Learning from Arguments
An Introduction to Philosophy
By Daniel Z. Korman
Spring 2020 Edition
2
Table of Contents
Preface
Introduction
1. Can God Allow Suffering?
2. Why You Should Bet on God
3. No Freedom
4. You Know Nothing
5. What Makes You You
6. Don’t Fear the Reaper
7. Taxation is Immoral
8. Abortion is Immoral
9. Eating Animals is Immoral
10. What Makes Things Right
Appendix A: Logic
Appendix B: Writing
3
Preface
I’m going to argue that you have no free will. I’m going to argue for some other surprising things
too, for instance that death isn’t bad for you, taxation is immoral, and you can’t know anything
whatsoever about the world around you. I’m also going to argue for some things you’re probably
not going to like: that abortion is immoral, you shouldn’t eat meat, and God doesn’t exist.
The arguments aren’t my own. I didn’t come up with them. I don’t even accept all of them:
there are two chapters whose conclusions I accept, three I’m undecided about, and five I’m certain
can’t be right. (I’ll let you guess which are which.) This isn’t for the sake of playing devil’s
advocate. Rather, the idea is that the best way to appreciate what’s at stake in philosophical
disagreements is to study and engage with serious arguments against the views you’d like to hold.
Each chapter offers a sustained argument for some controversial thesis, specifically written
for an audience of beginners. The aim is to introduce newcomers to the dynamics of philosophical
argumentation, using some of the standard arguments one would cover in an introductory
philosophy course, but without the additional hurdles one encounters when reading the primary
sources of the arguments: challenging writing, obscure jargon, and references to unfamiliar books
or schools of thought.
The different chapters aren’t all written from the same perspective. This is obvious from a
quick glance at the opening chapters: the first chapter argues that you shouldn’t believe in God,
while the second argues that you should. You’ll also find that chapters 5 and 6 contain arguments
pointing to different conclusions about the relationship between people and their bodies, and
chapter 7 contains arguments against the very theory of morality that’s defended in chapter 10. So
you will be exposed to a variety of different philosophical perspectives, and you should be on the
lookout for ways in which the arguments in one chapter provide the resources for resisting
arguments in other chapters.
And while there are chapters arguing both for and against belief in God, that isn’t the case
for other topics we’ll cover. For instance, there’s a chapter arguing that you don’t have free will,
but no chapter arguing that you do have free will. That doesn’t mean that you’ll only get to hear
one side of the argument. Along the way you will be exposed to many of the standard objections
to the vi.
Phil 1 – Winter 2020 Paper Prompt 1 Prompt Choose exa.docxkarlhennesey
Phil 1 – Winter 2020
Paper Prompt 1
Prompt: Choose exactly one argument from the list of options below and advance an
objection to it. Make sure to fully explain the argument itself and any necessary
background, then advance your objection to it, then consider and address some potential
responses to your objection. Follow all of the instructions.
List of options: (Remember: choose one)
(1) The Argument from Suffering (p. 20) (Do not deny that God is an “omnibeing”)
(2) The Argument for Betting on God (p. 34)
(3) The Desire Argument (p. 45)
(4) The Argument from Determinism (p. 50) (Do not deny the truth of determinism)
(5) The Doomed Regardless Argument (p. 53)
Instructions: (Read these carefully and follow them!)
• Due date: Tuesday 2/4 at 11:59 pm
• Submit: Electronically on Gauchospace (in Week 5 section) as a pdf file
o Make sure to submit the correct file on time; otherwise, late penalties
• Late penalty: 3.33% per day starting at midnight (maximum penalty: 50%)
• Word limit: between 800 and 1000 words
• Labeling:
o Put your perm number but NOT YOUR NAME on front (blind grading)
o Include an exact word count on front
• Formatting:
o Double-spaced with one inch margins
o Times New Roman size 12 (or something close)
• References:
o Cite “(Korman p. X)” (where X = page #) when referencing textbook
o Cite “(lecture slides)” when referencing lecture slides
o No need for a bibliography if you reference only textbook and/or slides
o Need a bibliography if you reference anything else (not recommended)
Learning from Arguments
An Introduction to Philosophy
By Daniel Z. Korman
Fall 2019 Edition
2
Table of Contents
Preface 3
Introduction 5
1. God Does Not Exist 19
2. You Should Bet on God 29
3. No Freedom 43
4. You Know Nothing 59
5. What Makes You You 76
6. Don’t Fear the Reaper 98
7. Taxation is Immoral 108
8. Abortion is Immoral 119
9. Eating Animals is Immoral 141
10. What Makes Things Right 158
Appendix A: Logic 170
Appendix B: Writing 180
3
Preface
I’m going to argue that you have no free will. I’m going to argue for some other surprising things
too, for instance that death isn’t bad for you, taxation is immoral, and you can’t know anything
whatsoever about the world around you. I’m also going to argue for some things you’re probably
not going to like: that abortion is immoral, you shouldn’t eat meat, and God doesn’t exist.
The arguments aren’t my own. I didn’t come up with them. I don’t even accept all of them:
there are two chapters whose conclusions I accept, three I’m undecided about, and five I’m certain
can’t be right. (I’ll let you guess which are which.) This isn’t for the sake of playing devil’s
advocate. Rather, the idea is that the best way to appreciate what’s at stake in philosophical
disagreements is to study and engage with serious arguments against the views you’d like ...
1
Running head: REVIEW PAPER
Alisebeth Nelson
Argosy University Twin Cities
Advanced General Psychology
PSY492
Review Paper – Draft of Literature Findings
M2A3
June 2016
Abstract
This paper discusses the similarities, differences, and content of 10 articles and other resources the report and discuss the findings of research that has been done on the Psychology of Evil. The idea of a person being completely “evil” is still a new idea in psychology and all of the main research on this has been done within the past 70 years, so as of right now there is now hard proof that someone can really truly be “evil.” Most of the research done has been done based on the idea of an authority figure being the main reason why someone may do an evil task, not one on single person doing an evil thing on their own recognizance. This paper focuses on experiments performed by Milgram and Zimbardo and their findings, but also includes discussions from other sources.
The Psychology of Evil
There have been many discussions based on the research done to prove that humans can be and are instinctively evil beings. However, most of the research that has been presented to us has been performed with some type of authority that wills the participants to perform the “evil” acts. Becker states in his article “little effort has been made in psychology and psychiatry to study pathologies that afflict, not the aberrant neurotic or psychotic individual or social group, but the greater population of the psychologically normal” (2008). I would have to say that based on my schooling and the personal research that I have done that I would agree with this statement. All too often, any research performed to test the psychology behind good and evil only includes what we would call a “normal” individual; someone who has no type of psychotic diagnosis. Now if these experiments were tested on individual who was diagnosed with Antisocial or Borderline Personality Disorder, would the outcomes have been different? Becker states in this article that he believes that to be so. In this article he mainly focuses on Nazi leaders during the holocaust.
Chirico writes an article that is 22 chapters long that is divided in 5 sections to study this concept: “Basic issues and Controversies,” “Motivation and Cognitive Processes,” “Developmental, Personality and Clinical Aspects,” “Good and Evil,” and “Synthesis” (2011). Chirico starts his analysis with the main question that so many of us ask; “Why is there evil?” Chirico studies focus mainly on whether or not evil is a normal human condition or simply a side effect of mental illness. He also looks into the schemas of cognitions and morality.
Kadar’s article discusses a very interesting theory that the central goal of ecological psychology is for humans to create coping mechanisms to deal with everyday tasks, and sometime that these coping mechanisms can include evil behaviors. He states that sometimes an evil act ...
Does life have meaning What can we know Please read and review .docxmadlynplamondon
Does life have meaning? What can we know? Please read and review the following essays from your text, Introducing Philosophy through Pop Culture, [Edited by Irwin and Johnson]: [1] Aquinas and Rose on Faith and Reason, by Daniel B. Gallagher, [2] “I Am an Instrument of God”; Religious Belief, Atheism, and Meaning, by Jason T. Eberl and Jennifer A. Vines, [3] Selfish, Base Animals Crawling Across the Earth: House and the Meaning of Life, by Henry Jacoby, and [4] Adama’s True Lie: Earth and the Problem of Knowledge, by Eric J. Silverman.
[a] Each of these essays dissects differing concepts of knowledge and meaning. Use characters from the first three (3) of the above essays to contrast the differing concepts of knowledge and meaning illustrated by the author and the appropriate philosophers cited in the particular essays you chose. For example, in the first reading, one might choose to contrast/compare the opposing views of knowledge illustrated by Bernard and Rose. The comparison would, most appropriately, be viewed through the concepts of Aquinas discussed in detail in Gallagher’s particular essay. Likewise, in the second reading the views of Adama and Baltar could be contrasted with those of Roslin and Six through the teachings of Aquinas, Hume, and Russell. In the third reading the different concepts of meaning and knowledge exhibited by House and Wilson (or Sister Augustine) can be contrasted through the perspectives of Socrates and Aristotle.
[b] The fourth reading cites the views of David Hume, W. K. Clifford, and William James concerning knowledge as such knowledge contributes to life’s meaning. Clearly explain these views of each philosopher. [Note: The student is not required to research these philosophers’ views beyond the explanations given in the text.]
[c] Using the appropriate characters you chose to compare and contrast (in part [a] of this prompt), critically examine the positions/views of these pop culture characters as you believe Hume, Clifford, and James would do. What might each of these philosophers say about each character’s concept of knowledge and what each character most likely perceives gives meaning to life?
[CJ499: Bachelors Capstone in Criminal Justice ]
Unit 4 Assignment: Short Paper
In a 3 – 4 page paper address the following:
Identify and describe five scientific methods of research inquiry and how you would apply them
to a research project.
Be sure to provide examples.
Develop a hypothesis focused on the professional practices of criminal justice practitioners.
o An example of a hypothesis would be: you could propose a hypothesis that focuses on
whether law enforcement is better equipped to handle terrorism post 9/11 or whether
airline safety has improved since the attacks of 9/11, etc.
Then select two methods of inquiries and how you would apply them to your hypothesis to
reach a conclusion. The paper should be 3 pages in length, excluding title and reference
pages. ...
Quiz Tip Sheet. A few people have emailed about the last quiz. .docxcatheryncouper
Quiz Tip Sheet.
A few people have emailed about the last quiz. Here are a few tips.
First, some good news. I will start including a bonus question on future exams.
Tips:
1. Quiz questions are reading comprehension questions: The discussion boards are designed to give you a chance to try out your own arguments and to evaluation the arguments in the readings. The quizzes are designed to test reading comprehension. This does not mean the quiz questions will be rote (i.e., what does Herrick say on page 24, paragraph 1). They will require active reading and comprehension of what is written. Key Point: The answers will come from the text.
2. Reading Philosophy may require skills that you haven’t yet mastered. I have two points, here. First, reading comprehension, in any discipline, improves with knowledge of the subject matter. If you have never taken a philosophy course before (or read philosophical essays) then you can expect to find the material more challenging at first than at the end, after you have developed a feel for philosophical writing & reading. Second, reading philosophy may be more challenging that reading other kinds of writing. Philosophy majors consistently outperform other majors on graduate level entrance exams (for law, business, general grad school, and even the MCAT, for medicine). Most likely, this is because of the kinds of skills required to read, write, and understand philosophical writing. Key Point: Give yourself room to grow in your skills. Just because you’ve gotten a 4.0 in your other classes, doesn’t mean that you will get a 4.0 on every quiz in this class. The types of things that are important to notice in a philosophical essay may be different from the types of things you are used to looking for. And the types of logical inferences required in philosophical reading may be different from your typical patterns of inference.
3. What to notice -- Understand Logic: Mastering the material at the end of the first reading will help your reading comprehension (of philosophy) immensely. Here is a brief outline of the different types of arguments/reasoning. Make sure you can define and identify each type. As you encounter new arguments, or argument types, put them on your map. Key Point: As you read, pay close attention to how arguments are characterized. Different types of arguments require different standards of evaluation.
1. Deductive arguments (reasoning): At best, if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.
a. Category Based Arguments: All whales are mammals; all mammals are animals; thus all whales are animals.
2. Inductive Arguments (reasoning): At best if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
a. Analogy Arguments: (Like Paley)
b. Best Explanation Arguments (like fine-tuning)
c. Generalizations: most universes are not fine-tuned, thus, probably, none are.
4. What to notice – Your Assumptions:* We read with selective perception. Our brain ...
Evaluating philosophical claims and theories philipapeters
This document outlines criteria for evaluating philosophical arguments, claims, and theories:
1. When evaluating an argument, consider whether the philosopher provides good reasons to support their conclusion, rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusion.
2. An argument may be weak without proving the conclusion false - weak arguments do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
3. Philosophical evaluations should consider clarity, consistency, coherence, and comprehensiveness of concepts, logical contradictions, fit of elements, and breadth of phenomena explained.
How NOT to write a Philosophy PaperSometimes it helps to l.docxwellesleyterresa
How NOT to write a Philosophy Paper
Sometimes it helps to learn from the mistakes of others. Over the years I have taught this
class, many students have sacrificed the opportunity to earn a good grade by offering bad
examples of term papers, and I have compiled their mistakes so that you may benefit from them
by not repeating their mistakes. I’m thoroughly convinced that enough mistakes have been made
that no one else need add to the heap, and I’m skeptical that anyone will find a new mistake that
I have yet to witness, anyway.
First of all, a philosophy paper is not about you. Philosophy papers are not
autobiographies. So, sentences like “I think that such and such is true,” “I feel that such and
such is wrong,” “it is my opinion that...” or “It has always seemed to me that...” have no place in
a philosophy paper. Such statements are about you, and you are not a philosophical topic. You
must argue for some position on some topic of philosophical importance. Your mother, your
girlfriend and your family physician may care how you feel, and they might even care about your
opinion (papers about opinion, by the way, are called ‘editorials’). However, your paper should
be written for what some have referred to as ‘the disinterested, educated reader,’ which means
that this reader has no personal reason to care how you feel or what your opinions are, and that
he or she is also smart enough to know that people should not believe what they read merely
because someone wrote it, but only for good reasons. It is your job to provide good reasons for
your position, which philosophers refer to as ‘arguments.’ If you must refer to yourself in your
paper, you can write “In this paper, I will argue that such and such is the case, based on the
following reasons, which someone who shares my worldview should accept...etc.” Don’t
presuppose that the ‘disinterested reader' is familiar with the primary or secondary texts to which
you are referring. I, as the instructor, am not the intended audience either, and I will be grading
your paper based on whether, or not, someone who had not read the assigned materials in class to
which you refer could still understand your arguments. By ‘disinterested’ reader, I don’t mean
‘uninterested’ reader, though it is your job to capture the reader’s interest by writing about an
interesting topic and showing why that topic is interesting.
A particularly egregious self-referential display of a lack of academic honesty and
humility that it has been my displeasure to witness is when someone once stated some
unreflective opinion they held and then recurrently claimed that Aquinas agreed with them. Even
if you thoroughly understand the positions of Aquinas (as the person in question did not) or some
other important historical philosopher, if you find yourself in agreement with him, then you are
agreeing with him, not the other way around. Anachronisms are tolerable, but arrogant ones are
not.
Secondly, jus ...
Informal Fallacies
Enterline Design Services LLC/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the various fallacies of support, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
2. Describe the various fallacies of relevance, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
3. Describe the various fallacies of clarity, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
We can conceive of logic as providing us with the best tools for seeking truth. If our goal is to seek truth, then we must be clear that the task isnot limited to the formation of true beliefs based on a solid logical foundation, for the task also involves learning to avoid forming falsebeliefs. Therefore, just as it is important to learn to employ good reasoning, it is also important to learn to avoid bad reasoning.
Toward this end, this chapter will focus on fallacies. Fallacies are errors in reasoning; more specifically, they are common patterns ofreasoning with a high likelihood of leading to false conclusions. Logical fallacies often seem like good reasoning because they resembleperfectly legitimate argument forms. For example, the following is a perfectly valid argument:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in Paris.
Therefore, you live in France.
Assuming that both of the premises are true, it logically follows that the conclusion must be true. The following argument is very similar:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.
This second argument, however, is invalid; there are plenty of other places to live in France. This is a common formal fallacy known asaffirming the consequent. Chapter 4 discussed how this fallacy was based on an incorrect logical form. This chapter will focus on informalfallacies, fallacies whose errors are not so much a matter of form but of content. The rest of this chapter will cover some of the most commonand important fallacies, with definitions and examples. Learning about fallacies can be a lot of fun, but be warned: Once you begin noticingfallacies, you may start to see them everywhere.
Before we start, it is worth noting a few things. First, there are many, many fallacies. This chapter will consider only a sampling of some of themost well-known fallacies. Second, there is a lot of overlap between fallacies. Reasonable people can interpret the same errors as differentfallacies. Focus on trying to understand both interpretations rather than on insisting that only one can be right. Third, different philosophersoften have different terminology for the same fallacies and make different distinctions among them. Therefore, you may find that others usedifferent terminology for the fallacies that we will learn about in this chapter. Not to worry—it is the ideas here that are most important: Ourgoal is to learn to identi.
Week 4 The Problem of Suffering and God’s Existence and the Mind.docxcockekeshia
Week 4: The Problem of Suffering and God’s Existence and the Mind/Body Problem
Overview
A 2012 Pew survey demonstrated that 68% of Americans believe in the notion of God or a “universal spirit.” This week’s materials will provide you with a portal for examining philosophical arguments for and against God’s existence.
