, and there fore one egg can produce up to 98 children.
3. Why did the doctor wish to keep the Epsilon "embryo below par?"
Because the Epsilon embryo is supposed to form the lower classes of the society, and the upper levels of the society do not want the lower levels getting any ideas about how unfair their situation may be. They don't' want them revolting.
4. What does Mr. Foster mean when he says: "We condition them to thrive in heat...that is the secret of happiness of virtue - liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny."? How does this connect to what is happening in Rack 10?
That they aim to eliminate identity from all their creations- they aim to create a perfect obedient being. They also want to make the people define themselves by thier group, in order to better control them.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Notes
MONOTHESTIC
-Judiasm
-Christianity
-Islam
Pentatuc- Torah
1st 5 books of Moses
OLD Testamnet
New Testament
Father
-Judiasm
-Christianity
-Islam
Pentatuc- Torah
1st 5 books of Moses
OLD Testamnet
New Testament
Father
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
October 13 Notes- Hinduism
Dharma: maintain the cosmic and social order
Without duty the world would transform into might makes right
Rank determined by birth, NOT merit (see post More Republic of Plato Notes for ranks)
lower ranks HAVE NOT serviced society
society is one working order
creation of world: sacrifice of Purusha
sun-eyes, moon-mind, sky-head, earth-feet
Hierarchy- Birth
Gods/Goddesses make world more stable
Samsara- cycles in life
CONTRADICTION:
keep physical balance while at same time trying to leave the world
MOKSHA:
Ultimate enlightenment
Only one KNOWN to reach moksha; Budda
Yoga- through can reach Moksha
Maya- prevents you from reaching Moksha
prevents you from seeing the world as it is: false belief
Yoga gets rid of Maya
Praveriti- evolves to more specific form of matter
4 stages of the world called yugas
each yuga decends in length
1st: Krita; 1,782,000
2nd: Treta; 1,296,000
3rd: Dvapara; 864,000
4th: Kali; 432,000
We are in the Kali Yuga
At end of physical universe everything dissolves
Brahma- ultimate Hindu god
Reconciliations:
4 Ashrams of Life:
First 2: Student and Householder; obligation to society
Last 2: Forest Dweller and Wandering World Renouncer; rid of all desires
aimed at enabling the realization of Moksha
Liberation: eliminating desires
Moksha will be reached
3 paths to enlightenment:
Path of Works: contributuing to society
Path of Knowledge: outside of society
Path of Devotion
Shiva illustrates interdependence;
perfect balance of both sides
Physical/Spirit
Ying/Yang
Vedic religion: oldest known religion
Important texts:
Bhagavad Gita (200 BC) (Kishna- Argunta)
Mahabarata (Shiva- Ganesh)
Rhamayana
The Law Books
Without duty the world would transform into might makes right
Rank determined by birth, NOT merit (see post More Republic of Plato Notes for ranks)
lower ranks HAVE NOT serviced society
society is one working order
creation of world: sacrifice of Purusha
sun-eyes, moon-mind, sky-head, earth-feet
Hierarchy- Birth
Gods/Goddesses make world more stable
Samsara- cycles in life
CONTRADICTION:
keep physical balance while at same time trying to leave the world
MOKSHA:
Ultimate enlightenment
Only one KNOWN to reach moksha; Budda
Yoga- through can reach Moksha
Maya- prevents you from reaching Moksha
prevents you from seeing the world as it is: false belief
Yoga gets rid of Maya
Praveriti- evolves to more specific form of matter
4 stages of the world called yugas
each yuga decends in length
1st: Krita; 1,782,000
2nd: Treta; 1,296,000
3rd: Dvapara; 864,000
4th: Kali; 432,000
We are in the Kali Yuga
At end of physical universe everything dissolves
Brahma- ultimate Hindu god
Reconciliations:
4 Ashrams of Life:
First 2: Student and Householder; obligation to society
Last 2: Forest Dweller and Wandering World Renouncer; rid of all desires
aimed at enabling the realization of Moksha
Liberation: eliminating desires
Moksha will be reached
3 paths to enlightenment:
Path of Works: contributuing to society
Path of Knowledge: outside of society
Path of Devotion
Shiva illustrates interdependence;
perfect balance of both sides
Physical/Spirit
Ying/Yang
Vedic religion: oldest known religion
Important texts:
Bhagavad Gita (200 BC) (Kishna- Argunta)
Mahabarata (Shiva- Ganesh)
Rhamayana
The Law Books
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
More Republic of Plato Notes
BOOK VII
515c (Pg 194)
Cave Alegory
COMPLETE ISOLATION: The Truman Show
Once freed they can NEVER go back
Reaction:
Complete Disbelief
Stunned/Shocked
Reluctant to change idea of reality
Realizies the truth
Wants to go back and free the others; pity
HINDUISM:
Caste System
Brahmins (Priests)
Khasatryas (Warriors)
Vaisyas (Merchants)
Sudras (Merchants)
Untouchables
DUTY=DHARMA
KARMA
the idea that your soul is empty and you fill it with either good Karma or bad Karma. Good actions give you good Karma and bad actions lead to negative Karma.
SAMSARA
the idea that you are continuosly born and reborn; a endless cycle of death and rebirth, and the only way to break that cycle is to gain enough good Karma to become a Brahmin and then to attain Mahsha.
MAHSHA=ENLIGHTENMENT
515c (Pg 194)
Cave Alegory
COMPLETE ISOLATION: The Truman Show
Once freed they can NEVER go back
Reaction:
Complete Disbelief
Stunned/Shocked
Reluctant to change idea of reality
Realizies the truth
Wants to go back and free the others; pity
HINDUISM:
Caste System
Brahmins (Priests)
Khasatryas (Warriors)
Vaisyas (Merchants)
Sudras (Merchants)
Untouchables
DUTY=DHARMA
KARMA
the idea that your soul is empty and you fill it with either good Karma or bad Karma. Good actions give you good Karma and bad actions lead to negative Karma.
SAMSARA
the idea that you are continuosly born and reborn; a endless cycle of death and rebirth, and the only way to break that cycle is to gain enough good Karma to become a Brahmin and then to attain Mahsha.
MAHSHA=ENLIGHTENMENT
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Republic of Plato- Notes
Part 1 of Notes
THRAS.- unjust man has more and is happier
Juvenile: "What I want I take. Let my might take the place of reasoned argument."