You will investigate one of the primary reasons for skepticism about God’s existence – the problem of suffering. Suffering is part of the human condition, and we have all experienced it in varying degrees. For many, the fact of suffering means it is impossible to believe in an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God.
Richard Rubenstein, a Jewish rabbi and religious studies scholar, is an example. He famously argued that it was no longer possible to believe in God after Auschwitz, for surely an all-good and all-powerful being would have intervened in human affairs to stop the brutal suffering of millions of people (1992). But another rabbi and scholar, Eliezer Berkovits comes to the opposite conclusion. He argues that the problem of suffering, specifically the Holocaust, is not a problem for God, but a problem for human beings (Berkovits, 1973). It was human beings who perpetrated the crimes against humanity, not God. You will wrestle with problem of suffering and determine where you stand on the issue.
You will also explore the mind/body problem. This branch of philosophy raises questions about the relationship between the mind and body. Specifically, we will investigate the nature of the self. At some point in our lives, most of us have asked the question, “Who am I”? This topic will allow you to investigate modern and contemporary conceptions of the self and determine how they might help you better understand the nature of the self.
There are a number of important questions that arise when addressing this topic. Do human beings possess a soul? If so, what is a soul, and how does it differ from a body? Is the soul the essence of who we are as human beings? (In other words, is the soul the nature of the self?) Dualism, most famously popularized by Descartes, maintains that human beings possess an immaterial, rational soul housed in a physical body. Importantly, the soul is the essence of the self.
Dualism allowed Descartes to maintain his commitment to Christianity, but it has been soundly criticized for its failure to account for the interaction between the soul (or mind) and body: how does an immaterial substance like the soul (or the mind) interact with a physical body? A number of alternatives to Cartesian dualism have been proposed. These run along a continuum, ranging from the behaviorism (there is no self/soul) to physicalism (the self is reducible to brain functions). As you work through this material, ask yourself which account provides the best explanation for the nature of the self and why?
References
Berkovits, E. (1973). Faith after Auschwitz. New York, NY: KTAV Publishing House, Inc.
Most of the skeptically unaf.
Phil 1 – Winter 2020 Paper Prompt 1 Prompt Choose exa.docxkarlhennesey
Phil 1 – Winter 2020
Paper Prompt 1
Prompt: Choose exactly one argument from the list of options below and advance an
objection to it. Make sure to fully explain the argument itself and any necessary
background, then advance your objection to it, then consider and address some potential
responses to your objection. Follow all of the instructions.
List of options: (Remember: choose one)
(1) The Argument from Suffering (p. 20) (Do not deny that God is an “omnibeing”)
(2) The Argument for Betting on God (p. 34)
(3) The Desire Argument (p. 45)
(4) The Argument from Determinism (p. 50) (Do not deny the truth of determinism)
(5) The Doomed Regardless Argument (p. 53)
Instructions: (Read these carefully and follow them!)
• Due date: Tuesday 2/4 at 11:59 pm
• Submit: Electronically on Gauchospace (in Week 5 section) as a pdf file
o Make sure to submit the correct file on time; otherwise, late penalties
• Late penalty: 3.33% per day starting at midnight (maximum penalty: 50%)
• Word limit: between 800 and 1000 words
• Labeling:
o Put your perm number but NOT YOUR NAME on front (blind grading)
o Include an exact word count on front
• Formatting:
o Double-spaced with one inch margins
o Times New Roman size 12 (or something close)
• References:
o Cite “(Korman p. X)” (where X = page #) when referencing textbook
o Cite “(lecture slides)” when referencing lecture slides
o No need for a bibliography if you reference only textbook and/or slides
o Need a bibliography if you reference anything else (not recommended)
Learning from Arguments
An Introduction to Philosophy
By Daniel Z. Korman
Fall 2019 Edition
2
Table of Contents
Preface 3
Introduction 5
1. God Does Not Exist 19
2. You Should Bet on God 29
3. No Freedom 43
4. You Know Nothing 59
5. What Makes You You 76
6. Don’t Fear the Reaper 98
7. Taxation is Immoral 108
8. Abortion is Immoral 119
9. Eating Animals is Immoral 141
10. What Makes Things Right 158
Appendix A: Logic 170
Appendix B: Writing 180
3
Preface
I’m going to argue that you have no free will. I’m going to argue for some other surprising things
too, for instance that death isn’t bad for you, taxation is immoral, and you can’t know anything
whatsoever about the world around you. I’m also going to argue for some things you’re probably
not going to like: that abortion is immoral, you shouldn’t eat meat, and God doesn’t exist.
The arguments aren’t my own. I didn’t come up with them. I don’t even accept all of them:
there are two chapters whose conclusions I accept, three I’m undecided about, and five I’m certain
can’t be right. (I’ll let you guess which are which.) This isn’t for the sake of playing devil’s
advocate. Rather, the idea is that the best way to appreciate what’s at stake in philosophical
disagreements is to study and engage with serious arguments against the views you’d like ...
1
Running head: REVIEW PAPER
Alisebeth Nelson
Argosy University Twin Cities
Advanced General Psychology
PSY492
Review Paper – Draft of Literature Findings
M2A3
June 2016
Abstract
This paper discusses the similarities, differences, and content of 10 articles and other resources the report and discuss the findings of research that has been done on the Psychology of Evil. The idea of a person being completely “evil” is still a new idea in psychology and all of the main research on this has been done within the past 70 years, so as of right now there is now hard proof that someone can really truly be “evil.” Most of the research done has been done based on the idea of an authority figure being the main reason why someone may do an evil task, not one on single person doing an evil thing on their own recognizance. This paper focuses on experiments performed by Milgram and Zimbardo and their findings, but also includes discussions from other sources.
The Psychology of Evil
There have been many discussions based on the research done to prove that humans can be and are instinctively evil beings. However, most of the research that has been presented to us has been performed with some type of authority that wills the participants to perform the “evil” acts. Becker states in his article “little effort has been made in psychology and psychiatry to study pathologies that afflict, not the aberrant neurotic or psychotic individual or social group, but the greater population of the psychologically normal” (2008). I would have to say that based on my schooling and the personal research that I have done that I would agree with this statement. All too often, any research performed to test the psychology behind good and evil only includes what we would call a “normal” individual; someone who has no type of psychotic diagnosis. Now if these experiments were tested on individual who was diagnosed with Antisocial or Borderline Personality Disorder, would the outcomes have been different? Becker states in this article that he believes that to be so. In this article he mainly focuses on Nazi leaders during the holocaust.
Chirico writes an article that is 22 chapters long that is divided in 5 sections to study this concept: “Basic issues and Controversies,” “Motivation and Cognitive Processes,” “Developmental, Personality and Clinical Aspects,” “Good and Evil,” and “Synthesis” (2011). Chirico starts his analysis with the main question that so many of us ask; “Why is there evil?” Chirico studies focus mainly on whether or not evil is a normal human condition or simply a side effect of mental illness. He also looks into the schemas of cognitions and morality.
Kadar’s article discusses a very interesting theory that the central goal of ecological psychology is for humans to create coping mechanisms to deal with everyday tasks, and sometime that these coping mechanisms can include evil behaviors. He states that sometimes an evil act ...
Does life have meaning What can we know Please read and review .docxmadlynplamondon
Does life have meaning? What can we know? Please read and review the following essays from your text, Introducing Philosophy through Pop Culture, [Edited by Irwin and Johnson]: [1] Aquinas and Rose on Faith and Reason, by Daniel B. Gallagher, [2] “I Am an Instrument of God”; Religious Belief, Atheism, and Meaning, by Jason T. Eberl and Jennifer A. Vines, [3] Selfish, Base Animals Crawling Across the Earth: House and the Meaning of Life, by Henry Jacoby, and [4] Adama’s True Lie: Earth and the Problem of Knowledge, by Eric J. Silverman.
[a] Each of these essays dissects differing concepts of knowledge and meaning. Use characters from the first three (3) of the above essays to contrast the differing concepts of knowledge and meaning illustrated by the author and the appropriate philosophers cited in the particular essays you chose. For example, in the first reading, one might choose to contrast/compare the opposing views of knowledge illustrated by Bernard and Rose. The comparison would, most appropriately, be viewed through the concepts of Aquinas discussed in detail in Gallagher’s particular essay. Likewise, in the second reading the views of Adama and Baltar could be contrasted with those of Roslin and Six through the teachings of Aquinas, Hume, and Russell. In the third reading the different concepts of meaning and knowledge exhibited by House and Wilson (or Sister Augustine) can be contrasted through the perspectives of Socrates and Aristotle.
[b] The fourth reading cites the views of David Hume, W. K. Clifford, and William James concerning knowledge as such knowledge contributes to life’s meaning. Clearly explain these views of each philosopher. [Note: The student is not required to research these philosophers’ views beyond the explanations given in the text.]
[c] Using the appropriate characters you chose to compare and contrast (in part [a] of this prompt), critically examine the positions/views of these pop culture characters as you believe Hume, Clifford, and James would do. What might each of these philosophers say about each character’s concept of knowledge and what each character most likely perceives gives meaning to life?
[CJ499: Bachelors Capstone in Criminal Justice ]
Unit 4 Assignment: Short Paper
In a 3 – 4 page paper address the following:
Identify and describe five scientific methods of research inquiry and how you would apply them
to a research project.
Be sure to provide examples.
Develop a hypothesis focused on the professional practices of criminal justice practitioners.
o An example of a hypothesis would be: you could propose a hypothesis that focuses on
whether law enforcement is better equipped to handle terrorism post 9/11 or whether
airline safety has improved since the attacks of 9/11, etc.
Then select two methods of inquiries and how you would apply them to your hypothesis to
reach a conclusion. The paper should be 3 pages in length, excluding title and reference
pages. ...
Quiz Tip Sheet. A few people have emailed about the last quiz. .docxcatheryncouper
Quiz Tip Sheet.
A few people have emailed about the last quiz. Here are a few tips.
First, some good news. I will start including a bonus question on future exams.
Tips:
1. Quiz questions are reading comprehension questions: The discussion boards are designed to give you a chance to try out your own arguments and to evaluation the arguments in the readings. The quizzes are designed to test reading comprehension. This does not mean the quiz questions will be rote (i.e., what does Herrick say on page 24, paragraph 1). They will require active reading and comprehension of what is written. Key Point: The answers will come from the text.
2. Reading Philosophy may require skills that you haven’t yet mastered. I have two points, here. First, reading comprehension, in any discipline, improves with knowledge of the subject matter. If you have never taken a philosophy course before (or read philosophical essays) then you can expect to find the material more challenging at first than at the end, after you have developed a feel for philosophical writing & reading. Second, reading philosophy may be more challenging that reading other kinds of writing. Philosophy majors consistently outperform other majors on graduate level entrance exams (for law, business, general grad school, and even the MCAT, for medicine). Most likely, this is because of the kinds of skills required to read, write, and understand philosophical writing. Key Point: Give yourself room to grow in your skills. Just because you’ve gotten a 4.0 in your other classes, doesn’t mean that you will get a 4.0 on every quiz in this class. The types of things that are important to notice in a philosophical essay may be different from the types of things you are used to looking for. And the types of logical inferences required in philosophical reading may be different from your typical patterns of inference.
3. What to notice -- Understand Logic: Mastering the material at the end of the first reading will help your reading comprehension (of philosophy) immensely. Here is a brief outline of the different types of arguments/reasoning. Make sure you can define and identify each type. As you encounter new arguments, or argument types, put them on your map. Key Point: As you read, pay close attention to how arguments are characterized. Different types of arguments require different standards of evaluation.
1. Deductive arguments (reasoning): At best, if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.
a. Category Based Arguments: All whales are mammals; all mammals are animals; thus all whales are animals.
2. Inductive Arguments (reasoning): At best if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
a. Analogy Arguments: (Like Paley)
b. Best Explanation Arguments (like fine-tuning)
c. Generalizations: most universes are not fine-tuned, thus, probably, none are.
4. What to notice – Your Assumptions:* We read with selective perception. Our brain ...
Evaluating philosophical claims and theories philipapeters
This document outlines criteria for evaluating philosophical arguments, claims, and theories:
1. When evaluating an argument, consider whether the philosopher provides good reasons to support their conclusion, rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusion.
2. An argument may be weak without proving the conclusion false - weak arguments do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
3. Philosophical evaluations should consider clarity, consistency, coherence, and comprehensiveness of concepts, logical contradictions, fit of elements, and breadth of phenomena explained.
How NOT to write a Philosophy PaperSometimes it helps to l.docxwellesleyterresa
How NOT to write a Philosophy Paper
Sometimes it helps to learn from the mistakes of others. Over the years I have taught this
class, many students have sacrificed the opportunity to earn a good grade by offering bad
examples of term papers, and I have compiled their mistakes so that you may benefit from them
by not repeating their mistakes. I’m thoroughly convinced that enough mistakes have been made
that no one else need add to the heap, and I’m skeptical that anyone will find a new mistake that
I have yet to witness, anyway.
First of all, a philosophy paper is not about you. Philosophy papers are not
autobiographies. So, sentences like “I think that such and such is true,” “I feel that such and
such is wrong,” “it is my opinion that...” or “It has always seemed to me that...” have no place in
a philosophy paper. Such statements are about you, and you are not a philosophical topic. You
must argue for some position on some topic of philosophical importance. Your mother, your
girlfriend and your family physician may care how you feel, and they might even care about your
opinion (papers about opinion, by the way, are called ‘editorials’). However, your paper should
be written for what some have referred to as ‘the disinterested, educated reader,’ which means
that this reader has no personal reason to care how you feel or what your opinions are, and that
he or she is also smart enough to know that people should not believe what they read merely
because someone wrote it, but only for good reasons. It is your job to provide good reasons for
your position, which philosophers refer to as ‘arguments.’ If you must refer to yourself in your
paper, you can write “In this paper, I will argue that such and such is the case, based on the
following reasons, which someone who shares my worldview should accept...etc.” Don’t
presuppose that the ‘disinterested reader' is familiar with the primary or secondary texts to which
you are referring. I, as the instructor, am not the intended audience either, and I will be grading
your paper based on whether, or not, someone who had not read the assigned materials in class to
which you refer could still understand your arguments. By ‘disinterested’ reader, I don’t mean
‘uninterested’ reader, though it is your job to capture the reader’s interest by writing about an
interesting topic and showing why that topic is interesting.
A particularly egregious self-referential display of a lack of academic honesty and
humility that it has been my displeasure to witness is when someone once stated some
unreflective opinion they held and then recurrently claimed that Aquinas agreed with them. Even
if you thoroughly understand the positions of Aquinas (as the person in question did not) or some
other important historical philosopher, if you find yourself in agreement with him, then you are
agreeing with him, not the other way around. Anachronisms are tolerable, but arrogant ones are
not.
Secondly, jus ...
Informal Fallacies
Enterline Design Services LLC/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the various fallacies of support, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
2. Describe the various fallacies of relevance, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
3. Describe the various fallacies of clarity, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
We can conceive of logic as providing us with the best tools for seeking truth. If our goal is to seek truth, then we must be clear that the task isnot limited to the formation of true beliefs based on a solid logical foundation, for the task also involves learning to avoid forming falsebeliefs. Therefore, just as it is important to learn to employ good reasoning, it is also important to learn to avoid bad reasoning.
Toward this end, this chapter will focus on fallacies. Fallacies are errors in reasoning; more specifically, they are common patterns ofreasoning with a high likelihood of leading to false conclusions. Logical fallacies often seem like good reasoning because they resembleperfectly legitimate argument forms. For example, the following is a perfectly valid argument:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in Paris.
Therefore, you live in France.
Assuming that both of the premises are true, it logically follows that the conclusion must be true. The following argument is very similar:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.
This second argument, however, is invalid; there are plenty of other places to live in France. This is a common formal fallacy known asaffirming the consequent. Chapter 4 discussed how this fallacy was based on an incorrect logical form. This chapter will focus on informalfallacies, fallacies whose errors are not so much a matter of form but of content. The rest of this chapter will cover some of the most commonand important fallacies, with definitions and examples. Learning about fallacies can be a lot of fun, but be warned: Once you begin noticingfallacies, you may start to see them everywhere.
Before we start, it is worth noting a few things. First, there are many, many fallacies. This chapter will consider only a sampling of some of themost well-known fallacies. Second, there is a lot of overlap between fallacies. Reasonable people can interpret the same errors as differentfallacies. Focus on trying to understand both interpretations rather than on insisting that only one can be right. Third, different philosophersoften have different terminology for the same fallacies and make different distinctions among them. Therefore, you may find that others usedifferent terminology for the fallacies that we will learn about in this chapter. Not to worry—it is the ideas here that are most important: Ourgoal is to learn to identi.
Week 4 The Problem of Suffering and God’s Existence and the Mind.docxcockekeshia
Week 4: The Problem of Suffering and God’s Existence and the Mind/Body Problem
Overview
A 2012 Pew survey demonstrated that 68% of Americans believe in the notion of God or a “universal spirit.” This week’s materials will provide you with a portal for examining philosophical arguments for and against God’s existence.
You will investigate one of the primary reasons for skepticism about God’s existence – the problem of suffering. Suffering is part of the human condition, and we have all experienced it in varying degrees. For many, the fact of suffering means it is impossible to believe in an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God.
Richard Rubenstein, a Jewish rabbi and religious studies scholar, is an example. He famously argued that it was no longer possible to believe in God after Auschwitz, for surely an all-good and all-powerful being would have intervened in human affairs to stop the brutal suffering of millions of people (1992). But another rabbi and scholar, Eliezer Berkovits comes to the opposite conclusion. He argues that the problem of suffering, specifically the Holocaust, is not a problem for God, but a problem for human beings (Berkovits, 1973). It was human beings who perpetrated the crimes against humanity, not God. You will wrestle with problem of suffering and determine where you stand on the issue.