Justice-Virtue-Prudent-Good-Knowledge-Happy
Injustice-Vice-Thoughtless-Bad-lack of knowledge-Wretched
Part 2 of Notes
Gaurdians: philosepher-kings
Philosophic
Swift
Spirited
Strong
Love of learning
TEACH:
In speech (Logic)
Music and Gym
Part 3 of Notes
Platonic Forms-
exist, but you can't see/feel/touch...etc.
try to achieve: inspires
ideal that can never be reached
Book 3, 383c (Pg 94)
Humans cannot be divine
No hell, No Achilies, No laughing
Gaurdians:
Gold
Wisdom
Calculating
[SuperEgo]
Auxiliaries/Soldiers:
Silver
Courage
Irrational
[Id]
Craftsmen/Farmers:
Iron or Bronze
Moderation
Spirit
[Ego]
From each according to thier ability
To each according to thier need
DO NOT MIX GOLD/SILVER/BRONZE/IRON
Book 4 434c (Pg 113)
"Meddling among the classes... would most correctly be called extreme evil-doing"
Book 4 concludes
THRAS.- unjust man has more and is happier
Juvenile: "What I want I take. Let my might take the place of reasoned argument."
Justice-Virtue-Prudent-Good-Knowledge-Happy
Injustice-Vice-Thoughtless-Bad-lack of knowledge-Wretched
Part 2 of Notes
Gaurdians: philosepher-kings
Philosophic
Swift
Spirited
Strong
Love of learning
TEACH:
In speech (Logic)
Music and Gym
Part 3 of Notes
Platonic Forms-
exist, but you can't see/feel/touch...etc.
try to achieve: inspires
ideal that can never be reached
Book 3, 383c (Pg 94)
Humans cannot be divine
No hell, No Achilies, No laughing
Gaurdians:
Gold
Wisdom
Calculating
[SuperEgo]
Auxiliaries/Soldiers:
Silver
Courage
Irrational
[Id]
Craftsmen/Farmers:
Iron or Bronze
Moderation
Spirit
[Ego]
From each according to thier ability
To each according to thier need
DO NOT MIX GOLD/SILVER/BRONZE/IRON
Book 4 434c (Pg 113)
"Meddling among the classes... would most correctly be called extreme evil-doing"
Book 4 concludes
Monday, October 5, 2009
Group 4 reflection
1. What was your hypothesis?
Our hypothesis was that a median temperature would create the lushest growth in a specific area, as well as a median ph and a median salinity. Also we felt that a higher water retention would create a lusher growth, but that too much water retention would have a negative impact.
2. Explain your experience in gaining and testing evidence. Any issues? Samples? Equipment?
I had a rather good experience in the gaining and testing evidence. We did not have many issues; we collected our 8 samples without much incident, though we did not get the soil borer we requested, therefore our samples are not all the same mass.
3. How was working in a group? What went well? What didn't?
We worked well in a group. We all pitched in and in the end came out with solid temperature readings and 8 samples to do further tests on.
4. How do you know that you gained scientific knowledge?
I know I gained knowledge because I empirically experienced it, and I know it's sciencetific because I was told it was; Knowledge by Authority.
Our hypothesis was that a median temperature would create the lushest growth in a specific area, as well as a median ph and a median salinity. Also we felt that a higher water retention would create a lusher growth, but that too much water retention would have a negative impact.
2. Explain your experience in gaining and testing evidence. Any issues? Samples? Equipment?
I had a rather good experience in the gaining and testing evidence. We did not have many issues; we collected our 8 samples without much incident, though we did not get the soil borer we requested, therefore our samples are not all the same mass.
3. How was working in a group? What went well? What didn't?
We worked well in a group. We all pitched in and in the end came out with solid temperature readings and 8 samples to do further tests on.
4. How do you know that you gained scientific knowledge?
I know I gained knowledge because I empirically experienced it, and I know it's sciencetific because I was told it was; Knowledge by Authority.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Elephant Man
1(A) John Merrick is a monster in the sense that he is a hideous sight, so in the more traditional sense of the word; a hideous creature, then he is. And the mutation had altered his genes so he is a monster in the sense that he has a hideous mutation. But in the more human sense of the word John Merrick is no more a monster than you or I. He has the ability to be socially active, to communicate and to think, and his braind is completely human. He experiences all the same emotions as humans, uses reason as we do, and can communicate through language. Also, he has the ability to create art, as all humans can, which is a skill uniqu to humans.
1(B) A counterclaim to each of these would be the fact that just because he looks hideous, it doesn't mean he is a monster, or because he has a mutation, and that the ability to function in society does not mean he isn't a monster, because their are examples of people that are considered monsters who can function in society; Radavan Keridic for example.
2. John Merrick means that he is not a monster, and that he is one of them; he may be different but he feels just like they do. He knows this because it is his body and his life and he knows how he feels.
3. Dr. Treves means that is he a good man for doing what he has done to Merrick or is what he's done bad. He doesn't know, but can't figure out if what he's done is good or bad and if that makes him good or bad.
1(B) A counterclaim to each of these would be the fact that just because he looks hideous, it doesn't mean he is a monster, or because he has a mutation, and that the ability to function in society does not mean he isn't a monster, because their are examples of people that are considered monsters who can function in society; Radavan Keridic for example.
2. John Merrick means that he is not a monster, and that he is one of them; he may be different but he feels just like they do. He knows this because it is his body and his life and he knows how he feels.
3. Dr. Treves means that is he a good man for doing what he has done to Merrick or is what he's done bad. He doesn't know, but can't figure out if what he's done is good or bad and if that makes him good or bad.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Plato, Karadzic and Milosovic
1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of Karadzic and Milosovic, was it fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster"?
I believe it was fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster." There really was no question that Karadzic was behind these crimes, and there are a great many eyewitnesses to justify that his forces committed these atrocites, and thereby it goes along that he knew about these occurances which is easily justified by reason.
2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
The phrase itself is hard to justify the phrase itself because monster can mean many things, so it depends on the meaning you're trying for. If you mean someone who's doen horrible things then Plato would be able to justify it through Reason, Authority and Empiricism for some.
3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means?
Someone who's done, or order horrible things to be done. Someone who's actions are terrible enough to be percieved by humanity as a whole as wrong and inhuman.
I believe it was fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster." There really was no question that Karadzic was behind these crimes, and there are a great many eyewitnesses to justify that his forces committed these atrocites, and thereby it goes along that he knew about these occurances which is easily justified by reason.
2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
The phrase itself is hard to justify the phrase itself because monster can mean many things, so it depends on the meaning you're trying for. If you mean someone who's doen horrible things then Plato would be able to justify it through Reason, Authority and Empiricism for some.
3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means?
Someone who's done, or order horrible things to be done. Someone who's actions are terrible enough to be percieved by humanity as a whole as wrong and inhuman.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Monster Karadzic (FIRST 2009/2010 post)
The first article presents their knowledge that Karadzic is a monster through presenting "facts" that Karadzic is behind countless atrocities in Serbia, yet they present little justification for this. There is suggestions that their knowledge is justified through Knowledge by Authority; that they have aquired this knowledge from reliable sources.
The second article on the other hand doesn't even mention Karadzic, though he visited camps in Karadzic's area of "influence," and using logic you could deduce that Karadzic is a monster due to the condition of the camps; justified by Knowledge by Deduction. The whole article, on the other hand, is justified through Knowledge by Empiricism on his part and Authority on our part.