You will also explore the mind/body problem. This branch of philosophy raises questions about the relationship between the mind and body. Specifically, we will investigate the nature of the self. At some point in our lives, most of us have asked the question, “Who am I”? This topic will allow you to investigate modern and contemporary conceptions of the self and determine how they might help you better understand the nature of the self.
There are a number of important questions that arise when addressing this topic. Do human beings possess a soul? If so, what is a soul, and how does it differ from a body? Is the soul the essence of who we are as human beings? (In other words, is the soul the nature of the self?) Dualism, most famously popularized by Descartes, maintains that human beings possess an immaterial, rational soul housed in a physical body. Importantly, the soul is the essence of the self.
Dualism allowed Descartes to maintain his commitment to Christianity, but it has been soundly criticized for its failure to account for the interaction between the soul (or mind) and body: how does an immaterial substance like the soul (or the mind) interact with a physical body? A number of alternatives to Cartesian dualism have been proposed. These run along a continuum, ranging from the behaviorism (there is no self/soul) to physicalism (the self is reducible to brain functions). As you work through this material, ask yourself which account provides the best explanation for the nature of the self and why?
References
Berkovits, E. (1973). Faith after Auschwitz. New York, NY: KTAV Publishing House, Inc.
Most of the skeptically unaf.
According to the Identity do mentalistic terms.docxwrite4
This document contains 21 questions about various philosophical topics including:
- The Mind/Brain Identity Theory and whether mental and physical terms can be used together.
- Descartes' first argument for dualism, whether it is valid, and if the same objection undermines his first and second arguments.
- The definition of a propositional attitude and examples other than those discussed.
- Whether two propositions about remembering receiving autographs imply a conclusion.
- Descartes' claim of conceiving of himself as a disembodied spirit and if this entails possibility.
- Whether objects like statues and organisms are identical to their physical parts.
- Descartes' argument that he is essentially a thinking thing.
- Objections to
This document is a chapter from J. David Velleman's book "Beyond Price" that argues against recognizing a legal right to die. The chapter claims that recognizing such a right would paradoxically harm some people in two ways. First, it would harm people who never exercise the right but feel burdened by having control over their own death. Second, it would harm some people who do exercise the right but would have been better off living. The chapter argues that having control over one's death is itself a burden, and that decisions around death should be guided by love rather than self-interest. Overall, the chapter contends that widespread recognition of a right to die could undermine the well-being of those contemplating or committing suicide
This document is a chapter from J. David Velleman's book "Beyond Price" that argues against recognizing a legal right to die. The chapter claims that recognizing such a right would paradoxically harm some people in two ways. First, it would harm people who never exercise the right but feel burdened by having control over their own death. Second, it would harm some people who do exercise the right but would have been better off living. The chapter argues that having control over one's death is itself a burden, and that decisions around death should be guided by love rather than self-interest. Overall, the chapter contends that widespread recognition of a right to die could undermine the well-being of those contemplating or committing suicide
Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important t.docxcockekeshia
Week 4: Fallacies, Biases, and Rhetoric
Just as it is important to find truth it is equally important to learn to avoid error. It is analogous to playing defense. The main way that we play defense in logic is by guarding against fallacies and biases. Fallacies are common forms of inference that are not good; they do not adequately support their conclusions. The best way to learn to avoid them is to learn to identify them so that you will see when they are occurring.
Since there are literally hundreds of fallacies, we will only have time to discuss a small few. However, we will focus on some of the most common, and readers can go on to learn more, both from our book as well as other online resources. Here is a brief summary of a few of the most important and most common (these are explained in much greater detail in the book, and there are many more fallacies addressed in the book, so make sure to reach Chapter 7 before doing the activities of the week).
This week's guidance will cover the following topics:
1. Begging the Question
2. The Straw Man Fallacy
3. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
4. The Appeal to Popular Opinion
5. The Appeal to Emotion
6. Other Fallacies
7. Cognitive Biases
8. Argumentative Devices
9. Things to Do This Week
Begging the Question
Possibly the most commonly committed fallacy is Begging the Question (by assuming a main point at issue). Here is a nice explanation:
Circular reasoning is an extreme version of begging the question in which a premise is identical to the conclusion.
Here are some examples of each:
1. Don’t listen to that candidate; he’s untrustworthy.
2. You shouldn’t bet on that horse; it’s going to lose.
3. Don’t buy a Mac since PCs are better.
4. Marijuana should not be legalized because that would be disastrous.
5. You should join my religion because it’s the true one.
6. That food is bad for you because it is unhealthy.How to Avoid Begging the Question
In order to avoid this fallacy it is necessary to use premises that do not assume the point at issue, but rather that are based in principles and observations upon which both parties could in principle agree.
Can you think of ways to fix each of the above arguments? What premises could you add to make the arguments, not only substantive, but also to support their conclusions in ways that are likely to be acceptable to someone who doesn’t already agree?An Example of Avoiding Begging the Question by Creating a Supporting Argument
Suppose you want to say why abortion is wrong, and you use the premise that abortion kills a human being. This argument simply assumes that a human fetus is a human being, which is a major point at issue. One way that you might seek to get out of this problem is to come up with a supporting argument for that premise. That is, you might construct a piece of reasoning intending to demonstrate to the other parties why a fetus should count as a human being.
To do this without begging the question will be difficult, but it typically will involve.
Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important to .docxcockekeshia
Week 4: Fallacies, Biases, and Rhetoric
Just as it is important to find truth it is equally important to learn to avoid error. It is analogous to playing defense. The main way that we play defense in logic is by guarding against fallacies and biases. Fallacies are common forms of inference that are not good; they do not adequately support their conclusions. The best way to learn to avoid them is to learn to identify them so that you will see when they are occurring.
Since there are literally hundreds of fallacies, we will only have time to discuss a small few. However, we will focus on some of the most common, and readers can go on to learn more, both from our book as well as other online resources. Here is a brief summary of a few of the most important and most common (these are explained in much greater detail in the book, and there are many more fallacies addressed in the book, so make sure to reach Chapter 7 before doing the activities of the week).
This week's guidance will cover the following topics:
1. Begging the Question
2. The Straw Man Fallacy
3. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
4. The Appeal to Popular Opinion
5. The Appeal to Emotion
6. Other Fallacies
7. Cognitive Biases
8. Argumentative Devices
9. Things to Do This Week
Begging the Question
Possibly the most commonly committed fallacy is Begging the Question (by assuming a main point at issue). Here is a nice explanation:
Circular reasoning is an extreme version of begging the question in which a premise is identical to the conclusion.
Here are some examples of each:
1. Don’t listen to that candidate; he’s untrustworthy.
2. You shouldn’t bet on that horse; it’s going to lose.
3. Don’t buy a Mac since PCs are better.
4. Marijuana should not be legalized because that would be disastrous.
5. You should join my religion because it’s the true one.
6. That food is bad for you because it is unhealthy.How to Avoid Begging the Question
In order to avoid this fallacy it is necessary to use premises that do not assume the point at issue, but rather that are based in principles and observations upon which both parties could in principle agree.
Can you think of ways to fix each of the above arguments? What premises could you add to make the arguments, not only substantive, but also to support their conclusions in ways that are likely to be acceptable to someone who doesn’t already agree?An Example of Avoiding Begging the Question by Creating a Supporting Argument
Suppose you want to say why abortion is wrong, and you use the premise that abortion kills a human being. This argument simply assumes that a human fetus is a human being, which is a major point at issue. One way that you might seek to get out of this problem is to come up with a supporting argument for that premise. That is, you might construct a piece of reasoning intending to demonstrate to the other parties why a fetus should count as a human being.
To do this without begging the question will be difficult, but it typically will involve.
This document provides an overview of the Toulmin method of argumentation. It discusses the key components of an argument according to this method - the claim, qualifiers, exceptions, data (reasons), warrants/evidence, anticipated objections, and rebuttals. Students are instructed to read an article on euthanasia and then analyze it using the Toulmin framework during a one hour break. They will then return to class to discuss their analysis. Key philosophers and sources on argumentation are also cited. The document aims to teach students how to deconstruct arguments according to the Toulmin model.
RLGN 104 Quiz 2 Critical Thinking Liberty homeworksimple.com.docxHomework Simple
https://www.homeworksimple.com/downloads/rlgn-104-quiz-2/
RLGN 105 Quiz 2 / Test 2
RLGN 105 Quiz: Defining Worldview
Worldview is:
A worldview can be presented as a story or a set of presuppositions
The basic biblical doctrine of the “Trinity” is that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are/is:
Christianity affirms the existence of absolute truth.
According to the Ryken, not all Christians have a clear understanding of the Christian worldview.
The question of Origin is seeking to know the Founder of the worldview?
Worldviews are inherently anti-religious in nature.
A worldview helps one see the big picture about:
Ryken states that “the main theme of Scripture is________________’
According to Ryken, his book is written explicitly for Christians, but that it may also help non- Christians understand the way Christians look at the world.
Ryken finds the resonance of the concept of “worldview” in the church to be surprising and odd.
Everybody has a worldview.
According to Ryken, Theologians often divide human experience into these categories.
According to Ryken, Christianity is a ___________________ view of reality
Worldviews always work together, regardless of the differences.
According to Ryken, Worldview is a matter of the:
There are areas where the Christian worldview overlaps with non-Christian thought.
The question of Origin addresses the question, “what culture did I grow up in?”
Which of the following is not one of the five worldview questions that helps a person to determine someone’s worldview?
The term “Worldview” first appeared in the philosophical writings of:
The Christian worldview begins with the existence of God.
Creation of the world is an example of how God has revealed Himself to mankind through “special revelation”.
How people choose to do things reveals their worldview, but how they respond to situations does not.
The concept of the “Trinity” is shared by other monotheistic worldview such as Judaism and Islam.
At times people may see a difference between our functional worldview and our theoretical worldview
This document summarizes arguments for and against the first premise of the moral argument - that morality requires God. It outlines several arguments commonly made for the first premise, such as that famous atheists rejected morality and Hitler/Stalin were atheists. However, it argues these involve logical fallacies. It also discusses objections to the first premise, including that it relies on undefined or ambiguous terms, faces the Euthyphro dilemma, and that secular conceptions of morality are possible. In the end, the document concludes the first premise of the moral argument is disputed and reasons for its truth are not clear-cut.
Philosophy Extra Credit Projects If you wish, you can do t.docxkarlhennesey
Philosophy Extra Credit Projects
If you wish, you can do two extra credit assignments this term, one small and one
large project. Each small project will end up as a 3-5 page paper: 1 page (or less)
summary of what you read/watched), 1-2 pages answering a few questions, and 1-2 pages
reaction to the philosophical themes of the book/movie. Larger projects are more of
same, but the themes for that project carries over into different genres (therefore, you will
have more to read watch) and are more difficult or complex (again giving you a little
more work to do).
Each little project will be worth (about) 2 points, while the larger projects are
worth 5. With partial credit, doing both projects well can (and will) shift you a whole
letter grade! But note that they are graded just like reaction papers, so if you do one,
please be sure to put a lot of energy into it, and come see me if you are having problems
with it!
Small Projects
Philosophy and the Divine
, director Aronofsky. A radically different view of God is pushed by this film – I added
this one to the list as a “neutral” choice for anyone that wants to work a little more with
Philosophy of Religion. Sit back and enjoy the ride (it’s a wild, weird movie) and then
let me know if you think that any of the articles we’ve read can handle this kind of
understand of the Divine, and what exactly is Aronofsky saying about God.
“The Screw Tape Letters,” C.S. Lewis. This book is also a somewhat neutral choice,
since Lewis went from a devout believer to an atheist, and back again (however, he’s
obviously returned to his faith when he writes this). What is Lewis really saying about
God (or the Devil) and the nature of Evil? How responsible are we as (merely) human?
“Twilight of the Idols,” Nietzsche. A book for the non-believers, or those still sitting on
the fence. If you’re a Nine-Inch-Nails fan, this is close as it comes to mandatory reading
since Nietzsche was the first to publicly declare, “God is Dead.” I really want to know
what you make of Nietzsche’s subtitle for the text (“How to Philosophize with a
Hammer”), what Nietzsche himself meant by it, and what he thinks God really is. This
one is a little longer and harder project, so come see me if you want to work on it – you
may need a little help throughout the project.
Philosophy and life
“Fight Club,” Palahniuk. A great book, followed by a great movie that totally changes
the message that Palahniuk is trying to push. Who is Tyler Durden (not literally – that’s
for your summary) in the psychological, philosophical sense? Is self improvement really
masturbation (what does that even mean)? Did Fight Club, Project Mayhem really work?
(Again, make sure you read the book!)
“The Stranger,” Camus. A classic existential work, Camus really moves towards a new
meaning for Life and a radical definition of responsibility. I really want to know what
you ...
M3 ch12 discussionConnecting Eligible Immigrant Families to Heal.docxjeremylockett77
M3 ch12 discussion
Connecting Eligible Immigrant Families to Health Coverage
Instructions:
Read the report
Connecting Eligible Immigrant Families to Health Coverage and Care
.
Write a one page post offering solutions to the problem from the nurse's standpoint.
.
Loudres eats powdered doughnuts for breakfast and chocolate that sh.docxjeremylockett77
Loudres eats powdered doughnuts for breakfast and chocolate that she can get out of the vending machines before class. Between classes , she grabs some chips and a caffine drink for lunch. By the end of the day, she is exhauted and cannot study very long before she falls asleep for a few hours. Then, she stays up untils 2.A.M to finish her work and take care of things she could not do during the day. She feels that she has to eat sugary foods and caffeinated drinks to keep her schedule going and to fit in all her activities. What advice would you give her?
.
Lori Goler is the head of People at Facebook. Janelle Gal.docxjeremylockett77
Lori Goler is the head
of People at Facebook.
Janelle Gale is the head
of HR Business Partners
at Facebook. Adam Grant
is a professor at Wharton,
a Facebook consultant,
and the author of Originals
and Give and Take.
ZS
U
ZS
A
N
N
A
IL
IJ
IN
HBR.ORG
Let’s Not Kill
Performance
Evaluations Yet
Facebook’s experience shows
why they can still be valuable.
BY LORI GOLER, JANELLE GALE, AND ADAM GRANT
November 2016 Harvard Business Review 91
LET’S NOT KILL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS YET
tThe reality is, even when companies get rid of performance evaluations, ratings still exist. Employees just can’t see them. Ratings are done sub-jectively, behind the scenes, and without input from the people being evaluated.
Performance is the value of employees’ contribu-
tions to the organization over time. And that value
needs to be assessed in some way. Decisions about
pay and promotions have to be made. As research-
ers pointed out in a recent debate in Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, “Performance is always
rated in some manner.” If you don’t have formal
evaluations, the ratings will be hidden in a black box.
At Facebook we analyzed our performance man-
agement system a few years ago. We conducted fo-
cus groups and a follow-up survey with more than
300 people. The feedback was clear: 87% of people
wanted to keep performance ratings.
Yes, performance evaluations have costs—but
they have benefits, too. We decided to hang on
to them for three reasons: fairness, transparency,
and development.
Making Things Fair
We all want performance evaluations to be fair. That
isn’t always the outcome, but as more than 9,000
managers and employees reported in a global sur-
vey by CEB, not having evaluations is worse. Every
organization has people who are unhappy with their
bonuses or disappointed that they weren’t pro-
moted. But research has long shown that when the
process is fair, employees are more willing to accept
undesirable outcomes. A fair process exists when
evaluators are credible and motivated to get it right,
and employees have a voice. Without evaluations,
people are left in the dark about who is gauging their
contributions and how.
At Facebook, to mitigate bias and do things sys-
tematically, we start by having peers write evalua-
tions. They share them not just with managers but
also, in most cases, with one another—which reflects
the company’s core values of openness and transpar-
ency. Then decisions are made about performance:
Managers sit together and discuss their reports
face-to-face, defending and championing, debating
and deliberating, and incorporating peer feedback.
Here the goal is to minimize the “idiosyncratic rater
effect”—also known as personal opinion. People
aren’t unduly punished when individual managers
are hard graders or unfairly rewarded when they’re
easy graders.
Next managers write the performance reviews.
We have a team of analysts who examine evalua-
tions f.
Looking for someone to take these two documents- annotated bibliogra.docxjeremylockett77
Looking for someone to take these two documents- annotated bibliography and an issue review(outline)
to conduct an argumentative paper about WHY PEOPLE SHOULD GET THE COVID-19 VACCINE
Requirements:
Length: 4-6 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page
.
Lorryn Tardy – critique to my persuasive essayFor this assignm.docxjeremylockett77
Lorryn Tardy – critique to my persuasive essay
For this assignment I’ll be workshopping the work of Lisa Oll-Adikankwu. Lisa has chosen the topic of Assisted Suicide; she is against the practice and argues that it should be considered unethical and universally illegal.
Lisa appears to have a good understanding of the topic. Her sources are well researched and discuss a variety of key points from seemingly unbiased sources. Her sources are current, peer reviewed and based on statistical data.
Lisa’s summaries are well written, clear and concise. One thing I noticed is that the majority of her writing plan is summarized and cited at the end of each paragraph. I might suggest that she integrate more synthesis of the different sources, by combining evidence from more than one source per paragraph and using more in text citations or direct quotes to reinforce her key points.
I think that basic credentialing information could be provided for Lisa’s sources, this is something that looking back, I need to add as well. I think this could easily be done with just a simple “(Authors name, and their title, i.e. author, statistician, physician etc.…)”, when the source is introduced into the paper might provide a reinforced credibility of the source.
As far as connection of sources, as previously mentioned, I think that in order to illustrate a stronger argument, using multiple sources to reinforce a single key point would solidify Lisa’s argument. I feel that more evidence provided from a variety of different sources, will provide the reader with a stronger sense of credibility and less room for bias that could be argued if the point is only credited to one source.
One area that stuck out to me for counter argument, being that my paper is in favor of this issue, is in paragraph two where Lisa states that “physicians are not supposed to kill patients or help them kill themselves, and terminally ill patients are not in a position of making rational decisions about their lives.” I’d like to offer my argument for this particular statement. In states where assisted suicide (or as I prefer to refer to it, assisted dying) is legal, there are several criteria that a patient has to meet in order to be considered a candidate. These criteria include second, even third opinions to determine that death is imminent, as well psychological evaluation(s) and an extensive informed consent process that is a collaborative effort between the patient, the patient’s family, physicians, psychologists and nurses. It is a process that takes weeks to months. Patients that wish to be a candidate, should initiate the process as soon as they have been diagnosed by seeking a second opinion. As an emergency room nurse, I have been present for a substantial amount of diagnoses that are ‘likely’ terminal. Many of these patients presented to the emergency for a common ailment and have no indication that they don’t have the capacity to make such a decision. Receiving a terminal diagnos.
M450 Mission Command SystemGeneral forum instructions Answ.docxjeremylockett77
M450 Mission Command: System
General forum instructions: Answer the questions below and provide evidence to support your claims (See attached slides). Your answers should be derived primarily from course content. When citing sources, use APA style. Your initial posts should be approximately 150-500 words.
1. Describe and explain two of the Warfighting Functions.
2. How do commanders exercise the Command and Control System?
.
Lymphedema following breast cancer The importance of surgic.docxjeremylockett77
Lymphedema following breast cancer: The importance of
surgical methods and obesity
Rebecca J. Tsai, PhDa,*, Leslie K. Dennis, PhDa,b, Charles F. Lynch, MD, PhDa, Linda G.
Snetselaar, RD, PhD, LDa, Gideon K.D. Zamba, PhDc, and Carol Scott-Conner, MD, PhD,
MBAd
aDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
bDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, USA.
cDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
dDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer-related arm lymphedema is a serious complication that can
adversely affect quality of life. Identifying risk factors that contribute to the development of
lymphedema is vital for identifying avenues for prevention. The aim of this study was to examine
the association between the development of arm lymphedema and both treatment and personal
(e.g., obesity) risk factors.
Methods: Women diagnosed with breast cancer in Iowa during 2004 and followed through 2010,
who met eligibility criteria, were asked to complete a short computer assisted telephone interview
about chronic conditions, arm activities, demographics, and lymphedema status. Lymphedema was
characterized by a reported physician-diagnosis, a difference between arms in the circumference
(> 2cm), or the presence of multiple self-reported arm symptoms (at least two of five major arm
symptoms, and at least four total arm symptoms). Relative risks (RR) were estimated using
logistic regression.
Results: Arm lymphedema was identified in 102 of 522 participants (19.5%). Participants treated
by both axillary dissection and radiation therapy were more likely to have arm lymphedema than
treated by either alone. Women with advanced cancer stage, positive nodes, and larger tumors
along with a body mass index > 40 were also more likely to develop lymphedema. Arm activity
level was not associated with lymphedema.
*Correspondence and Reprints to: Rebecca Tsai, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway,
R-17, Cincinnati, OH 45226. [email protected] Phone: (513)841-4398. Fax: (513) 841-4489.
Authorship contribution
All authors contributed to the conception, design, drafting, revision, and the final review of this manuscript.
Competing interest
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute Grant Number: 5R03CA130031.
All authors do not declare any conflict of interest.
All authors do not declare any conflict of interest.
HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Front Womens Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 December 14.
Published in final edited form as:
Front Womens Health. 2018 June ; 3(2): .
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
.
Love Beyond Wallshttpswww.lovebeyondwalls.orgProvid.docxjeremylockett77
Love Beyond Walls
https://www.
lovebeyondwalls
.org
Provide a brief background of your chosen nonprofit entity using evidence from their publications or any other published materials. Then evaluate the factors, which may include economic, political, historic, cultural, institutional conditions, and changes that contributed to the creation and growth (decline) of the nonprofit organization. Justify your response.
.
Longevity PresentationThe purpose of this assignment is to exami.docxjeremylockett77
Longevity Presentation
The purpose of this assignment is to examine societal norms regarding aging and to integrate the concepts of aging well and living well into an active aging framework that promotes longevity.
Using concepts from the Hooyman and Kiyak (2011) text and the Buettner (2012) book, consider the various perspectives on aging.
Identify the underlying values or assumptions that serve as the basis for longevity, including cultural, religious, and philosophical ideas.
Present an overview of three holistic aging theories.
Integrate the values, assumptions, and theories to indicate what is necessary for an active aging framework where individuals both live well and age well.
Presentations should be 10-15 minutes in length, use visual aids, and incorporate references from the course texts and 5 additional scholarly journal articles.
.
Look again at the CDCs Web page about ADHD.In 150-200 w.docxjeremylockett77
The CDC's page on ADHD aims to educate the general public about Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder by providing facts and information on symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. It presents ADHD as a real disorder with neurological causes in order to increase understanding and help those affected. As the nation's leading health protection agency, the CDC's role is to inform the public about health issues like ADHD.
M8-22 ANALYTICS o TEAMS • ORGANIZATIONS • SKILLS .fÿy.docxjeremylockett77
M8-22 ANALYTICS o TEAMS • ORGANIZATIONS • SKILLS .fÿy' ÿ,oÿ ()V)g
The Strategy That Wouldn't Travel
by Michael C. Beer
It was 6:45 P.M. Karen Jimenez was reviewing the
notes on her team-based productMty project tbr
what seemed like the hundredth time. I31 two days,
she was scheduled to present a report to the senior
management group on the project's progress. She
wasn't at all sure what she was going to say.
The project was designed to improve productiv-
it3, and morale at each plant owned and operated by
Acme Minerals Extraction Company. Phase one--
implemented in early 1995 at the site in Wichita,
I(amsas--looked like a stunning, success by the mid-
dle of 1996. Productivity and mo[ÿale soared, and
operating and maintenance costs decreased signifi-
cantly. But four months ago, Jimenez tried to
duplicate the results at the project's second
target--the plant in Lubbock, Texas--and some-
thing went wrong. The techniques that had worked
so well in Wichita met with only moderate success
in Lubbock. ProductMty improved marginally and
costs went down a bit, but morale actually seemed
to deteriorate slightl): Jimenez was stumped,
approach to teamwork and change. As it turned
out, he had proved a good choice. Daniels was a
hands-on, high-energy, charismatic businessman
who seemed to enjoy media attention. Within his
first year as CEO, he had pretty much righted the
floundering company by selling oft:some unrelated
lines of business. He had also created the share-
services deparnnent--an internal consulting organ-
ization providing change management, reengineer-
ing, total quailB, management, and other
services--and had rapped Jimenez to head the
group. Her first priority Daniels told her, would be
to improve productiviB, and morale at the com-
pany's five extraction sites. None of them were
meeting their projections. And although Wichita
was the only site at which the labor-management
conflict was painfiflly apparent, Daniels and Jimenez
both thought that morale needed an all-around
boost. Hence the team-based productivity project.
She tried to "helicopter up" and think about
the problem in the broad context of the com-
pany's history. A few ),ears ago, Acme had been in
bad financial shape, but what had really brought
things to a head--and had led to her current
dilemma--was a labor relations problem. Acme
had a wide variety of labor requirements For its
operations. The company used highly sophisti-
cated technologB employing geologists, geophysi-
cists, and engineers on what was referred to as the
"brains" side of the business, as well as skilled and
semi-skilled labor on the "brawn" side to run the
extraction operations. And in the summer of
1994, brains and brawn clashed in an embarrass-
ingly public way. A number of engineers at the
Wichita plant locked several union workers out of
the offices in 100-degree heat. Although most
Acme employees now felt that the incident had
been blown out of propo,'tion by the press, .
Lombosoro theory.In week 4, you learned about the importance.docxjeremylockett77
Lombosoro theory.
In week 4, you learned about the importance of theory, the various theoretical perspectives and the ways in which theory help guide research in regards to crime and criminal behavior.
To put this assignment into context, I want you to think about how Lombroso thought one could identify a criminal. He said that criminals had similar facial features. If that was the case you would be able to look at someone and know if they were a criminal! Social theories infer that perhaps it is the social structures around us that encourage criminality. Look around your city- what structures do you think may match up to something you have learned about this week in terms of theory? These are just two small examples to put this assignment into context for you. The idea is to learn about the theories, then critically think about how can one "show" the theory without providing written explanation for their chosen image.
Directions: With the readings week 4 in mind, please do the following:
1. Choose a theoretical perspective (I.e., biological, psychological sociological)
2. Look through media images (this can be cartoons, magazines, newspapers, internet stories, etc...) and select 10 images that you think depict your chosen theory without written explanation.
3. Provide a one paragraph statement of your theory, what kinds of behavior it explains and how it is depicted through images. Be sure to use resources to support your answer.
4. You will copy and paste your images into a word document, along with your paragraph. You do not need to cite where you got your images, but you do need to cite any information you have in number 3.
Format Directions:
Typed, 12 point font, double spaced
APA format style (Cover page, in text citations and references)
.
More Related Content
Similar to Learning from Arguments An Introduction to Philosophy .docx
According to the Identity do mentalistic terms.docxwrite4
This document contains 21 questions about various philosophical topics including:
- The Mind/Brain Identity Theory and whether mental and physical terms can be used together.
- Descartes' first argument for dualism, whether it is valid, and if the same objection undermines his first and second arguments.
- The definition of a propositional attitude and examples other than those discussed.
- Whether two propositions about remembering receiving autographs imply a conclusion.
- Descartes' claim of conceiving of himself as a disembodied spirit and if this entails possibility.
- Whether objects like statues and organisms are identical to their physical parts.
- Descartes' argument that he is essentially a thinking thing.
- Objections to
This document is a chapter from J. David Velleman's book "Beyond Price" that argues against recognizing a legal right to die. The chapter claims that recognizing such a right would paradoxically harm some people in two ways. First, it would harm people who never exercise the right but feel burdened by having control over their own death. Second, it would harm some people who do exercise the right but would have been better off living. The chapter argues that having control over one's death is itself a burden, and that decisions around death should be guided by love rather than self-interest. Overall, the chapter contends that widespread recognition of a right to die could undermine the well-being of those contemplating or committing suicide
This document is a chapter from J. David Velleman's book "Beyond Price" that argues against recognizing a legal right to die. The chapter claims that recognizing such a right would paradoxically harm some people in two ways. First, it would harm people who never exercise the right but feel burdened by having control over their own death. Second, it would harm some people who do exercise the right but would have been better off living. The chapter argues that having control over one's death is itself a burden, and that decisions around death should be guided by love rather than self-interest. Overall, the chapter contends that widespread recognition of a right to die could undermine the well-being of those contemplating or committing suicide
Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important t.docxcockekeshia
Week 4: Fallacies, Biases, and Rhetoric
Just as it is important to find truth it is equally important to learn to avoid error. It is analogous to playing defense. The main way that we play defense in logic is by guarding against fallacies and biases. Fallacies are common forms of inference that are not good; they do not adequately support their conclusions. The best way to learn to avoid them is to learn to identify them so that you will see when they are occurring.
Since there are literally hundreds of fallacies, we will only have time to discuss a small few. However, we will focus on some of the most common, and readers can go on to learn more, both from our book as well as other online resources. Here is a brief summary of a few of the most important and most common (these are explained in much greater detail in the book, and there are many more fallacies addressed in the book, so make sure to reach Chapter 7 before doing the activities of the week).
This week's guidance will cover the following topics:
1. Begging the Question
2. The Straw Man Fallacy
3. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
4. The Appeal to Popular Opinion
5. The Appeal to Emotion
6. Other Fallacies
7. Cognitive Biases
8. Argumentative Devices
9. Things to Do This Week
Begging the Question
Possibly the most commonly committed fallacy is Begging the Question (by assuming a main point at issue). Here is a nice explanation:
Circular reasoning is an extreme version of begging the question in which a premise is identical to the conclusion.
Here are some examples of each:
1. Don’t listen to that candidate; he’s untrustworthy.
2. You shouldn’t bet on that horse; it’s going to lose.
3. Don’t buy a Mac since PCs are better.
4. Marijuana should not be legalized because that would be disastrous.
5. You should join my religion because it’s the true one.
6. That food is bad for you because it is unhealthy.How to Avoid Begging the Question
In order to avoid this fallacy it is necessary to use premises that do not assume the point at issue, but rather that are based in principles and observations upon which both parties could in principle agree.
Can you think of ways to fix each of the above arguments? What premises could you add to make the arguments, not only substantive, but also to support their conclusions in ways that are likely to be acceptable to someone who doesn’t already agree?An Example of Avoiding Begging the Question by Creating a Supporting Argument
Suppose you want to say why abortion is wrong, and you use the premise that abortion kills a human being. This argument simply assumes that a human fetus is a human being, which is a major point at issue. One way that you might seek to get out of this problem is to come up with a supporting argument for that premise. That is, you might construct a piece of reasoning intending to demonstrate to the other parties why a fetus should count as a human being.
To do this without begging the question will be difficult, but it typically will involve.
Week 4 Fallacies, Biases, and RhetoricJust as it is important to .docxcockekeshia
Week 4: Fallacies, Biases, and Rhetoric
Just as it is important to find truth it is equally important to learn to avoid error. It is analogous to playing defense. The main way that we play defense in logic is by guarding against fallacies and biases. Fallacies are common forms of inference that are not good; they do not adequately support their conclusions. The best way to learn to avoid them is to learn to identify them so that you will see when they are occurring.
Since there are literally hundreds of fallacies, we will only have time to discuss a small few. However, we will focus on some of the most common, and readers can go on to learn more, both from our book as well as other online resources. Here is a brief summary of a few of the most important and most common (these are explained in much greater detail in the book, and there are many more fallacies addressed in the book, so make sure to reach Chapter 7 before doing the activities of the week).
This week's guidance will cover the following topics:
1. Begging the Question
2. The Straw Man Fallacy
3. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
4. The Appeal to Popular Opinion
5. The Appeal to Emotion
6. Other Fallacies
7. Cognitive Biases
8. Argumentative Devices
9. Things to Do This Week
Begging the Question
Possibly the most commonly committed fallacy is Begging the Question (by assuming a main point at issue). Here is a nice explanation:
Circular reasoning is an extreme version of begging the question in which a premise is identical to the conclusion.
Here are some examples of each:
1. Don’t listen to that candidate; he’s untrustworthy.
2. You shouldn’t bet on that horse; it’s going to lose.
3. Don’t buy a Mac since PCs are better.
4. Marijuana should not be legalized because that would be disastrous.
5. You should join my religion because it’s the true one.
6. That food is bad for you because it is unhealthy.How to Avoid Begging the Question
In order to avoid this fallacy it is necessary to use premises that do not assume the point at issue, but rather that are based in principles and observations upon which both parties could in principle agree.
Can you think of ways to fix each of the above arguments? What premises could you add to make the arguments, not only substantive, but also to support their conclusions in ways that are likely to be acceptable to someone who doesn’t already agree?An Example of Avoiding Begging the Question by Creating a Supporting Argument
Suppose you want to say why abortion is wrong, and you use the premise that abortion kills a human being. This argument simply assumes that a human fetus is a human being, which is a major point at issue. One way that you might seek to get out of this problem is to come up with a supporting argument for that premise. That is, you might construct a piece of reasoning intending to demonstrate to the other parties why a fetus should count as a human being.
To do this without begging the question will be difficult, but it typically will involve.
This document provides an overview of the Toulmin method of argumentation. It discusses the key components of an argument according to this method - the claim, qualifiers, exceptions, data (reasons), warrants/evidence, anticipated objections, and rebuttals. Students are instructed to read an article on euthanasia and then analyze it using the Toulmin framework during a one hour break. They will then return to class to discuss their analysis. Key philosophers and sources on argumentation are also cited. The document aims to teach students how to deconstruct arguments according to the Toulmin model.
RLGN 104 Quiz 2 Critical Thinking Liberty homeworksimple.com.docxHomework Simple
https://www.homeworksimple.com/downloads/rlgn-104-quiz-2/
RLGN 105 Quiz 2 / Test 2
RLGN 105 Quiz: Defining Worldview
Worldview is:
A worldview can be presented as a story or a set of presuppositions
The basic biblical doctrine of the “Trinity” is that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are/is:
Christianity affirms the existence of absolute truth.
According to the Ryken, not all Christians have a clear understanding of the Christian worldview.
The question of Origin is seeking to know the Founder of the worldview?
Worldviews are inherently anti-religious in nature.
A worldview helps one see the big picture about:
Ryken states that “the main theme of Scripture is________________’
According to Ryken, his book is written explicitly for Christians, but that it may also help non- Christians understand the way Christians look at the world.
Ryken finds the resonance of the concept of “worldview” in the church to be surprising and odd.
Everybody has a worldview.
According to Ryken, Theologians often divide human experience into these categories.