The second article on the other hand doesn't even mention Karadzic, though he visited camps in Karadzic's area of "influence," and using logic you could deduce that Karadzic is a monster due to the condition of the camps; justified by Knowledge by Deduction. The whole article, on the other hand, is justified through Knowledge by Empiricism on his part and Authority on our part.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
TOK Essay Posted
IB TOK Enron Fallacies Essay
Throughout the life of Enron, the company’s executives have used logical fallacies on many occurrences throughout the company’s turbulent history and its inevitable crash. Enron was formed in the late 1980’s as an energy provider; routing oil and such to plants and later providing the energy to people. It steadily gained power throughout the 90’s and early 2000, but in 2001 the fall started and the floor was yanked from underneath the company. Throughout this period and the investigations that followed, logical fallacies were rampant in the upper echelons of Enron.
There are 10 deadly fallacies which are ad ignorantiam, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo procter hoc, ad hominem, circular reasoning, special pleading, equivocation, false analogy, false dilemma and loaded questions. At one point or another Enron had committed nearly every fallacy, with the possible exception of the loaded question. But throughout the company’s growth, apex, fall and subsequent investigation, Jeff Skilling and the others made rampant use of them to promote, protect, excuse and explain the company’s actions, their own and the growth.
Logical fallacies are often plausible and often are very convincing due to the fact that they seem to be completely justified when examined with a cursory glance, and the holes in the argument are not revealed unless you take a closer look at the facts and the argument someone is making. Fallacies are used to support someone’s position despite having gaping holes in their argument. Ad hominem is the most obvious example of this; attacking the person instead of the argument, which in and of itself does absolutely nothing to enhance their argument, but works because humans look less favorably on someone who has been discredited no matter how convincing their argument is.
Enron made use of this more than a few times. As seen in the movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” after the Fortune Magazine article came out asking “IS ENRON OVERPRICED?” the company, instead of finding fault with the article itself and the argument made in it, they launched an Ad Hominem (attacking/supporting the person rather than the argument) attack on the journalist who published the article, questioning her motives and throwing her integrity and professionalism into question. These were formed and implemented by the upper echelons of Enron, including the CEO Jeff Skilling. This event occurred in 2000 a few months before the fall began and before Skilling resigned in early 2001. And this was not the first time that they utilized an Ad Hominem attack. Earlier that year, according to the movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” there was a trader a Goldman Sachs who began questioning Enron’s stability and urging people to start selling their stock in Enron. Skilling and the others soon went after him and eventually got Goldman Sachs to fire the trader in question.
Jeff Skilling was not picky about the fallacies he used protect himself. Shortly after it began to become apparent that a crash was inevitable, Jeff Skilling resigned due to “personal reasons” and later during the investigations of Enron, when he was questioned as to why he resigned, he used Ad Ignorantiam (claiming something to be true because it cannot be proved false) to defend his justification to resign, implying that he had resigned for personal reasons because they couldn’t prove he didn’t. This was also revealed in the movie the movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.” As was also enlightened in the movie was the fact that Skilling had previously used Ad Ignorantiam to defend Enron’s policy of Mark-to-Market accounting, where they “estimated” future profits and displayed them as actual profits. They defended this estimating by saying that you couldn’t prove that they weren’t going to make those profits, and therefore they were going to make them.
Another favorite of Jeff Skilling was his habit of Special Pleading (using double standards to excuse someone). As was revealed in both the movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” and Gladwell’s text, during the Congressional hearings and the trials, Jeff Skilling repeatedly avoided answering questions on Enron’s accounting practices and finances by saying “I’m not an accountant.” Preceding his resignation, if any trader had any questions about Enron’s financial statements all he had to do was “call up Jeff” to get the truth. So before the fall Jeff was intimately familiar with the company’s financial dealing, and then suddenly couldn’t remember any of it in the investigations that follow.
There may be circumstances where the use of informal fallacies may be acceptable to use. These may include government ads, ads encouraging people to donate money to good causes, though in a free speech society there is really no way to control the groups using fallacies. Then, considering Gladwell’s opinion that “It’s your fault as well,” the question must be asked “Is there a situation where it isn’t acceptable?” because if you believe it without justifying that belief, have they really done anything wrong? They merely defended themselves with an argument that doesn’t in any way actually prove anything. So the burden is on you to be able to recognize that and act accordingly, the gullibility of people does not mean that flimsy arguments should be outlawed; it just means people need to be more aware.
I myself have used informal fallacies in arguments before, mostly Ad Hominem, which is arguably one of the most effective. This usually comes up in a debate about politicians in general and, depending on whether I like them or not I have used details from their past to support or to demean said politician. I have also utilized the loaded question (a question that is biased because it has a built-in assumption) to a larger degree than the others to back those I was arguing with into a corner. Another one I myself haven’t used, but rather it has been used on me; the False Dilemma, which is usually used by someone when they’re trying to get me to do something I don’t want to do. Everybody uses fallacies, though we seldom realize it.
Throughout the Enron story, Skilling et al. used fallacies to duck questions, protect Enron and ultimately to get rich off Enron’s destruction. Fallacies have been demonstrated to be useful tools that can distract the crowd from the truth and bring them over to your side. This was crucial to the early success of Enron; otherwise it never would have become even a tenth of the company it was at its height.
Throughout the life of Enron, the company’s executives have used logical fallacies on many occurrences throughout the company’s turbulent history and its inevitable crash. Enron was formed in the late 1980’s as an energy provider; routing oil and such to plants and later providing the energy to people. It steadily gained power throughout the 90’s and early 2000, but in 2001 the fall started and the floor was yanked from underneath the company. Throughout this period and the investigations that followed, logical fallacies were rampant in the upper echelons of Enron.
There are 10 deadly fallacies which are ad ignorantiam, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo procter hoc, ad hominem, circular reasoning, special pleading, equivocation, false analogy, false dilemma and loaded questions. At one point or another Enron had committed nearly every fallacy, with the possible exception of the loaded question. But throughout the company’s growth, apex, fall and subsequent investigation, Jeff Skilling and the others made rampant use of them to promote, protect, excuse and explain the company’s actions, their own and the growth.
Logical fallacies are often plausible and often are very convincing due to the fact that they seem to be completely justified when examined with a cursory glance, and the holes in the argument are not revealed unless you take a closer look at the facts and the argument someone is making. Fallacies are used to support someone’s position despite having gaping holes in their argument. Ad hominem is the most obvious example of this; attacking the person instead of the argument, which in and of itself does absolutely nothing to enhance their argument, but works because humans look less favorably on someone who has been discredited no matter how convincing their argument is.
Enron made use of this more than a few times. As seen in the movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” after the Fortune Magazine article came out asking “IS ENRON OVERPRICED?” the company, instead of finding fault with the article itself and the argument made in it, they launched an Ad Hominem (attacking/supporting the person rather than the argument) attack on the journalist who published the article, questioning her motives and throwing her integrity and professionalism into question. These were formed and implemented by the upper echelons of Enron, including the CEO Jeff Skilling. This event occurred in 2000 a few months before the fall began and before Skilling resigned in early 2001. And this was not the first time that they utilized an Ad Hominem attack. Earlier that year, according to the movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” there was a trader a Goldman Sachs who began questioning Enron’s stability and urging people to start selling their stock in Enron. Skilling and the others soon went after him and eventually got Goldman Sachs to fire the trader in question.
Jeff Skilling was not picky about the fallacies he used protect himself. Shortly after it began to become apparent that a crash was inevitable, Jeff Skilling resigned due to “personal reasons” and later during the investigations of Enron, when he was questioned as to why he resigned, he used Ad Ignorantiam (claiming something to be true because it cannot be proved false) to defend his justification to resign, implying that he had resigned for personal reasons because they couldn’t prove he didn’t. This was also revealed in the movie the movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.” As was also enlightened in the movie was the fact that Skilling had previously used Ad Ignorantiam to defend Enron’s policy of Mark-to-Market accounting, where they “estimated” future profits and displayed them as actual profits. They defended this estimating by saying that you couldn’t prove that they weren’t going to make those profits, and therefore they were going to make them.
Another favorite of Jeff Skilling was his habit of Special Pleading (using double standards to excuse someone). As was revealed in both the movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” and Gladwell’s text, during the Congressional hearings and the trials, Jeff Skilling repeatedly avoided answering questions on Enron’s accounting practices and finances by saying “I’m not an accountant.” Preceding his resignation, if any trader had any questions about Enron’s financial statements all he had to do was “call up Jeff” to get the truth. So before the fall Jeff was intimately familiar with the company’s financial dealing, and then suddenly couldn’t remember any of it in the investigations that follow.
There may be circumstances where the use of informal fallacies may be acceptable to use. These may include government ads, ads encouraging people to donate money to good causes, though in a free speech society there is really no way to control the groups using fallacies. Then, considering Gladwell’s opinion that “It’s your fault as well,” the question must be asked “Is there a situation where it isn’t acceptable?” because if you believe it without justifying that belief, have they really done anything wrong? They merely defended themselves with an argument that doesn’t in any way actually prove anything. So the burden is on you to be able to recognize that and act accordingly, the gullibility of people does not mean that flimsy arguments should be outlawed; it just means people need to be more aware.
I myself have used informal fallacies in arguments before, mostly Ad Hominem, which is arguably one of the most effective. This usually comes up in a debate about politicians in general and, depending on whether I like them or not I have used details from their past to support or to demean said politician. I have also utilized the loaded question (a question that is biased because it has a built-in assumption) to a larger degree than the others to back those I was arguing with into a corner. Another one I myself haven’t used, but rather it has been used on me; the False Dilemma, which is usually used by someone when they’re trying to get me to do something I don’t want to do. Everybody uses fallacies, though we seldom realize it.
Throughout the Enron story, Skilling et al. used fallacies to duck questions, protect Enron and ultimately to get rich off Enron’s destruction. Fallacies have been demonstrated to be useful tools that can distract the crowd from the truth and bring them over to your side. This was crucial to the early success of Enron; otherwise it never would have become even a tenth of the company it was at its height.
Monday, June 1, 2009
OBEY
1. What is your emotional response upon entering the exhibit? Please explain.
Upon entering the exhibit there were a number of emotional responses that you would experience. the first would probably be astoundment, due to the fact that you rarely see such art and that to most it was a different type of art than what we are used to. There is also an element of amusment or disqust or sympathy, depending on which work you were looking at, as well as a penance of annoyance as well, as some works were annoying.
2. What is your emotional response upon leaving the exhibit? Please explain.
There really was no emotion upon leaving other than astonishment and surprise, as it was not what was expected.
3. Does emotion interact with reason, sense, perception and language for you in this exhibit? If so, how?
4. Is this an American culture exhibit? How might someone from a non-Western country respond to this exhibit? Why?
Upon entering the exhibit there were a number of emotional responses that you would experience. the first would probably be astoundment, due to the fact that you rarely see such art and that to most it was a different type of art than what we are used to. There is also an element of amusment or disqust or sympathy, depending on which work you were looking at, as well as a penance of annoyance as well, as some works were annoying.
2. What is your emotional response upon leaving the exhibit? Please explain.
There really was no emotion upon leaving other than astonishment and surprise, as it was not what was expected.
3. Does emotion interact with reason, sense, perception and language for you in this exhibit? If so, how?
It does, as it does on everything as they are all intermingled. Emotion has an impact on what you perceive as well as on how you reason and the sense you feel for things as well as the language you use to describe it.
4. Is this an American culture exhibit? How might someone from a non-Western country respond to this exhibit? Why?
This is an American culture exhibit, but someone from a non-western country may enjoy the exhibit as some of the works are obviously anti-American, yet at the same time may perturb them, as it would be completely different from anything they have seen before.
5. Can one appreciate theatre, music and art using only the rational mind or must Emotion play a role? Explain.
Emotion must play a role, becasuse it is impossible for it not to, as they are all completely interconnected; It's one brain, not two, one for reason and the other for emotion.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Senior Reflection
The major piece of advice I took away from the senior's visit was: DO NOT PROCRASTINATE. The general consensus seemed to be that the longer you wait to do something the bigger a whole you dig yourself into. That you should get it doen as soon as possible to avoide one-nighting it, in an attempt to complete it before hand. This way you'll be able to face the IB exams, w/o worries like CAS, IAs or the EE. Another thing that stood out was to get CAS out of the way AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, so you don't have top deal with it later
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Mr. Andre Reflection
I found Mr. Andre's presentation to be rather interesting. I found the whole gist of the presentation to be that a puzzle can only be solved if you have every part of the puzzle; sometimes there is no way to know what fact will make the difference because there is no way to know each's importance to the puzzle as a whole. The riddles further reinforced the idea; if you can't see the whole picture there's no way of knowing the answer.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Egyptogram/Kpelle Reflection
The fact that the Kpelle people responded differently was not a reflection of their ability to reason, merely a reflection of their unfamiliarity with questions that are context-free. They were not used to having to take the question out of the context with which it is presented. Also, they were unfamiliar with logical questions that had only ONE correct answer. They usually had logical questions with multiple answers, but one that was more right than the others.
The Egyptograms were interesting; the fact that we became better the farther we went was attributable to our growing familiarity with the symbols. Also we benefited from our classmate's Apriori Knowledge; like knowing what Ramses was in hieroglyphics. This, along with the growing familiarity with certain symbols allowed us to progress faster in the more advanced stages of the hieroglyphics.