According to Ryken, Christianity is a ___________________ view of reality
Worldviews always work together, regardless of the differences.
According to Ryken, Worldview is a matter of the:
There are areas where the Christian worldview overlaps with non-Christian thought.
The question of Origin addresses the question, “what culture did I grow up in?”
Which of the following is not one of the five worldview questions that helps a person to determine someone’s worldview?
The term “Worldview” first appeared in the philosophical writings of:
The Christian worldview begins with the existence of God.
Creation of the world is an example of how God has revealed Himself to mankind through “special revelation”.
How people choose to do things reveals their worldview, but how they respond to situations does not.
The concept of the “Trinity” is shared by other monotheistic worldview such as Judaism and Islam.
At times people may see a difference between our functional worldview and our theoretical worldview
This document summarizes arguments for and against the first premise of the moral argument - that morality requires God. It outlines several arguments commonly made for the first premise, such as that famous atheists rejected morality and Hitler/Stalin were atheists. However, it argues these involve logical fallacies. It also discusses objections to the first premise, including that it relies on undefined or ambiguous terms, faces the Euthyphro dilemma, and that secular conceptions of morality are possible. In the end, the document concludes the first premise of the moral argument is disputed and reasons for its truth are not clear-cut.
Philosophy Extra Credit Projects If you wish, you can do t.docxkarlhennesey
Philosophy Extra Credit Projects
If you wish, you can do two extra credit assignments this term, one small and one
large project. Each small project will end up as a 3-5 page paper: 1 page (or less)
summary of what you read/watched), 1-2 pages answering a few questions, and 1-2 pages
reaction to the philosophical themes of the book/movie. Larger projects are more of
same, but the themes for that project carries over into different genres (therefore, you will
have more to read watch) and are more difficult or complex (again giving you a little
more work to do).
Each little project will be worth (about) 2 points, while the larger projects are
worth 5. With partial credit, doing both projects well can (and will) shift you a whole
letter grade! But note that they are graded just like reaction papers, so if you do one,
please be sure to put a lot of energy into it, and come see me if you are having problems
with it!
Small Projects
Philosophy and the Divine
, director Aronofsky. A radically different view of God is pushed by this film – I added
this one to the list as a “neutral” choice for anyone that wants to work a little more with
Philosophy of Religion. Sit back and enjoy the ride (it’s a wild, weird movie) and then
let me know if you think that any of the articles we’ve read can handle this kind of
understand of the Divine, and what exactly is Aronofsky saying about God.
“The Screw Tape Letters,” C.S. Lewis. This book is also a somewhat neutral choice,
since Lewis went from a devout believer to an atheist, and back again (however, he’s
obviously returned to his faith when he writes this). What is Lewis really saying about
God (or the Devil) and the nature of Evil? How responsible are we as (merely) human?
“Twilight of the Idols,” Nietzsche. A book for the non-believers, or those still sitting on
the fence. If you’re a Nine-Inch-Nails fan, this is close as it comes to mandatory reading
since Nietzsche was the first to publicly declare, “God is Dead.” I really want to know
what you make of Nietzsche’s subtitle for the text (“How to Philosophize with a
Hammer”), what Nietzsche himself meant by it, and what he thinks God really is. This
one is a little longer and harder project, so come see me if you want to work on it – you
may need a little help throughout the project.
Philosophy and life
“Fight Club,” Palahniuk. A great book, followed by a great movie that totally changes
the message that Palahniuk is trying to push. Who is Tyler Durden (not literally – that’s
for your summary) in the psychological, philosophical sense? Is self improvement really
masturbation (what does that even mean)? Did Fight Club, Project Mayhem really work?
(Again, make sure you read the book!)
“The Stranger,” Camus. A classic existential work, Camus really moves towards a new
meaning for Life and a radical definition of responsibility. I really want to know what
you ...
Similar to Learning from Arguments An Introduction to Philosophy .docx (9)
M3 ch12 discussionConnecting Eligible Immigrant Families to Heal.docxjeremylockett77
M3 ch12 discussion
Connecting Eligible Immigrant Families to Health Coverage
Instructions:
Read the report
Connecting Eligible Immigrant Families to Health Coverage and Care
.
Write a one page post offering solutions to the problem from the nurse's standpoint.
.
Loudres eats powdered doughnuts for breakfast and chocolate that sh.docxjeremylockett77
Loudres eats powdered doughnuts for breakfast and chocolate that she can get out of the vending machines before class. Between classes , she grabs some chips and a caffine drink for lunch. By the end of the day, she is exhauted and cannot study very long before she falls asleep for a few hours. Then, she stays up untils 2.A.M to finish her work and take care of things she could not do during the day. She feels that she has to eat sugary foods and caffeinated drinks to keep her schedule going and to fit in all her activities. What advice would you give her?
.
Lori Goler is the head of People at Facebook. Janelle Gal.docxjeremylockett77
Lori Goler is the head
of People at Facebook.
Janelle Gale is the head
of HR Business Partners
at Facebook. Adam Grant
is a professor at Wharton,
a Facebook consultant,
and the author of Originals
and Give and Take.
ZS
U
ZS
A
N
N
A
IL
IJ
IN
HBR.ORG
Let’s Not Kill
Performance
Evaluations Yet
Facebook’s experience shows
why they can still be valuable.
BY LORI GOLER, JANELLE GALE, AND ADAM GRANT
November 2016 Harvard Business Review 91
LET’S NOT KILL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS YET
tThe reality is, even when companies get rid of performance evaluations, ratings still exist. Employees just can’t see them. Ratings are done sub-jectively, behind the scenes, and without input from the people being evaluated.
Performance is the value of employees’ contribu-
tions to the organization over time. And that value
needs to be assessed in some way. Decisions about
pay and promotions have to be made. As research-
ers pointed out in a recent debate in Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, “Performance is always
rated in some manner.” If you don’t have formal
evaluations, the ratings will be hidden in a black box.
At Facebook we analyzed our performance man-
agement system a few years ago. We conducted fo-
cus groups and a follow-up survey with more than
300 people. The feedback was clear: 87% of people
wanted to keep performance ratings.
Yes, performance evaluations have costs—but
they have benefits, too. We decided to hang on
to them for three reasons: fairness, transparency,
and development.
Making Things Fair
We all want performance evaluations to be fair. That
isn’t always the outcome, but as more than 9,000
managers and employees reported in a global sur-
vey by CEB, not having evaluations is worse. Every
organization has people who are unhappy with their
bonuses or disappointed that they weren’t pro-
moted. But research has long shown that when the
process is fair, employees are more willing to accept
undesirable outcomes. A fair process exists when
evaluators are credible and motivated to get it right,
and employees have a voice. Without evaluations,
people are left in the dark about who is gauging their
contributions and how.
At Facebook, to mitigate bias and do things sys-
tematically, we start by having peers write evalua-
tions. They share them not just with managers but
also, in most cases, with one another—which reflects
the company’s core values of openness and transpar-
ency. Then decisions are made about performance:
Managers sit together and discuss their reports
face-to-face, defending and championing, debating
and deliberating, and incorporating peer feedback.
Here the goal is to minimize the “idiosyncratic rater
effect”—also known as personal opinion. People
aren’t unduly punished when individual managers
are hard graders or unfairly rewarded when they’re
easy graders.
Next managers write the performance reviews.
We have a team of analysts who examine evalua-
tions f.
Looking for someone to take these two documents- annotated bibliogra.docxjeremylockett77
Looking for someone to take these two documents- annotated bibliography and an issue review(outline)
to conduct an argumentative paper about WHY PEOPLE SHOULD GET THE COVID-19 VACCINE
Requirements:
Length: 4-6 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page
.
Lorryn Tardy – critique to my persuasive essayFor this assignm.docxjeremylockett77
Lorryn Tardy – critique to my persuasive essay
For this assignment I’ll be workshopping the work of Lisa Oll-Adikankwu. Lisa has chosen the topic of Assisted Suicide; she is against the practice and argues that it should be considered unethical and universally illegal.
Lisa appears to have a good understanding of the topic. Her sources are well researched and discuss a variety of key points from seemingly unbiased sources. Her sources are current, peer reviewed and based on statistical data.
Lisa’s summaries are well written, clear and concise. One thing I noticed is that the majority of her writing plan is summarized and cited at the end of each paragraph. I might suggest that she integrate more synthesis of the different sources, by combining evidence from more than one source per paragraph and using more in text citations or direct quotes to reinforce her key points.
I think that basic credentialing information could be provided for Lisa’s sources, this is something that looking back, I need to add as well. I think this could easily be done with just a simple “(Authors name, and their title, i.e. author, statistician, physician etc.…)”, when the source is introduced into the paper might provide a reinforced credibility of the source.
As far as connection of sources, as previously mentioned, I think that in order to illustrate a stronger argument, using multiple sources to reinforce a single key point would solidify Lisa’s argument. I feel that more evidence provided from a variety of different sources, will provide the reader with a stronger sense of credibility and less room for bias that could be argued if the point is only credited to one source.
One area that stuck out to me for counter argument, being that my paper is in favor of this issue, is in paragraph two where Lisa states that “physicians are not supposed to kill patients or help them kill themselves, and terminally ill patients are not in a position of making rational decisions about their lives.” I’d like to offer my argument for this particular statement. In states where assisted suicide (or as I prefer to refer to it, assisted dying) is legal, there are several criteria that a patient has to meet in order to be considered a candidate. These criteria include second, even third opinions to determine that death is imminent, as well psychological evaluation(s) and an extensive informed consent process that is a collaborative effort between the patient, the patient’s family, physicians, psychologists and nurses. It is a process that takes weeks to months. Patients that wish to be a candidate, should initiate the process as soon as they have been diagnosed by seeking a second opinion. As an emergency room nurse, I have been present for a substantial amount of diagnoses that are ‘likely’ terminal. Many of these patients presented to the emergency for a common ailment and have no indication that they don’t have the capacity to make such a decision. Receiving a terminal diagnos.
M450 Mission Command SystemGeneral forum instructions Answ.docxjeremylockett77
M450 Mission Command: System
General forum instructions: Answer the questions below and provide evidence to support your claims (See attached slides). Your answers should be derived primarily from course content. When citing sources, use APA style. Your initial posts should be approximately 150-500 words.
1. Describe and explain two of the Warfighting Functions.
2. How do commanders exercise the Command and Control System?
.
Lymphedema following breast cancer The importance of surgic.docxjeremylockett77
Lymphedema following breast cancer: The importance of
surgical methods and obesity
Rebecca J. Tsai, PhDa,*, Leslie K. Dennis, PhDa,b, Charles F. Lynch, MD, PhDa, Linda G.
Snetselaar, RD, PhD, LDa, Gideon K.D. Zamba, PhDc, and Carol Scott-Conner, MD, PhD,
MBAd
aDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
bDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, USA.
cDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
dDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer-related arm lymphedema is a serious complication that can
adversely affect quality of life. Identifying risk factors that contribute to the development of
lymphedema is vital for identifying avenues for prevention. The aim of this study was to examine
the association between the development of arm lymphedema and both treatment and personal
(e.g., obesity) risk factors.
Methods: Women diagnosed with breast cancer in Iowa during 2004 and followed through 2010,
who met eligibility criteria, were asked to complete a short computer assisted telephone interview
about chronic conditions, arm activities, demographics, and lymphedema status. Lymphedema was
characterized by a reported physician-diagnosis, a difference between arms in the circumference
(> 2cm), or the presence of multiple self-reported arm symptoms (at least two of five major arm
symptoms, and at least four total arm symptoms). Relative risks (RR) were estimated using
logistic regression.
Results: Arm lymphedema was identified in 102 of 522 participants (19.5%). Participants treated
by both axillary dissection and radiation therapy were more likely to have arm lymphedema than
treated by either alone. Women with advanced cancer stage, positive nodes, and larger tumors
along with a body mass index > 40 were also more likely to develop lymphedema. Arm activity
level was not associated with lymphedema.
*Correspondence and Reprints to: Rebecca Tsai, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway,
R-17, Cincinnati, OH 45226. [email protected] Phone: (513)841-4398. Fax: (513) 841-4489.
Authorship contribution
All authors contributed to the conception, design, drafting, revision, and the final review of this manuscript.
Competing interest
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute Grant Number: 5R03CA130031.
All authors do not declare any conflict of interest.
All authors do not declare any conflict of interest.
HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Front Womens Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 December 14.
Published in final edited form as:
Front Womens Health. 2018 June ; 3(2): .
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
.
Love Beyond Wallshttpswww.lovebeyondwalls.orgProvid.docxjeremylockett77
Love Beyond Walls
https://www.
lovebeyondwalls
.org
Provide a brief background of your chosen nonprofit entity using evidence from their publications or any other published materials. Then evaluate the factors, which may include economic, political, historic, cultural, institutional conditions, and changes that contributed to the creation and growth (decline) of the nonprofit organization. Justify your response.
.
Longevity PresentationThe purpose of this assignment is to exami.docxjeremylockett77
Longevity Presentation
The purpose of this assignment is to examine societal norms regarding aging and to integrate the concepts of aging well and living well into an active aging framework that promotes longevity.
Using concepts from the Hooyman and Kiyak (2011) text and the Buettner (2012) book, consider the various perspectives on aging.
Identify the underlying values or assumptions that serve as the basis for longevity, including cultural, religious, and philosophical ideas.
Present an overview of three holistic aging theories.
Integrate the values, assumptions, and theories to indicate what is necessary for an active aging framework where individuals both live well and age well.
Presentations should be 10-15 minutes in length, use visual aids, and incorporate references from the course texts and 5 additional scholarly journal articles.
.
Look again at the CDCs Web page about ADHD.In 150-200 w.docxjeremylockett77
The CDC's page on ADHD aims to educate the general public about Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder by providing facts and information on symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. It presents ADHD as a real disorder with neurological causes in order to increase understanding and help those affected. As the nation's leading health protection agency, the CDC's role is to inform the public about health issues like ADHD.
M8-22 ANALYTICS o TEAMS • ORGANIZATIONS • SKILLS .fÿy.docxjeremylockett77
M8-22 ANALYTICS o TEAMS • ORGANIZATIONS • SKILLS .fÿy' ÿ,oÿ ()V)g
The Strategy That Wouldn't Travel
by Michael C. Beer
It was 6:45 P.M. Karen Jimenez was reviewing the
notes on her team-based productMty project tbr
what seemed like the hundredth time. I31 two days,
she was scheduled to present a report to the senior
management group on the project's progress. She
wasn't at all sure what she was going to say.
The project was designed to improve productiv-
it3, and morale at each plant owned and operated by
Acme Minerals Extraction Company. Phase one--
implemented in early 1995 at the site in Wichita,
I(amsas--looked like a stunning, success by the mid-
dle of 1996. Productivity and mo[ÿale soared, and
operating and maintenance costs decreased signifi-
cantly. But four months ago, Jimenez tried to
duplicate the results at the project's second
target--the plant in Lubbock, Texas--and some-
thing went wrong. The techniques that had worked
so well in Wichita met with only moderate success
in Lubbock. ProductMty improved marginally and
costs went down a bit, but morale actually seemed
to deteriorate slightl): Jimenez was stumped,
approach to teamwork and change. As it turned
out, he had proved a good choice. Daniels was a
hands-on, high-energy, charismatic businessman
who seemed to enjoy media attention. Within his
first year as CEO, he had pretty much righted the
floundering company by selling oft:some unrelated
lines of business. He had also created the share-
services deparnnent--an internal consulting organ-
ization providing change management, reengineer-
ing, total quailB, management, and other
services--and had rapped Jimenez to head the
group. Her first priority Daniels told her, would be
to improve productiviB, and morale at the com-
pany's five extraction sites. None of them were
meeting their projections. And although Wichita
was the only site at which the labor-management
conflict was painfiflly apparent, Daniels and Jimenez
both thought that morale needed an all-around
boost. Hence the team-based productivity project.
She tried to "helicopter up" and think about
the problem in the broad context of the com-
pany's history. A few ),ears ago, Acme had been in
bad financial shape, but what had really brought
things to a head--and had led to her current
dilemma--was a labor relations problem. Acme
had a wide variety of labor requirements For its
operations. The company used highly sophisti-
cated technologB employing geologists, geophysi-
cists, and engineers on what was referred to as the
"brains" side of the business, as well as skilled and
semi-skilled labor on the "brawn" side to run the
extraction operations. And in the summer of
1994, brains and brawn clashed in an embarrass-
ingly public way. A number of engineers at the
Wichita plant locked several union workers out of
the offices in 100-degree heat. Although most
Acme employees now felt that the incident had
been blown out of propo,'tion by the press, .
Lombosoro theory.In week 4, you learned about the importance.docxjeremylockett77
Lombosoro theory.
In week 4, you learned about the importance of theory, the various theoretical perspectives and the ways in which theory help guide research in regards to crime and criminal behavior.
To put this assignment into context, I want you to think about how Lombroso thought one could identify a criminal. He said that criminals had similar facial features. If that was the case you would be able to look at someone and know if they were a criminal! Social theories infer that perhaps it is the social structures around us that encourage criminality. Look around your city- what structures do you think may match up to something you have learned about this week in terms of theory? These are just two small examples to put this assignment into context for you. The idea is to learn about the theories, then critically think about how can one "show" the theory without providing written explanation for their chosen image.
Directions: With the readings week 4 in mind, please do the following:
1. Choose a theoretical perspective (I.e., biological, psychological sociological)
2. Look through media images (this can be cartoons, magazines, newspapers, internet stories, etc...) and select 10 images that you think depict your chosen theory without written explanation.