The Egyptograms were interesting; the fact that we became better the farther we went was attributable to our growing familiarity with the symbols. Also we benefited from our classmate's Apriori Knowledge; like knowing what Ramses was in hieroglyphics. This, along with the growing familiarity with certain symbols allowed us to progress faster in the more advanced stages of the hieroglyphics.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
MORE TOK NOTES!
You cannot say an argument is true/untrue, only whether it is valid or invalid.
Truth is a property of a statement
Truth is Public, Eternal, and Independent
Arguments-
Does the conclusion follow the premise?
If so, valid
Validity of the argument is independent from the truth or falsity of the premise.
All ostriches are teachers
Mr. Steedman is an ostrich
Therefore, Mr. Steedman is a teacher
3 words used twice (check 1) Quantifer (check 2)\
IT IS VALID
Syllogisms do not create truth, but used properly valid argument in syllogism form can PRESERVE truth.
All A's are B's
Some A's are C's
Some B's are C's
VALID
Truth is a property of a statement
Truth is Public, Eternal, and Independent
Arguments-
Does the conclusion follow the premise?
If so, valid
Validity of the argument is independent from the truth or falsity of the premise.
All ostriches are teachers
Mr. Steedman is an ostrich
Therefore, Mr. Steedman is a teacher
3 words used twice (check 1) Quantifer (check 2)\
IT IS VALID
Syllogisms do not create truth, but used properly valid argument in syllogism form can PRESERVE truth.
All A's are B's
Some A's are C's
Some B's are C's
VALID
Monday, March 30, 2009
TOK Notes 3/30/09
How it worked?
Process of elimination
More symbols to work with
Apriori Knowledge-
used prior experiences to make assumptions
initial assumptions led to certain conclusions
We infer from past experiences led to certain conclusions
We are NOT pure empiricists
Rationalists-
Assumptions=Premise
Deduction-
Apriori Knowledge (in form of general theory)
APPLYING IT
All dogs are mammals
Fido is a dog
therefore Fido is a mammal
above a syllogism
syllogism
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH
either valid or invalid
3 terms occuring twice
A quantifer at begining
to be valid conclusion must follow premise
Valid Syllogies
All penguins are black and white
This tv show is black and white
therefore this tv show is a penguin
All panthers are pink
Huey Newton is a Panther
Therefore Huey Newton is Pink
Process of elimination
More symbols to work with
Apriori Knowledge-
used prior experiences to make assumptions
initial assumptions led to certain conclusions
We infer from past experiences led to certain conclusions
We are NOT pure empiricists
Rationalists-
Assumptions=Premise
Deduction-
Apriori Knowledge (in form of general theory)
APPLYING IT
All dogs are mammals
Fido is a dog
therefore Fido is a mammal
above a syllogism
syllogism
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH
either valid or invalid
3 terms occuring twice
A quantifer at begining
to be valid conclusion must follow premise
Valid Syllogies
All penguins are black and white
This tv show is black and white
therefore this tv show is a penguin
All panthers are pink
Huey Newton is a Panther
Therefore Huey Newton is Pink
Sunday, March 29, 2009
TOK Project- Option 2
Original: “The Charge of the Light Brigade”
By: Alfred Tennyson
By: Alfred Tennyson
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!
Modified for project:
One more lesson, One more lesson,
One more day of frustration,
All in Dr. Itard’s House
Victor was taught
“Not the scissors, Victor!
The Hammer!” Itard said:
In the House of Dr. Itard
Victor was taught.
"Bring me the K, Victor!”
Was there a way to civilize him? To give him humanity?He didn’t know
He’d try to teach him;
Through memorization,
Through training,
Through cruelty:
He would make him human
In the House of Dr. Itard
Victor was taught.
He wanted to prove humanity was there,
In a boy devoid of any human traits,
He wanted to prove humanity was there,
Beneath the layers of wildness;
He taught and lectured,
Victor obeying and following,
Into the jaws of shocks,
Into the mouth of the closet,
In the House of Dr. Itard
Victor was taught.
Victor placed the tools correctly,
Placed the letters by memory,
And then by recognition,
Learning language, while
Paris questioned Dr. Itard;
Thrown into the closet
Shocked into crying;
Itard hoping for some glimmer of humanity
And to make Victor understand right and wrong
Shattering his wildness,
And giving him humanity.
He wanted to prove humanity was there,
To further his science,
He wanted to prove humanity was there,
To better understand the brain
He would teach him;
Through recognition,
And through Victor’s inherent need for order,
And through cruelty;
Victor learned,
Thrown into the closet
And shocked,
In Dr. Itard’s House
Victor was taught.
Will he ever truly understand?
The way humans think?
Will he ever feel what humans feel?Can he ever get past his wildness?
And finally find humanity?
Honor Victor, the outcast,
And the one who’ll never be the way he was meant to be,
The one who fell to the wild.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Genie Questions #2
1. What was so significant about Chomsky's argument?
Chomsky argued that the basics of language are ingrained in all of us; that our ability to use grammar is pre-programed into us when we are born and we can process grammar from the beginning and the only thing we need to learn is vocabulary.
2. What do you make of Chomsky's bird argument on p. 36?
It makes sense that you wouldn't fly if you were raised by birds, but language is entirely different. Walking and talking are very different processes. One is a noise while the other is a movement.
3. Do you agree with Chomsky's claim about the island at the end of Chapter 7? Please explain your answer.
To some extent, due to the fact that we did develop language ourselves because there were pre-linguistic humans, and now we have many languages.
4. In Chapter 10, why were Genie's observers pleased to see her hitting other children?
Because it was her first sign of outside interaction; she was finally interacting with other children. She was turning her anger outward, no longer keeping it pent up inside herself. This was seen as encouraging by her therapists, as she was finally interacting with the outside world.
5. Describe how Genie's language was developing.
Genie's language was developing rather well in that she could understand an encouraging amount, but was having trouble actually saying things. Her vocabulary (what she could say) was limited due to her extensive solitary confinement and limited development of her vocal cords. After a while, it became clear to the doctors that she would never be able to fully develop a vocabulary akin to an average person's.
6. After reading Chapter 11, what are the primary differences between the reading and the film?
The main deference is that the film ends on a more positive note, as if they really will be able to teach Victor how to speak and interact, while the reading seems to be less optimistic and seems to suggest they will never be able to fully teach Genie or Victor how to speak.
7. How did the film, Wild Child impact the symposium members? What is meant by: "all of us saw in the movie what we were prepared to see to confirm to our own biases."?
They each saw in the movie what they wanted to see; that no matter what happened during the movie, they saw it as justification of what they think is going to happen. Each one of them saw the movie as confirmation of what they already believed; they primed themselves to react in a certain way and they did react that way.
8. What do you think of Dr. Elkind's quote on p. 59? How do you feel about Dr. Freedman's suggestion on p. 59-61.
I think it has merit, because if everything was dependent on language than Genie would not end up understanding true emotions. She may start to connect everything with the langauge and nothing with actions, and completely focus on langugae and completely look over anything else.
9. Why was it important for Itard to teach Vistor to "imagine the needs of others (p. 73)"? Does CAS do this? Why or why not?
I agree that it was to optomistic, but you have to take in the fact it was a movie, and most movies have optomistic endings, especially in the early 70's, unless it was a war movie. Most films don't want to be seen as pessimistic, and so, as is usual with movies in general, the ending is too optomistic.
Chomsky argued that the basics of language are ingrained in all of us; that our ability to use grammar is pre-programed into us when we are born and we can process grammar from the beginning and the only thing we need to learn is vocabulary.
2. What do you make of Chomsky's bird argument on p. 36?
It makes sense that you wouldn't fly if you were raised by birds, but language is entirely different. Walking and talking are very different processes. One is a noise while the other is a movement.
3. Do you agree with Chomsky's claim about the island at the end of Chapter 7? Please explain your answer.
To some extent, due to the fact that we did develop language ourselves because there were pre-linguistic humans, and now we have many languages.
4. In Chapter 10, why were Genie's observers pleased to see her hitting other children?
Because it was her first sign of outside interaction; she was finally interacting with other children. She was turning her anger outward, no longer keeping it pent up inside herself. This was seen as encouraging by her therapists, as she was finally interacting with the outside world.
5. Describe how Genie's language was developing.
Genie's language was developing rather well in that she could understand an encouraging amount, but was having trouble actually saying things. Her vocabulary (what she could say) was limited due to her extensive solitary confinement and limited development of her vocal cords. After a while, it became clear to the doctors that she would never be able to fully develop a vocabulary akin to an average person's.
6. After reading Chapter 11, what are the primary differences between the reading and the film?
The main deference is that the film ends on a more positive note, as if they really will be able to teach Victor how to speak and interact, while the reading seems to be less optimistic and seems to suggest they will never be able to fully teach Genie or Victor how to speak.
7. How did the film, Wild Child impact the symposium members? What is meant by: "all of us saw in the movie what we were prepared to see to confirm to our own biases."?
They each saw in the movie what they wanted to see; that no matter what happened during the movie, they saw it as justification of what they think is going to happen. Each one of them saw the movie as confirmation of what they already believed; they primed themselves to react in a certain way and they did react that way.
8. What do you think of Dr. Elkind's quote on p. 59? How do you feel about Dr. Freedman's suggestion on p. 59-61.
I think it has merit, because if everything was dependent on language than Genie would not end up understanding true emotions. She may start to connect everything with the langauge and nothing with actions, and completely focus on langugae and completely look over anything else.
9. Why was it important for Itard to teach Vistor to "imagine the needs of others (p. 73)"? Does CAS do this? Why or why not?
He wanted to teach him that other people mattered, and wanted him to be able to feel sorry for other people, so he could begin to feel emotions and actually think like a human being. I don't think CAS does this, because, by this point, you either care about others or you don't.
10. After reading Chapter 14, do you agree that Truffaut's film ending was too optimistic?I agree that it was to optomistic, but you have to take in the fact it was a movie, and most movies have optomistic endings, especially in the early 70's, unless it was a war movie. Most films don't want to be seen as pessimistic, and so, as is usual with movies in general, the ending is too optomistic.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Linguisticly Able
1.)What are the functions of language? Just provide the main ones Abel describes.
5.)What is the difference between Animal and Human Language?
We can understand Human Language, and (as far as we know) Animal language has no real set of rules, while any human language does, and those rules make it much more precise. Also (again, as far as we know) Animal language is unable to convey emotions as well as Human language. Human language also has difficulties in conveying emoition, but at least it can, whereas Animal language can't.
6.)What is Chomsky’s argument on how humans learn language? Be specific about linguistic competence.
Chomsky argues that we, as humans, have the function of grammar pre-programmed into them and only have to learn vocabulary. That the basis for language is built into everyone of us, and that grammar is inherently the same throughout all human languages, and that every human is linguistically comptent; that every human can learn languages.
8.)How would you answer Abel’s questions:” Would an infant learn to speak, although isolated from adults, he were constantly within earshot of a radio?” (p. 231)
That it would be doubtful, because he may learn the sturucture and random words, he would not be able to use those words in context, due to the fact that he would not learn what the words refer to.
9.)Why does Abel believe that “language is not in fact unique in the spectrum of human capacities?” (p. 231)
The functions of language are grammar and vocabulary. They are distinctly unique and have very different characteristics and rules.
3.)What is the “inscrutability of reference?” (p. 228)
The undenaible fact that words refer to things, and we take the "meaning" of that word from what that word refers to. It doesn't actually mean anything, but it refers to meaning.
4.)What does Abel mean when he says that “Words are mete breaths of air, or scribbled pencil marks, but as used in a ‘language game’ by a speech community they are not arbitrary? “( p. 228)
That when you talk or communicate with words, they actually mean something. They having a meaning for you and they have a meaning for the people your talking to.5.)What is the difference between Animal and Human Language?
We can understand Human Language, and (as far as we know) Animal language has no real set of rules, while any human language does, and those rules make it much more precise. Also (again, as far as we know) Animal language is unable to convey emotions as well as Human language. Human language also has difficulties in conveying emoition, but at least it can, whereas Animal language can't.
6.)What is Chomsky’s argument on how humans learn language? Be specific about linguistic competence.
Chomsky argues that we, as humans, have the function of grammar pre-programmed into them and only have to learn vocabulary. That the basis for language is built into everyone of us, and that grammar is inherently the same throughout all human languages, and that every human is linguistically comptent; that every human can learn languages.
8.)How would you answer Abel’s questions:” Would an infant learn to speak, although isolated from adults, he were constantly within earshot of a radio?” (p. 231)
That it would be doubtful, because he may learn the sturucture and random words, he would not be able to use those words in context, due to the fact that he would not learn what the words refer to.
9.)Why does Abel believe that “language is not in fact unique in the spectrum of human capacities?” (p. 231)
Because there is evidence that other animals communicate, althought thier communication has much less structure than ours does, and lacks descernable rules, as far as humans can tell. So they don't use language per say, more modified signals.
10.)What does Abel mean when he says: “We all learn these codes of stance, mannerism, gesture, tactility, interpersonal behavior…yet we are equally unable to state them fully”? (p. 232)
Language is incapable of fully expressing these, because words don't completely convey them. Everyone takes words to mean something slightly different. Words don't have concret refrences; they vary from person to person and people see them differently.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Genie
1. What was Psamtik's experiment? What did he hope to learn? Did he?
Psamtik's experiment was too put two babies into a hut completely by themselves for two years in an effort to find out what the protolanguage is; the first language humans ever spoke. He did not learn what it was, although he thought he did, for many reasons.