3. Provide a one paragraph statement of your theory, what kinds of behavior it explains and how it is depicted through images. Be sure to use resources to support your answer.
4. You will copy and paste your images into a word document, along with your paragraph. You do not need to cite where you got your images, but you do need to cite any information you have in number 3.
Format Directions:
Typed, 12 point font, double spaced
APA format style (Cover page, in text citations and references)
.
Looking over the initial material on the definitions of philosophy i.docxjeremylockett77
Looking over the initial material on the definitions of philosophy in
the course content section, which definition (Aristotle, Novalis,
Wittgenstein) would you say gives you the best feel for philosophy? What
is it about the definition that interests you? do you find there to be any problems with the definition? what other questions do you have regarding the meaning of philosophy?
ARISTOTLE :
Definition 1: Philosophy begins with wonder. (Aristotle)
Our study of philosophy will begin with the ancient Greeks. This is not because the Greeks were necessarily the first to philosophize. They were the first to address philosophical questions in a systematic manner. Also, the bodies of works which survive from the Greeks is quite substantial so in studying philosophy we have a lot to go on if we start with the Greeks.
Philosophy is, in fact, a Greek word. Philo is one of the Greek words for love: in this case the friendship type of love. (What other words can you think of that have "philo" as a part?) Sophia, has a few different uses in Greek. Capitalized it is the name of a woman or a Goddess: wisdom. Philosophy, then, etymologically, (that is from its roots) means love of wisdom.
But what exactly is wisdom? Is it merely knowledge? Intelligence? If I know how to perform a given skill does this necessarily imply that I also have wisdom or am wise?
The word "wise" is not in fact a Greek word. Remember for the Greeks that's "Sophia". Wise is Indo-European and is related to words like "vision", "video", "Veda" (the Indian Holy scriptures). The root has something to do with seeing. Wisdom then has to do with applying our knowledge in a meaningful and practically beneficial way. Perhaps this is the reason why philosophy is associated with the aged. Aristotle believes that philosophy in fact is more suitably studied by the old rather than the young who are inclined to be controlled by the emotions. Do you think this is correct? Nevertheless, whether Aristotle is correct or not, typically the elderly are more likely to be wise as they have more experience of life: they have seen more and hopefully know how to respond correctly to various situations.
Philosophy is not merely confined to the old. Aristotle also says that philosophy begins with wonder and that all people desire to know. Children often are paradigm cases of wondering. Think about how children (perhaps a young sibling or a son or daughter, niece or nephew of your acquaintance) inquistively ask their parents "why" certain things are the case? If the child receives a satisfying answer, one that fits, she is satisfied. If not there is dissatisfaction and frustration. Children assume that their elders know more than they do and thus rely on them for the answers. Though there is a familiar cliche that ignorance is bliss, (perhaps what is meant by this is that ignorance of evil is bliss), Aristotle sees ignorance as painful, a wonder that I would rather fill with knowledge. After all wha.
Lucky Iron Fish
By: Ashley Snook
Professor Phillips
MGMT 350
Spring 2018
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Human Relations Theory
Communications Issues
Intercultural Relations
Ethics Issues
Conclusion
Works Cited
Executive Summary
The B-certified organization that I chose is Lucky Iron Fish Enterprise which is located in Guelph, Ontario Canada. The company distributes iron fish that are designed to solve iron deficiency and anemia for the two billion people who are affected worldwide.
The human relations model is comprised of McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and theories from Peters and Waterman. These factors focus on the organizational structure of the company as it relates to the executives, the staff, and the customers. The executives provide meaningful jobs for the staff which gives them high levels of job satisfaction. Together, they are able to provide a product that satisfies the thousands of customers they have already reached.
Communication in this company flows smoothly. They implement open communication, encourage participation, and have high levels of trust among employees. Each of their departments are interconnected through teamwork.
Their intercultural relations, although successful, require a significant amount of time. They need to emphasize to the high context cultures that they are willing to understand their culture and possibly adopt some aspects of it. Additionally, they face barriers such as language dissimilarity and lack of physical store locations.
Ethics remains a top priority for this organization. They have high ethical standards that are integrated into their operations. They make decisions that do the most good for the most people, they do not take into consideration financial or political influence, and they strive to protect the environment through their sustainability measures.
Every employee is dedicated to improving the lives of those who suffer from iron deficiency
and anemia. As their organization grows, they continue to impact thousands of lives around the world. They are on a mission to put “a fish in every pot” (Lucky Iron Fish).
Introduction
Lucky Iron Fish, located in Guelph Canada, is a company that is dedicated to ending worldwide iron deficiency and anemia. They do this by providing families with iron fish that release iron when heated in food or water. They sell this product in developed countries in order to support their business model of buy one give one. Each time an iron fish is purchased, one is donated to a family in a developing country. They designed their product to resemble the kantrop fish of Cambodia; in their culture this fish is a symbol of luck. Another focus of theirs is to remain sustainable, scalable, and impactful (Lucky Iron Fish). Each of their products is made from recycled material and their packaging is biodegradable. Their organization has a horizontal stru.
Lucky Iron FishBy Ashley SnookMGMT 350Spring 2018ht.docxjeremylockett77
Lucky Iron Fish
By: Ashley Snook
MGMT 350
Spring 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Rx3wDqTuI
Table of Contents
Case Overview
Introduction
Human Relations
Communications
Intercultural Relations
Ethics
Conclusion
Works Cited
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY0D-PIcgB4
Video ends at 1:45
2
Case Overview
Company located in Guleph, Ontario Canada
Mission is to end iron deficiency and anemia
A fish in every pot
Gavin Armstrong, Founder/CEO
Introduction
Idea originated in Cambodia
Distribute fish through buy one give one model
Sustainable, scalable, impactful
Human Relations
McGregor’s Theory X and Y
-X: employees focused solely on financial gain
-Y: strive to improve worldwide health
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
-Affiliation: desire to be part of a unit, motivated by connections
-Self-esteem: recognition for positive impact
Peters and Waterman
-Close relations to the customer
-Simple form & lean staff
Communications
Time and Distance
-Make product easily and quickly accessible
Communication Culture
-Encourages active participation
Teamwork
-Each role complements the overall mission
Gavin Armstrong Kate Mercer Mark Halpren Melissa Saunders Ashley Leone
Founder & CEO VP Marketing Chief Financial Officer Logistics Specialist Dietician
Intercultural Relations
High/Low Context
-Targets high context cultures
Barriers
-Language dissimilarity
Overcoming Barriers
-Hire a translator
Ethics
Utilitarianism
-Targets countries where majority of people will benefit
Veil of Ignorance
-Not concerned with financial influence
Categorical Imperative
-Accept projects only if environmentally friendly
Conclusion
Buy one give one model
Expansion
Sustainability
Works Cited
Guffey, Mary. “Essentials of Business Communication.” Ohio: Erin Joyner. 2008. Print.
“Lucky Iron Fish.” Lucky Iron Fish. Accessed 30 May 2018. https://luckyironfish.com/
“Lucky Iron Fish Enterprise.” B Corporation.net. Accessed 30 May 2018. https://www.bcorporation.net/community/lucky-iron-fish-enterprise
Lucky Iron Fish. “Lucky Iron Fish: A Simple
Solution
for a global problem.” Youtube. 28 October 2014. Accessed 4 June 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY0D-PIcgB4
“Lucky little fish to fight iron deficiency among women in Cambodia.” Grand Challenges Canada. Accessed 6 June 2018. http://www.grandchallenges.ca/grantee-stars/0355-05-30/
Podder, Api. “Lucky Iron Fish Wins 2016 Big Innovation Award.” SocialNews.com. 5 February 2016. Accessed 4 June 2018. http://mysocialgoodnews.com/lucky-iron-fish-wins-2016-big-innovation-award/
Zaremba, Alan. “Organizational Communication.” New York: Oxford University Press Inc. 2010. Print.
Lucky Iron Fish
By: Ashley Snook
Professor Phillips
MGMT 350.
look for a article that talks about some type of police activity a.docxjeremylockett77
look for a article that talks about some type of police activity and create PowerPoint and base on the history describe
-What is the role of a police officer in society? (general statement )
-how are they viewed by society?
what is the role of the police in this case?
how it is seems by society?
Article
An unbelievable History of Rape
An 18-year-old said she was attacked at knifepoint. Then she said she made it up. That’s where our story begins.
by T. Christian Miller, ProPublica and Ken Armstrong, The Marshall Project December 16, 2015
https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story
.
Look at the Code of Ethics for at least two professional agencies, .docxjeremylockett77
Look at the Code of Ethics for at least two professional agencies, federal agencies, or laws that would apply to Health IT professionals. In two pages (not including the reference list), compare and contrast these standards. How much overlap did you find? Is one reference more specific than the other? Does one likely fit a broader audience, etc... Would you add anything to either of these documents?
.
Locate an example for 5 of the 12 following types of communica.docxjeremylockett77
Locate
an example for 5 of the 12 following types of communication genres:
Business card
Resume/CV
Rules and regulations
Policy handbook
Policy manual
Policy guide
Policy or departmental memorandum
Public policy report
Government grant
Government proposal
Departmental brochure or recruitment materials
Governmental agency social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc...)
Write
a 1,050- to 1,400-word paper in which you refer to your examples for each of the above listed communication genres. Be sure to address the following in your paper:
How does the purpose of the communication relate to the particular communication genre? In what ways does the genre help readers grasp information quickly and effectively? In what way is the genre similar or different than the other genres you chose?
What role has technology played in the development of the genre? How is it similar or different than the other genres you chose?
How does the use of these conventions promote understanding for the intended audience of the communication? How is it similar or different than the other genres you chose?
Is the communication intended for external or internal distribution? Describe ethical and privacy considerations used for determining an appropriate method of distribution. How is it similar or different than the other genres you chose?
Cite
at least three academic sources in your paper.
Format
your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
.
Locate and read the other teams’ group project reports (located .docxjeremylockett77
Locate and read the other teams’ group project reports (located in Doc Sharing).
Provide some comments for two reports in terms of what you think they did right, what you learned from these reports, as well as what else they could have done.
In addition, read the comments that other students made about your team’s report and respond to at least one of them.
Review ATTACHMENTS!!!!
.
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docxadhitya5119
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMCeline George
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
Learning from Arguments An Introduction to Philosophy .docx
1. Learning from Arguments
An Introduction to Philosophy
By Daniel Z. Korman
Spring 2020 Edition
2
Table of Contents
Preface
Introduction
1. Can God Allow Suffering?
2. Why You Should Bet on God
3. No Freedom
4. You Know Nothing
5. What Makes You You
6. Don’t Fear the Reaper
2. 7. Taxation is Immoral
8. Abortion is Immoral
9. Eating Animals is Immoral
10. What Makes Things Right
Appendix A: Logic
Appendix B: Writing
3
Preface
I’m going to argue that you have no free will. I’m going to
argue for some other surprising things
too, for instance that death isn’t bad for you, taxation is
immoral, and you can’t know anything
whatsoever about the world around you. I’m also going to argue
for some things you’re probably
not going to like: that abortion is immoral, you shouldn’t eat
meat, and God doesn’t exist.
The arguments aren’t my own. I didn’t come up with them. I
don’t even accept all of them:
3. there are two chapters whose conclusions I accept, three I’m
undecided about, and five I’m certain
can’t be right. (I’ll let you guess which are which.) This isn’t
for the sake of playing devil’s
advocate. Rather, the idea is that the best way to appreciate
what’s at stake in philosophical
disagreements is to study and engage with serious arguments
against the views you’d like to hold.
Each chapter offers a sustained argument for some
controversial thesis, specifically written
for an audience of beginners. The aim is to introduce
newcomers to the dynamics of philosophical
argumentation, using some of the standard arguments one would
cover in an introductory
philosophy course, but without the additional hurdles one
encounters when reading the primary
sources of the arguments: challenging writing, obscure jargon,
and references to unfamiliar books
or schools of thought.
The different chapters aren’t all written from the same
perspective. This is obvious from a
quick glance at the opening chapters: the first chapter argues
that you shouldn’t believe in God,
while the second argues that you should. You’ll also find that
4. chapters 5 and 6 contain arguments
pointing to different conclusions about the relationship between
people and their bodies, and
chapter 7 contains arguments against the very theory of morality
that’s defended in chapter 10. So
you will be exposed to a variety of different philosophical
perspectives, and you should be on the
lookout for ways in which the arguments in one chapter provide
the resources for resisting
arguments in other chapters.
And while there are chapters arguing both for and against belief
in God, that isn’t the case
for other topics we’ll cover. For instance, there’s a chapter
arguing that you don’t have free will,
but no chapter arguing that you do have free will. That doesn’t
mean that you’ll only get to hear
one side of the argument. Along the way you will be exposed to
many of the standard objections
to the views and arguments I’m advancing, and you can decide
for yourself whether the responses
I offer to those objections are convincing. Those who need help
finding the flaws in the reasoning
5. 4
(or ideas for paper topics) can look to the reflection questions at
the end of each chapter for some
clues.
As I said, the arguments advanced in the book are not my own,
and at the end of each
chapter I point out the original sources of the arguments. In
some chapters, the central arguments
have a long history, and the formulations I use can’t be credited
to any one philosopher in
particular. Other chapters, however, are much more directly
indebted to the work of specific
contemporary philosophers, reproducing the contents of their
books and articles (though often with
some modifications and simplifications). In particular, chapter 7
closely follows the opening
chapters of Michael Huemer’s The Problem of Political
Authority; chapter 8 reproduces the central
arguments of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”
and Don Marquis’s “Why
Abortion is Immoral”; and chapter 9 draws heavily from Dan
Lowe’s “Common Arguments for
the Moral Acceptability of Eating Meat” and Alastair
Norcross’s “Puppies, Pigs, and People”.
6. I’m grateful to Jeff Bagwell, Matt Davidson, Nikki Evans,
Jason Fishbein, Bill Hartmann,
Colton Heiberg, Irem Kurtsal, Clayton Littlejohn, David
Mokriski, and Neil Sinhababu for helpful
suggestions, and to the Facebook Hivemind for help identifying
the further readings for the various
chapters. Special thanks are due to Chad Carmichael, Jonathan
Livengood, and Daniel Story for
extensive feedback on a previous draft of the book, and to the
students in my 2019 Freshman
Seminar: Shreya Acharya, Maile Buckman, Andrea Chavez,
Dylan Choi, Lucas Goefft, Mino Han,
PK Kottapalli, Mollie Kraus, Mia Lombardo, Dean Mantelzak,
Sam Min, Vivian Nguyen, Ariana
Pacheco Lara, Kaelen Perrochet, Rijul Singhal, Austin Tam,
Jennifer Vargas, Kerry Wang, and
Lilly Witonsky. Finally, thanks to Renée Bolinger for
permission to use her portrait of the great
20th century philosopher and logician Ruth Barcan Marcus on
the cover. You can see some more
of her portraits of philosophers here:
https://www.reneebolinger.com/portraits.html
7. 5
Introduction
The aim of this book is to introduce you to the topics and
methods of philosophy by advancing a
series of arguments for controversial philosophical conclusions.
That’s what I’ll do in the ten
chapters that follow. In this introductory chapter, I’ll give you
an overview of what I’ll be arguing
for in the different chapters (section 1), explain what an
argument is (sections 2-3), and identify
some common argumentative strategies (sections 4-7). I’ll close
by saying a few words about what
philosophy is.
1. Detailed Contents
As I explained in the preface, each chapter is written “in
character”, representing a specific
perspective (not necessarily my own!) on the issue in question.
Nor are they all written from the
same perspective. You should not expect the separate chapters
to fit together into a coherent whole.
8. I realize that this may cause some confusion. But you should
take this as an invitation to engage
with the book in the way that I intend for you to engage with it:
by questioning the claims being
made, and deciding for yourself whether the reasons and
arguments offered in support of those
claims are convincing.
In Chapter 1, “Can God Allow Suffering?”, I advance an
argument that God—who is
supposed to be all-powerful and morally perfect—could not
allow all the suffering we find in the
world, and therefore must not exist. I address a number of
attempts to explain why God might
allow suffering, for instance that it’s necessary for appreciating
the good things that we have, or
for building valuable character traits, or for having free will. I
also address the response that God
has hidden reasons for allowing suffering that we cannot expect
to understand.
In Chapter 2, “Why You Should Bet on God”, I advance an
argument that you should
believe in God because it is in your best interest: you’re putting
yourself in the running for an
9. eternity in heaven without risking losing anything of
comparable value. I defend the argument
against a variety of objections, for instance that it is incredibly
unlikely that God exists, that merely
believing in God isn’t enough to gain entry into heaven, and
that it’s impossible to change one’s
beliefs at will.
In Chapter 3, “No Freedom”, I advance two arguments that no
one ever acts freely. The
first turns on the idea that all of our actions are determined by
something that lies outside our
6
control, namely the strength of our desires. The second turns on
the idea that our actions are all
consequences of exceptionless, “deterministic” laws of nature.
In response to the concern that the
laws may not be deterministic, I argue that undetermined,
random actions wouldn’t be free either.
Finally, I address attempts to show that there can be free will
even in a deterministic universe.
In Chapter 4, “You Know Nothing”, I argue for two skeptical
conclusions. First, I advance
10. an argument that we cannot know anything about the future.
That’s so, I argue, because all of our
reasoning about the future relies on an assumption that we have
no good reason to accept, namely
that the future will resemble the past. Second, I advance an
argument that we cannot know anything
about how things presently are in the world around us, since we
cannot rule out the possibility that
we are currently dreaming.