2. Rymer claims on pg. 5 that "while his experiment was flawed in fulfilling its declared intention...it embodied both the theological questions and the practical quandaries that still bedevil the discipline." Where did Abel hint at this same concept?
Abel hinted at this when he said that language in itself is still not resolved. There are new theroies and the question is still open. Linguistics is still an unfinished study. We still don't know for sure what our "first" language was or even if there was a "first" language.
3. Why do Linguistics and Astronomy "constitute an unlikely sisterhood"?
Because both studies are expanded from observation; there is no way to actively study linguistics in an experiment the same way there is no way to study astronomy in an experiment.
4. Why was the Social Worker concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother?
Because she was completely malnourished, weighing only 59 pounds and was only 54 inches tall at the age of 13, and seemed completely unreactive. She seemed almost robotic, not interacting with anything.
5. Consider the history of Linguistics outlined in Chapter 5. Please explain how the study of language grew from the religious to the biological and finally to the psychological.
First, people belived that god gave them the gift of language and "Who are you to question god?" but over time a new theory gained support; that we were born with it and it was inherent within our bodies; that it was seperate from our souls. After awhile this was questioned by cases of children who were raised in solitude and who possessed no language skills at all, and a new theory gained prevalance; that we must be taught language for us to effectively utilize it. Thus it evolved from religious to biological to psychological.
Psamtik's experiment was too put two babies into a hut completely by themselves for two years in an effort to find out what the protolanguage is; the first language humans ever spoke. He did not learn what it was, although he thought he did, for many reasons.
2. Rymer claims on pg. 5 that "while his experiment was flawed in fulfilling its declared intention...it embodied both the theological questions and the practical quandaries that still bedevil the discipline." Where did Abel hint at this same concept?
Abel hinted at this when he said that language in itself is still not resolved. There are new theroies and the question is still open. Linguistics is still an unfinished study. We still don't know for sure what our "first" language was or even if there was a "first" language.
3. Why do Linguistics and Astronomy "constitute an unlikely sisterhood"?
Because both studies are expanded from observation; there is no way to actively study linguistics in an experiment the same way there is no way to study astronomy in an experiment.
4. Why was the Social Worker concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother?
Because she was completely malnourished, weighing only 59 pounds and was only 54 inches tall at the age of 13, and seemed completely unreactive. She seemed almost robotic, not interacting with anything.
5. Consider the history of Linguistics outlined in Chapter 5. Please explain how the study of language grew from the religious to the biological and finally to the psychological.
First, people belived that god gave them the gift of language and "Who are you to question god?" but over time a new theory gained support; that we were born with it and it was inherent within our bodies; that it was seperate from our souls. After awhile this was questioned by cases of children who were raised in solitude and who possessed no language skills at all, and a new theory gained prevalance; that we must be taught language for us to effectively utilize it. Thus it evolved from religious to biological to psychological.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Eyak Langauge
What are the arguments on both sides of the debate in promoting a single language?
The arguments in favor of promoting a single language are that the language is dying and needs to be saved; that a culture is being lost and we must do everything in our power to keep this from happening. That if we don't save it a piece of human history is lost forever. The arguments against promoting a single language argue that it is fiscally and realistically impossible to save a language no one wants to speak anymore. The idea behind this argument being that it would cost a great deal of money and that no one wants to speak it anyway, so why bother saving it?
How far should we go to save a dying language? What are the financial and cultural implications?
In my opinion, the extent to which we should go to save a dying language is dependent on the value of the language to modern-day society. The major cultural implication would be the fact that the world lost another culture, but this is inevitably the way humans interact, some cultures become dominant, but all eventually die, and new ones arise. Financialy, the elimination of a lanuguage has nothing but good implications, as there would then be one less language that could result in misunderstandings and mistraslations, which could create negative financial affects.
After reading: Every Teacher is a Language Teacher, what do think of the I.B. supporting International Mother Language Day?
The IB endorsing International Mother Language Day could create some problems. One being that if the student's mother language is only spoken by him and no one else, communication would become problematic. The idea that an organization needs to promote the speaking of a langauge should be taken as a sign that the language is dying; if you have to force people to speak it, then what's the point? Also, the banning of English in some of the schools, is in and of it self, an oxymoron, as some people's mother language is English.
The arguments in favor of promoting a single language are that the language is dying and needs to be saved; that a culture is being lost and we must do everything in our power to keep this from happening. That if we don't save it a piece of human history is lost forever. The arguments against promoting a single language argue that it is fiscally and realistically impossible to save a language no one wants to speak anymore. The idea behind this argument being that it would cost a great deal of money and that no one wants to speak it anyway, so why bother saving it?
How far should we go to save a dying language? What are the financial and cultural implications?
In my opinion, the extent to which we should go to save a dying language is dependent on the value of the language to modern-day society. The major cultural implication would be the fact that the world lost another culture, but this is inevitably the way humans interact, some cultures become dominant, but all eventually die, and new ones arise. Financialy, the elimination of a lanuguage has nothing but good implications, as there would then be one less language that could result in misunderstandings and mistraslations, which could create negative financial affects.
After reading: Every Teacher is a Language Teacher, what do think of the I.B. supporting International Mother Language Day?
The IB endorsing International Mother Language Day could create some problems. One being that if the student's mother language is only spoken by him and no one else, communication would become problematic. The idea that an organization needs to promote the speaking of a langauge should be taken as a sign that the language is dying; if you have to force people to speak it, then what's the point? Also, the banning of English in some of the schools, is in and of it self, an oxymoron, as some people's mother language is English.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Earth vs. Eyeth
a) What is the primary argument of the students representing Deaf Culture?
That the new president had grown up without signing and they seem to think that because she use primarily "oralist" methods that she is not part of their community. That she betrayed the deaf community by learning to read lips and to talk, and they cannot allow a "traitor" to be their president.
b) Why would the Deaf Culture students value a President of Gallaudet who spends more time in Eyeth over Earth? Shouldn't a President of a college represent all students?
Because they believe that they are an oppressed minority and deserve a president who shares that belief and the idea that the University must be protected for themselves. Because they feel that hearing people have oppressed them for to long, and want their own place away from hearing people.
c) What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Deaf person spending too much time in either Eyeth or Earth?
The advantage of spending too much time in Eyeth would be the fact that they would be able to connect with people like themselves, but at the same time would be cut off from the rest of the world. The opposite is true if the spend to much time on Earth; they become disconnected from people like themselves but remain plugged into the world.
d) What is your opinion of the fight at Galludet? Should Jane K. Fernandes be President of Gallaudet?
I think she should be president. Whether she is "not deaf enough" is not relevant to me. If she is good president material, then she should be president.
That the new president had grown up without signing and they seem to think that because she use primarily "oralist" methods that she is not part of their community. That she betrayed the deaf community by learning to read lips and to talk, and they cannot allow a "traitor" to be their president.
b) Why would the Deaf Culture students value a President of Gallaudet who spends more time in Eyeth over Earth? Shouldn't a President of a college represent all students?