In Chapter 5, “What Makes You You”, I criticize a number of
attempts to answer the
question of personal identity: under what conditions are a
person at one time and a person at
another time one and the same person? I reject the suggestion
that personal identity is a matter of
having the same body, on the basis of an argument from
conjoined twins and an argument from
the possibility of two people swapping bodies. I reject the
suggestion that personal identity can be
defined in terms of psychological factors on the strength of
“fission” cases in which one person’s
mental life is transferred into two separate bodies.
In Chapter 6, “Don’t Fear the Reaper”, I advance an argument
that death cannot be bad for
11. you, since you don’t experience any painful sensations while
dead, and that since death is not bad
for you it would be irrational to fear it. I argue that you don’t
experience any painful sensations
while dead by arguing that physical organisms cease to be
conscious when they die and that you
are a physical organism. I also address the suggestion that what
makes death bad for you is that it
deprives you of pleasures you would otherwise have had.
In Chapter 7, “Taxation is Immoral”, I argue that it is wrong for
governments to tax or
imprison their citizens, on the grounds that these practices are
not relevantly different from a
vigilante locking vandals in her basement and robbing her
neighbors to pay for her makeshift
prison. I address a variety of potential differences, with special
attention to the suggestion that we
have tacitly consented to following the law and paying taxes
and thereby entered into a “social
contract” with the government.
In Chapter 8, “Abortion is Immoral”, I examine a number of
arguments both for and against
the immorality of abortion. I argue that the question cannot be
12. settled by pointing to the fact that
7
the embryo isn’t self-sufficient or conscious or rational, nor by
pointing to the fact that it has
human DNA, that it is a potential person, or that life begins at
conception. I then examine the
argument that abortion is immoral because the embryo has a
right to life, and I argue that having
a right to life doesn’t entail having a right to continued use of
the mother’s womb. Finally, I
advance an alternative argument for the immorality of abortion,
according to which this killing,
like other killings, is wrong because it deprives its victim of a
valuable future.
In Chapter 9, “Eating Animals is Immoral”, I defend the view
that it is immoral to eat meat
that comes from so-called “factory farms”. I begin by criticizing
three common reasons for
thinking that eating meat is morally acceptable: because people
have always eaten meat, because
eating meat is necessary, and because eating meat is natural. I
then argue that eating factory-farmed
13. meat is immoral, on the grounds that it would be immoral to
raise and slaughter puppies in similar
ways and for similar reasons.
In Chapter 10, “What Makes Things Right”, I advance a
“utilitarian” theory of morality,
according to which the rightness or wrongness of an action is
always entirely a matter of the extent
to which it increases or decreases overall levels of happiness in
the world. I defend the theory
against the objection that it wrongly permits killing one person
to save five. Along the way, I
consider the ways in which morality is and isn’t subjective and
variable across cultures, and what
to say about the notorious “trolley cases”.
In Appendix A, “Logic”, I examine one of the features that
makes an argument a good
argument, namely validity. I explain what it means for an
argument to be valid, and I illustrate the
notion of validity by presenting and illustrating four types of
valid arguments.
In Appendix B, “Writing”, I present a model for writing papers
for philosophy courses:
introduce the view or argument you plan to criticize (section 1),
advance your objections (section
14. 2), and address likely responses to your objections (section 3).
Along the way, I explain the
importance of clear and unpretentious writing that is charitable
towards opposing viewpoints; I
offer advice for editing rough drafts; I identify some criteria
that philosophy instructors commonly
use when evaluating papers; and I explain the difference
between consulting online sources and
plagiarizing them.
8
2. The Elements of Arguments
Let’s begin by having a look at what an argument is. An
argument is a sequence of claims,
consisting of premises, a conclusion, and in some cases one or
more subconclusions. The
conclusion is what the argument is ultimately trying to
establish, or what’s ultimately being argued
for. The premises are the assumptions that, taken together, are
meant to serve as reasons for
15. accepting the conclusion. A subconclusion is a claim that is
meant to be established by some subset
of the premises but that isn’t itself the ultimate conclusion of
the argument.
As an illustration, consider the following argument:
Against Fearing Death
(FD1) You cease to be conscious when you die
(FD2) If you cease to be conscious when you die, then being
dead isn’t bad for you
(FD3) So, being dead isn’t bad for you
(FD4) If being dead isn’t bad for you, then you shouldn’t fear
death
(FD5) So, you shouldn’t fear death
The argument has three premises: FD1, FD2, and FD4. FD5 is
the conclusion of the argument,
since that’s what the argument is ultimately trying to establish.
FD3 is a subconclusion. It isn’t the
conclusion, since the ultimate goal of the argument is to
establish that you shouldn’t fear death,
not that being dead isn’t bad for you (which is just a step along
the way). Nor is it a premise, since
it isn’t merely being assumed. Rather, it’s been argued for: it is
meant to be established by FD1
and FD2.
16. In this book, you can always tell which claims in the labeled
and indented arguments are
premises, conclusions, and subconclusions. The conclusion is
always the final claim in the
sequence. The subconclusions are anything other than the final
claim that begins with a “So”. Any
claim that doesn’t begin with “So” is a premise. However, when
it comes to unlabeled arguments—
arguments appearing in paragraph form—all bets are off. For
instance, I might say:
Death isn’t bad for you. After all, you cease to be conscious
when you die, and something
can’t be bad for you if you’re not even aware of it. And if that’s
right, then you shouldn’t
fear death, since it would be irrational to fear something that
isn’t bad for you.
The paragraph begins with a subconclusion, the conclusion
shows up right in the middle of the
paragraph, and neither of them is preceded by a “So”. Here, you
have to use some brain-power
9
and clues from the context to figure out which bits are the basic
17. assumptions (the premises), which
bit is the conclusion, and which bits are mere subconclusions.
All of the labeled arguments in the book are constructed in such
a way that the conclusion
is a logical consequence of the premises—or, as I sometimes put
it, the conclusion “follows from”
the premises. You may or may not agree with FD1, and you may
or may not agree with FD2. But
what you can’t deny is that FD1 and FD2 together entail FD3. If
FD3 is false, then it must be that
either FD1 or FD2 (or both) is false. You would be
contradicting yourself if you accepted FD1 and
FD2 but denied FD3. Because all the arguments are constructed
in this way, you cannot reject the
conclusion of any of the labeled arguments in the book while
agreeing with all of the premises.
You must find some premise to deny if you do not want to
accept the conclusion. (See Appendix
A, “Logic”, for more on how to tell when a conclusion is a
logical consequence of some premises.)
3. Premises and Conditionals
There are no restrictions on which sorts of statements can figure
as premises in an
18. argument. A premise can be a speculative claim like FD1 or a
conceptual truth like FD4. A premise
can also be a statement of fact, for instance that a six-week-old
embryo has a beating heart, or it
can be a moral judgment, for instance that a six-week-old
embryo has a right to life. Arguments
can have premises that are mere matters of opinion, for instance
that mushrooms are tasty. They
can even have premises that are utterly and obviously false, for
instance that the sky is yellow or
that 1+1=3. Anything can be a premise.
That said, an argument is only as strong as its premises. The
point of giving an argument
is to persuade people of its conclusion, and an argument built
on false, dubious, or indefensible
premises is unlikely to persuade anyone.
Arguments frequently contain premises of the form “if…
then…”, like FD2 and FD4. Such
statements are called conditionals, and there are names for the
different parts of a conditional. The
bit that comes between the ‘if’ and the ‘then’ is the antecedent
of the conditional, and the bit that
comes after the ‘then’ is the consequent of the conditional.
19. Using FD2 as an illustration, the
antecedent is you cease to be conscious when you die, the
consequent is being dead is not bad for
you, and the conditional is the whole claim: if you cease to be
conscious when you die then being
dead is not bad for you.
10
(Strictly speaking, conditionals don’t have to be of the form
“if… then…”. They can also
be of the form “… only if…”, as in “You should fear death only
if being dead is bad for you”, or
of the form “… if …”, as in “You shouldn’t fear death if being
dead isn’t bad for you”.)
Conditionals affirm a link between two claims, and you can
agree that some claims are
linked in the way a conditional says they are, even if you don’t
agree with the claims themselves.
To see this, consider the following argument:
The Drinking Age Argument
(DG1) Corrine is under 21
(DG2) If Corrine is under 21, then Corrine is not allowed to
drink alcohol
20. (DG3) So, Corrine is not allowed to drink alcohol
You might object to this argument because you think that
Corrine is 22 and that she is allowed to
drink alcohol. Still, you should agree with the conditional
premise DG2: you should agree that
being under 21 and being allowed to drink are linked in the way
DG2 says they are. You should
agree that DG2 is true even though you disagree with both its
antecedent and its consequence. To
deny DG2, you’d have to think, for instance, that the drinking
age was 18. But if you agree that
the drinking age is 21, then your quarrel is not with DG2; it’s
with DG1.
Likewise, you can agree with the conditional premise FD4 even
if you think that being
dead is bad for you. To disagree with FD4, you’d have to think
that it’s sometimes rational to fear
things that aren’t bad for you.
4. Common Argumentative Strategies
Arguments can play a variety of different roles in philosophical
debates. Let’s have a look
as some common argumentative strategies that you’ll encounter
21. in the book.
First, an argument can be used to defend a premise from
another argument. For instance,
premise FD1 of the Against Fearing Death argument—that you
cease to be conscious when you
die—is hardly obvious. So someone who likes the Against
Fearing Death argument might try to
produce a further argument in defense of that premise, like the
following:
11
The Brain Death Argument
(BD1) Your brain stops working when you die
(BD2) If your brain stops working when you die, then you cease
to be conscious when
you die
(FD1) So, you cease to be conscious when you die
Notice that in the context of this argument FD1 is a conclusion,
whereas in the context of the
Against Fearing Death argument it’s a premise. Which role a
given statement is playing can vary
22. from one argument to the next. And whenever one wants to deny
a claim that’s a conclusion of an
argument, one must identify some flaw in that argument. That
means that anyone who planned to
resist the Against Fearing Death argument by denying FD1 now
has to reckon with this Brain
Death Argument.
Second, an argument can be used to challenge another
argument. There are two ways of
doing so. One would be to produce an argument for the opposite
conclusion. For instance, one
might advance the following argument against FD5:
The Uncertain Fate Argument
(UF1) You don’t know what will happen to you after you die
(UF2) If you don’t know what will happen to you after to die,
then you should fear death
(UF3) So, you should fear death
Notice that UF3 is a denial of the conclusion of the Against
Fearing Death argument. Thus, if the
Uncertain Fate Argument is successful, then something must go
wrong in the Against Fearing
Death argument, though it would still be an open question
where exactly it goes wrong.
23. Another way to challenge an argument is to produce a new
argument against a premise of
the first argument. Here, for instance, is an argument against
FD1 of the Against Fearing Death
argument:
The Afterlife Argument
(AF1) You go to heaven or hell after you die
(AF2) If you go to heaven or hell after you die, then you don’t
cease to be conscious when
you die
(AF3) So, you don’t cease to be conscious when you die
12
Unlike the Uncertain Fate Argument, The Afterlife Argument
challenges a premise of the Against
Fearing Death argument, and does indicate where that argument
is supposed to go wrong.
I don’t mean to suggest that these are especially good
arguments. Not all arguments are
created equal! People who believe in the afterlife aren’t likely
to be convinced by the Brain Death
24. Argument, and people who don’t believe in the afterlife aren’t
likely to be convinced by the
Afterlife Argument. As you read on, you’ll discover that a lot of
the work in philosophy involves
trying to find arguments that will be convincing even to those
who are initially inclined to reject
their conclusions.
5. Counterexamples
Arguments often contain premises which contend that things are
always a certain way. For
instance, someone who is pro-life might advance the following
argument:
The Beating Heart Argument
(BH1) A six-week-old embryo has a beating heart
(BH2) It’s always immoral to kill something that has a beating
heart
(BH3) So, it’s immoral to kill a six-week-old embryo
The second premise, BH2, says that killing things that have
beating hearts is always immoral. Put
another way, the fact that something has a beating heart is
sufficient for killing it to be immoral.
Arguments also often contain premises which contend that
things are never a certain way.
25. For instance, someone who is pro-choice might advance the
following argument in defense of
abortion:
The Consciousness Argument
(CN1) A six-week-old embryo isn’t conscious
(CN2) It’s never wrong to kill something that isn’t conscious
(CN3) So, it isn’t wrong to kill a six-week-old embryo
The second premise, CN2, says that killing things that aren’t
conscious is never wrong. Put another
way, in order for a killing to be wrong, it’s necessary for the
victim to be conscious at the time of
the killing.
When a premise says that things are always a certain way or
that they’re never a certain
way, it’s making a very strong claim. And one can challenge
such a claim by coming up with
13
counterexamples, examples in which things aren’t the way that
the premise says things always are,
or in which things that are the way that the premise says things
never are. For instance, you might
26. challenge BH2 by pointing out that worms have hearts, and it
isn’t immoral to kill them. And you
might challenge CN2 by pointing out that it’s wrong to kill
someone who’s temporarily
anesthetized, even though they’re unconscious. In other words,
worms are counterexamples to
BH2 and anaesthetized people are counterexamples to CN2.
These counterexamples can then be put to work in arguments of
their own, for instance:
The Worm Argument
(WA1) If it’s always immoral to kill something that has a
beating heart, then it’s immoral
to kill worms
(WA2) It isn’t immoral to kill worms
(WA3) So, it isn’t always immoral to kill something that has a
beating heart
The Temporary Anesthesia Argument
(TA1) If it’s never wrong to kill something that’s unconscious,
then it isn’t wrong to kill a
temporarily anesthetized adult
(TA2) It is wrong to kill a temporarily anesthetized adult
(TA3) So, it is sometimes wrong to kill something that’s
unconscious
Argument by counterexample is a very common argumentative
27. strategy, and we’ll see numerous
examples in the different chapters of the book.
It’s important to realize that such these arguments do not
require saying that embryos are
in every way analogous to worms or to temporarily anesthetized
adults, or that killing an embryo
is equivalent to killing a worm or a temporarily anesthetized
adult. The arguments from
counterexamples formulated above don’t say anything at all
about embryos. Rather, they’re giving
independent reasons for rejecting that general principles (BH2
and CN2) being employed in the
Beating Heart Argument and the Consciousness Argument.
One last thing. You’ll sometimes encounter claims in the book
that include the phrase “if
and only if”. For instance, later on in the book we’ll address the
question of what makes something
bad for you. Breaking your leg is bad for you, and relaxing in
the hot tub isn’t bad for you. Those
are just some examples of things that are and aren’t bad for you,
but suppose we wanted to give a
more general answer to the question of what makes something
bad for you. Here’s a first stab at
28. doing so, which we’ll encounter in chapter 6:
(HD) Something is bad for you if and only if it’s painful
14
HD gives the right results in the cases we just considered: it
says that breaking your leg is bad for
you, since that’s painful, and that relaxing in the hot tub isn’t
bad for you, since that’s not painful.
HD can be seen as two claims packed into one. First, it’s saying
that something is bad for
you if it’s painful. In other words, if something is painful, that’s
sufficient for it to be bad for you;
painful things are always bad for you. Second, it’s saying that
something is bad for you only if it’s
painful. In other words, something’s being painful is necessary
for it to be bad for you; non-painful
things are never bad for you.
So, HD is saying that being painful is necessary and sufficient
for being bad for you.
Accordingly, it can be challenged in two different ways. First,
you might try to show that being
painful isn’t sufficient, by producing examples of things that
are painful but aren’t bad for you.
29. Second, you might try to show that being painful isn’t
necessary, by producing examples of things
that aren’t painful but that are bad for you. An example of
either sort would count as a
counterexample to HD and would be enough to show that HD is
incorrect. Can you think of one?
6. Argument by Analogy
Another common argumentative strategy is argument by
analogy. We’ll encounter such
arguments repeatedly in this book. Here is an example from
Chapter 7, which is meant to show
that it’s wrong for the government to tax and imprison its
citizens:
VIGILANTE
Jasmine discovers that some con men have set up a …
LAB 07: GLACIAL LANDSCAPES
Note: Please refer to the GETTING STARTED module to learn
how to maneuver through, and how to answer the lab questions,
in the Google Earth () component.
KEY TERMS
You should know and understand the following terms:
Alpine glaciers
Equilibrium
Kettle
Arête
30. Esker
Moraine (lateral, medial, terminal)
Cirque
Fjords
Paternoster Lake
Continental glaciers
Freeze-on
Tarn
Crevasses
Glacial Mass Balance
Zone of Accumulation
Drumlin
Kame
Zone of Ablation
LAB LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After successfully completing this module, you should be able
to do the following tasks:
· Identify continental and alpine glaciers
· Identify erosional processes and features created by
glaciers
· Identify depositional processes and features created by
glaciers
· Examine the processes that create glaciers and glacial
landforms
· Practice interpreting glacial features on aerial imagery
and topographic maps
· Explain the concept of using ice cores to reconstruct
climate history
INTRODUCTION
This module examines glacial processes and features. Topics
include continental and alpine glaciation, ablation and
accumulation, cirques, drumlins, kettles, kames and moraine.
While these topics may appear to be disparate, you will learn
how they are inherently related. The modules start with five
31. opening topics, or vignettes, which are found in the
accompanying Google Earth file. These vignettes introduce
basic concepts of the glacial processes and landforms. Some of
the vignettes have animations, videos, or short articles that will
provide another perspective or visual explanation for the topic
at hand. After reading the vignette and associated links, answer
the following questions. Please note that some links might take
a while to download based on your Internet speed.