Because they believe that they are an oppressed minority and deserve a president who shares that belief and the idea that the University must be protected for themselves. Because they feel that hearing people have oppressed them for to long, and want their own place away from hearing people.
c) What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Deaf person spending too much time in either Eyeth or Earth?
The advantage of spending too much time in Eyeth would be the fact that they would be able to connect with people like themselves, but at the same time would be cut off from the rest of the world. The opposite is true if the spend to much time on Earth; they become disconnected from people like themselves but remain plugged into the world.
d) What is your opinion of the fight at Galludet? Should Jane K. Fernandes be President of Gallaudet?
I think she should be president. Whether she is "not deaf enough" is not relevant to me. If she is good president material, then she should be president.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Measured Man 7 5-10
5.)How does Abel differentiate between Reference and Naming?
Reference is merely a word used to refer to something general, while naming is a distinctly human act, and is something.
6.)On page 66, Abel explains the historical significance of naming. Can you think of any examples he left out? Is there any contemporary example of which Abel would not be aware?
I cannot think of any other historical examples or any contemporary example
7.)What is the main function of naming? What doesn’t it do?
The main function of naming is to identify something with a word that means something. To identify, describe and show what the namee is. A human thing, to convey the unconveyable.
8.)What is the difference between sense and reference?
The difference between reference and sense is the fact that sense is what you feel and think and believe, while reference is merely talking about something else.
9.)How does Abel differentiate between Connotation and Denotation? What about Intension and Extension?
He says that Connotation is what you think of when you hear a word- ones that you know, while denotation is all the things in the world that fit that word. Intension is what is meant, while Extension is everything that could have been meant.
10.)What does Abel mean when he says: “Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” (p. 68)?
He means that meanings are described through words but have characteristics that are not expressed by words; they take on their own significance.
Reference is merely a word used to refer to something general, while naming is a distinctly human act, and is something.
6.)On page 66, Abel explains the historical significance of naming. Can you think of any examples he left out? Is there any contemporary example of which Abel would not be aware?
I cannot think of any other historical examples or any contemporary example
7.)What is the main function of naming? What doesn’t it do?
The main function of naming is to identify something with a word that means something. To identify, describe and show what the namee is. A human thing, to convey the unconveyable.
8.)What is the difference between sense and reference?
The difference between reference and sense is the fact that sense is what you feel and think and believe, while reference is merely talking about something else.
9.)How does Abel differentiate between Connotation and Denotation? What about Intension and Extension?
He says that Connotation is what you think of when you hear a word- ones that you know, while denotation is all the things in the world that fit that word. Intension is what is meant, while Extension is everything that could have been meant.
10.)What does Abel mean when he says: “Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” (p. 68)?
He means that meanings are described through words but have characteristics that are not expressed by words; they take on their own significance.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Measured Man 7 1-4
1.) How do Mill and Frege disagree with Russell about grammatical sentences and meaning?
Mill and Frege believe that the meaning of a sentence should only depend on on the meaning of the words that make up the sentence, while Russell believes that there may be grammatical sentences and apparently meaningful sentences without meaning.
2.)Abel provides 8 distinguishing features of meaning. Please provide your own examples of each.
Because he says "We can talk meaningfully about the word only if we take into account what the word is like." Which means that you can only think about a word if you know what it's like.
4.)Aristotle provided 10 categories that defined “the range of applicability of a term.”(p. 65). Please provide your own example for each.
That a term is only applicable in a certain number of ways.
Mill and Frege believe that the meaning of a sentence should only depend on on the meaning of the words that make up the sentence, while Russell believes that there may be grammatical sentences and apparently meaningful sentences without meaning.
2.)Abel provides 8 distinguishing features of meaning. Please provide your own examples of each.
- (Indication) "The rising smoke means fire"
- (Cause) " What does the dent in the car mean?"
- (Effect) "This means pain."
- (Intention) "I meant to take the trash out"
- (Explanation) "What does free mean?"
- (Purpose) "That act has no meaning"
- (Implication) "If there is a hurricane, we are not going"
- (Significance) "Does the fact you're here have any meaning?"
Because he says "We can talk meaningfully about the word only if we take into account what the word is like." Which means that you can only think about a word if you know what it's like.
4.)Aristotle provided 10 categories that defined “the range of applicability of a term.”(p. 65). Please provide your own example for each.
That a term is only applicable in a certain number of ways.
- (Substance) "Charlie is a human"
- (Quantity) "He is 5 ft 7 in."
- (Quality) "He is not very bright"
- (Relation) "He is the brother of Jerry"
- (Place) "He is in Plymouth"
- (Time) "He is there in January"
- (Action) "He is walking"
- (Passion) "He is flying"
- (Situation/Position) "He is surrounded by assassins"
- (State/Condition) "He is wearing a hat"
English vs. Gaelic in Gaeltacht
Create Laws to keep out non-Gaelic speakers
- to preserve their culture
- Stop the erosion of Gaelic
- Due to the drop in Gaelic speakers
- keep number of Gaelic speakers high
- get back at the English
- preserve cultural identity
- Sapir-Whorf: Lose Language, Lose Culture
- Oldest Spoken Language in Europe
- We're here, so learn our language
Promoting Gaelic Only laws is linguistic apartheid
- Separating people- Human Rights implications
- Financial implications
- No melting pot effect
- Tourism affected
- 21st Century
- part of globalization
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Good and Bad Presentations
As a class, we did fairly well on the presentations but we did have certain shortcomings. While on the whole, we did well, there were areas for improvement.
What we did well:
Outling the topic
Background on topic
Identifying Knowledge issues
and length of presentation
What we could improve:
Identifying the implications
Why it matters
and presenting the topic
I did okay, but kind of rushed through (didn't want to miss the bus) and dont think I got everything I want to get in.
What I did well:
Outling the topic
Background on topic
presenting topic
Identifying Knowledge issues
What could be improved:
Identifying the implications
Why it matters
length of presentation
What we did well:
Outling the topic
Background on topic
Identifying Knowledge issues
and length of presentation
What we could improve:
Identifying the implications
Why it matters
and presenting the topic
I did okay, but kind of rushed through (didn't want to miss the bus) and dont think I got everything I want to get in.
What I did well:
Outling the topic
Background on topic
presenting topic
Identifying Knowledge issues
What could be improved:
Identifying the implications
Why it matters
length of presentation
Warspeak
"The United States urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas." -White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
Here a White House spokesman uses warspeak.
targets= kill
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said "the operation will last as long as necessary."
warspeak
operation= attack
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gaza28-2008dec28,0,427782.story
The Los Angeles Times
Here a White House spokesman uses warspeak.
targets= kill
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said "the operation will last as long as necessary."
warspeak
operation= attack
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gaza28-2008dec28,0,427782.story
The Los Angeles Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