Expand the INTRODUCTION folder and then check Topic 1:
Introduction.
Read Topic 1: Introduction.
Question 1: What are some uses of freshwater from glaciers?
A. Agriculture
B. Industry
C. Tourism
D. All of the above
Read Topic 2: Types of Glaciers.
Question 2: What is the semi-circular feature at the far left of
the image?
A. Drumlin
B. Lateral moraine
C. Terminal moraine
D. Medial moraine
Read Topic 3: History within Glacial Ice.
Question 3: Within the snow, do colder temperatures result in
higher or lower concentrations of light oxygen (16O)?
A. Higher, because there is more energy to lift 18O out of the
ocean
B. Lower, because there is more energy to lift 18O out of the
ocean
C. Higher, because there is less energy to lift 18O out of the
ocean
D. Lower, because there is less energy to lift 18O out of the
ocean
Read Topic 4: The Global Retreat and Advance of Glaciers.
32. Question 4: What happened to the Peterman Glacier on Aug 5,
2010?
A. Satellite imagery notice the glacier was actually advancing
B. A large mass of the glacier broke off the main glacier
C. Icebergs were spotted calving
D. An ice dam created by icebergs broke unleashing 3 million
cfs of water
Read Topic 5: Human Reliance on Glaciers for Water.
Question 5: What was the peak discharge on August 14, 2002?
A. 97 cfs
B. 3.9 million cfs
C. 1.9 million cfs
D. 145,000 cfs
Collapse and uncheck INTRODUCTION.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Expand GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE and then double-click and
select Major World Glaciers.
This map shows the location of major glaciers (in blue)
throughout the world. At present, glaciers cover approximately
10 to 11 percent of the surface of the Earth. Many cities depend
on glaciers as their source of water.
Doubleclick Question 6. When you arrive at your destination,
find the information to fill in the blanks below. Repeat this for
Questions 7 and 8:
Question 6:
City:
A. Lima
B. Buenos Aires
C. Santiago
D. Bogotá
Population:
A. 7.2 million
B. 2.7 million
C. 3.6 million
D. 4.5 million
33. Glacier(s) located which direction from city:
A. North
B. East
C. West
D. South
Question 7:
City:
A. Bhutan
B. Lhasa
C. Katmandu
D. Tibet
Population:
A. 2.7 million
B. 4.3 million
C. 1.9 million
D. 4.5 million
Glacier(s) located which direction from city:
A. North
B. West
C. East
D. South
Question 8:
Glacier: Atetsch
Latitude and Longitude (degrees only):
A. Latitude 46 °N, Longitude 8° E
B. Latitude 46 °N, Longitude 8° W
C. Latitude 46 °S, Longitude 8° E
D. Latitude 46 °S, Longitude 8° W
Collapse and uncheck GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
ALPINE GLACIATION
Figure 1. Glacier mass budget. (Arbogast 2nd Ed.).
Alpine glaciers are found in many of the world’s major
mountain ranges. These glaciers are dynamic and flow downhill
under the force of gravity. In many places, alpine glaciers are
34. retreating as the snowpack decreases in winter months and mean
temperatures increase during the spring and summer months.
Expand the ALPINE GLACIATION folder. Double-click and
select Mass Balance.
This is the Klinaklini glacier in British Columbia, Canada.
Along an alpine glacier there are two major zones, accumulation
and ablation. The zone of accumulation (Figure 1) is located at
higher elevations where temperatures remain cold enough such
that snowfall exceeds melting over the course of a year.
Conversely, the zone of ablation is located at lower elevations
where melting exceeds snowfall. The red line in the middle
represents the equilibrium line, where snowfall and melting are
equal over the course of a year. Farther down in the zone of
ablation, and loss of ice by meltwater is evident.
Question 9: Where do we find the deep fissures in the glacier
known as crevasses– in the zone of accumulation or the zone of
ablation?
A. Zone of accumulation
B. Both zone of accumulation and ablation
C. Zone of ablation
D. Neither zone of accumulation now ablation.
Keep Mass Balance selected, and then doubleclick Direction of
Flow.
Question 10: Explain the direction of flow of glacial ice, from
the zone of accumulation to the loss of ice by meltwater.
A. The glacier flows downward from the zone of accumulation
under the influence of gravity.
B. The glacier flows uphill as it melts
C. The glacier flows in a southern direction towards the
equator
D. Direction depends on the amount of snowfall.
Erosional Features
Figure 2. Glaciation (17.16 Arbogast 2nd Ed.)
A cirque (or corrie) is a bowlshaped erosional feature created
35. by complex glacial ice flow that that plucks material from a
hollow on a slope and promotes the creation of a depression.
Cirque glaciers are typically the head of U shaped valley
glaciers. After glaciation, many cirques contain tarn lakes
(Figure 2) while in the glacial valleys, chains of paternoster
lakes are formed, commonly connected by a single stream
system.
Expand Erosional Features and then doubleclick and select Mt.
Rainier.
Figure 3. Geographic Features line item
Mount Rainier, with its 25 glaciers covering 90 square km (35
square mile), has more glaciers than any other peak in the
continental US.
Mt. Rainier is located south of Seattle, Washington. Google has
a function that enables you to see more information about the
mountain such as the elevation and the elevation profile, and to
fly on a tour. Open the Layers pane, expand Borders and Labels,
expand Labels and then check Geographic Features (Figure
3).
Doubleclick Mount Rainier Tour.
Doubleclick and select A and B.
Question 11: The ridgeline is what type of glacial feature?
A. Cirque
B. Tarn
C. Horn
D. Arete
Doubleclick Forbidden Peak Tour to get a closer look.
Question 12: What glacial feature (there are nearly 20 of them)
is found on both sides of the ridgeline between A and B?
A. Cirque
B. Tarn
36. C. Horn
D. Arete
Question 13: Look at the lake below this ridgeline. This lake is
what type of glacial feature?
A. Cirque
B. Tarn
C. Horn
D. Arete
Doubleclick and select .
Question 14: What type of glacial feature is this lake?
A. Cirque
B. Tarn
C. Horn
D. Arete
Double-click select the D folder.
When 3 or more cirques back into each other they create a
particular landform feature. However, this feature is somewhat
difficult to see in the 2D perspective.
Doubleclick . Doubleclick and select Mountain Tour.
Question 15: What is the name of this glacial feature, to which
the mountain is named (Hint: You can determine the name of
the major summit by enabling Geographic Features)?
A. Cirque
B. Tarn
C. Horn
D. Arete
Close the simulation control panel:
Double-click and select Valley. Click animation in the window.
This valley was originally created by a river system and
substantially modified by a glacier that has since retreated.
Question 16: What type of valley is found at D?
A. River valley
B. Glacial valley
C. Hanging valley
D. V – shaped valley
37. Collapse and uncheck Erosional Features
Transportation and Depositional Features
Double-click Transportation and Depositional Features.
This is the glacier d'Otemma in Switzerland. Within this alpine
glacier, several depositional features are evident. Most notable
are the various moraines found along (lateral), among or
between (medial) and at the end (terminal) of the glacier.
Morainesconsist of unsorted till (diamicton or sediment) that is
deposited with glaciers; the location of the moraine determines
the type. Three of the most well-known moraines are:
Doubleclick and select letters F, G, and H individually to
identify the following features:
Question 17: Feature :
A. Medial moraine
B. Terminal moraine
C. Lateral moraine
D. Recessional moraine
Question 18: Feature :
A. Medial moraine
B. Terminal moraine
C. Lateral moraine
D. Recessional moraine
Question 19: Feature
A. Medial moraine
B. Terminal moraine
C. Lateral moraine
D. Recessional moraine
Collapse and uncheck ALPINE GLACIATION.
Continental Glaciation
During glacial periods in the past, large portions of North
America were cover by continental glaciers. Today, these
glaciers are found predominantly in Greenland and the
Antarctica. But remnants of continental glacier activity can be
38. found across much of Canada, the northern continental US,
northern Europe and Russia.
Expand and click CONTINENTAL GLACIATION. Click
continental glaciation video in the window. This animation
depicts marginal landforms of continental glaciers.
As you can see, it is the depositional features of continental
glaciations that remain on the landscape. These features include
those that formed under or as a result of glacial lobes while
other features are a result of glacial meltwater.
Expand Depositional Features.
Drumlins are created by continental glaciers that reshape
previous deposited glacier material as they move over it (Figure
4). They tend to be elongated and orient in the direction of ice
movement. The blunt end of a drumlin faces the direction from
which the glacier was moving when it created the drumlin.
Figure 4. Topographic representation of a drumlin and its
direction of glacial ice flow.
Double-click Drumlin.
This is a landscape with several drumlins. From the air it is
difficult to see them; however, it becomes more obvious when
contour lines are added to show elevation changes.
Set the elevation exaggeration to 3.
Select Drumlin Contour.
Look for a series of contour lines forming an elongated shape
similar to Figure 4. This feature is a drumlin.
Double-click and select Drumlin Oblique View to see an
oblique view of the feature.
Question 20: According to the shapes of the drumlins, what
(compass) direction do you think the ice was moving when it
formed the drumlins?
A. NE
B. NW
C. SE
D. SW
39. Double-click and select Kettle Lake.
This large circular body of water is a kettle lake formed by a
block of ice a retreating glacier falling off. Over time the block
of ice is partially buried and then melts to create a depression.
When filled with water, this depression is termed a kettle lake.
Use the ruler tool and measure the distance across the lake from
point H to point I.
Question 21: How wide, in miles, is the lake (from H to I)?
A. 1.6 miles
B. 2.6 miles
C. 3.6 miles
D. 4.6 miles
Question 22: Assuming the lake is circular, calculate the area of
this lake (A=πr2)in square miles, where A is area, pi is 3.14,
and r2 is the radius of the circle squared.
Area is __________________mi2
A. Π(0.8)2 = 2.00 square miles
B. Π(1.6)2 = 8.04 square miles
C. Π(3.6)2 = 40.72 square miles
D. Π(4.6)2 = 66.48 square miles
Expand Eskers. Select Ripley Esker.
Eskers are long snake like ridges created by the deposition of
sediment from melt water streams that flowed within or under
glaciers. Gravel pits often mine eskers for sand and gravel.
This is the Ripley Esker in Minnesota. Notice how the trees
delineate the esker.
Select Belle Prairie.
You can use the following Google Earth tools to make the esker
easier to see on the topographic maps:
· Use the Adjust Opacity tool to see how the topographic
map compares to the aerial photograph.
· Use the Ruler tool to compute the length of the esker.
Question 23: What is the approximate length of the esker in
miles?
40. A. 1.5 miles
B. 2 miles
C. 5 miles
D. 10 miles
Question 24: What are the two dominant economic activities
found around the esker?
A. Farming and ranching
B. Ranching and quarrying
C. Tourism and farming
D. Quarrying and farming
Double-click Moraine.
This landscape in Minnesota is dotted with a terminal moraine
and kettle lakes. While the lakes are easy to see, the moraine is
not.
Double-click Moraine Perspective to view the landscape from a
3-D perspective.
The moraine appears as a series of hills.
Select Inspiration Peak to view a topographic map of the
landscape.
Question 25: What is the high point (in feet) of the moraine in
the red outline? The high point is located near the central
eastern part of the Inspiration Peak map marked by the red
number 1.
A. 1550
B. 1650
C. 1705
D. 1555
References:
Alan Arbogast. 2011. Discovering Physical Geography, 2nd
edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Robin E. Bell, Fausto Ferraccioli, Timothy T. Creyts, David
Braaten, Hugh Corr, Indrani Das, Detlef Damaske, Nicholas
41. Frearson, Thomas Jordan, Kathryn Rose, Michael Studinger,
and Michael Wolovick. 2011. Widespread Persistent Thickening
of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from the Base.
Science 331 (6024), 1592-1595.Published online 3 March 2011
[DOI:10.1126/science.1200109]
Extra Resource:
North Cascades (Including Mt. Rainier):
http://www.edugen.com:30120/geodiscoveries/resources/ch12/pr
int/cascade_range/index.htm
PLAGIARISM INFORMATION FORM
Copying passages from a website counts as plagiarism even if
you reword them. You will be
penalized for plagiarism even if you had no intention to
plagiarize, even if the plagiarism
appears only in the opening section of the paper, even if the
plagiarism results from submitting
the “wrong version” of the paper, and even if the plagiarism
was the result of inadvertently
memorizing and reproducing the wording from a website. Being
charged with plagiarism or
other academic infractions may seriously jeopardize your
applications to law schools, business
schools, and graduate schools.
Excerpt from the UCSB Student Conduct Code (SW, 101.00)
Any work (written or otherwise) submitted to fulfill an
academic requirement must represent a
42. student’s original work. Any act of academic dishonesty, such
as cheating or plagiarism, will
subject a person to University disciplinary action. Cheating
includes, but is not limited to,
looking at another student’s examination, referring to
unauthorized notes during an exam,
providing answers, having another person take an exam for you,
etc. Representing the words,
ideas, or concepts of another person without appropriate
attribution is plagiarism.
Whenever another person’s written work is utilized, whether it
be a single phrase or longer,
quotation marks must be used and sources cited. Paraphrasing
another’s work, i.e., borrowing
the ideas or concepts and putting them into one’s “own” words,
must also be acknowledged.
Although a person’s state of mind and intention will be
considered in determining the
University response to an act of academic dishonesty, this in no
way lessens the responsibility
of the student.
Paraphrase
Paraphrasing a source without citing it will also be treated as
plagiarism. Here are some
examples of paraphrase:
Student: In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David
Hume explores the basic
fundamentals of religious belief, and whether they can be
rational.
Website: In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Hume
explores whether religious belief
43. can be rational.
Student: He excels in using the reference of FLO (future like
ours) because it is reasonable
to use emotional attachment in comparing the life of a fetus to
that of the life that
we experience and live out.
Website: Marquis is highly persuasive using this FLO method
because he uses emotional
attachment comparing the life of a fetus to a life that we may
experience.
Student: It is meaningless to assume an analogy between one
part of the universe and the
whole universe.
Website: It makes no sense to assume that one part of the
universe is analogous to the whole
of the universe.
Case studies: Student Responses to Charges of Plagiarism
Charge: One sentence copied and reworded from an online
source.
Student response: I did read that passage from that web page
along with a bunch of other
articles, but before I even started writing my paper I exited out
of all my web pages and that
was just in my head still. i happened to word it similar to
beebe's website. I truly don't believe I
44. plagiarized.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: One paragraph was copied and reworded from an online
source.
Student response: The Schrödinger's cat experiment can be
confusing to understand, so after
doing some brief research there was only so many ways I can
describe this experiment. I simply
only took reference "describing" what the experiment is to give
the reader a background.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: Several passages were copied from Wikipedia and
reworded.
Student response: I simply used those four sentences to get a
better understanding of the
subject that I was writing about. The majority of that section,
and the other two sections are all
me! In no way did I attempt to pass these ideas off as my own. I
believed that since I copied
things that were facts, that wasn't plagiarism because facts can
not be plagiarised, only claiming
that those ideas were yours is. I do admit that it was really
stupid of me to use those four
sentences verbatim. However I felt like by touching them or
changing them they could lose
their meaning.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: Several passages were copied from a website and
reworded.
Student response: I must have submitted the wrong paper. I
45. have two copies. Is it okay if I
send you the other one? I am so sorry for the confusion and
inconvenience.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: Extensive plagiarism from two different websites.
Student response: I looked at the websites, and I tried to take
care not to use them word for
word, but after reading them, I internalized the ideas and it
helped me understand the argument
so much better that I unintentionally used the same language,
without realizing it. My blatant
disregard for putting it into my own words is clear now, and I
apologize dearly for that, but I
didn't intend to copy them word for word, I simply meant to
highlight the arguments. Most of
the ideas I simply saw and they stuck in my head so effectively
that I inadvertently used them as
my own.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: Several passages copied from a student paper from a
previous semester.
Student response: I was tutored by [that student] in writing my
paper. I met with her and she
helped me form an outline as to what to make my closing
arguments. I did not mean to copy her
46. ideas.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: Several passages copied and reworded from an online
source.
Student response: When I went online and compared the website
to the text, I thought the
website was the same exact information as the text. So, when I
was writing this paper, I
assumed it was alright to use these ideas from the online
website to incorporate into my paper
because I truly believed that this information was no different
than the original text that we
should use. I did not think I was taking someone else's work and
publishing it as my own.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: Four sentences copied and reworded from an online
source.
Student response: I did look at that website, but not until after I
had finished writing my paper,
and I didn’t copy and reword those sentences. The similarities
between the sentences are only
because there are so few ways of explaining the argument at
issue in her paper.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: Extensive plagiarism from a website
Student response: I do not necessarily think it's fair to say it
was extensive plagiarism, as the
argument from the source was very similar to one we discussed
in class, and it was only about
one paragraph in my paper out of four pages where I expressed
47. my opinion on it. I should have
put quotes around things that were similar to the source, and I
also should have stated the
source.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: Large portions of a graded draft of the paper were
directly copied from a website
Student response: I did extract some paragraphs directly form
online, This is because first
draft paper is just a draft... And in the final paper, I would
definitely will not use these sentences
from online. I am not that stupid. I did not commit plagirism
because I am going to use it as my
own paper.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
Charge: Three sentences of a graded draft were copied from
three different websites and
reworded.
Student response: I admit that the three sentences identified
were not my original work.
Because this was a rough draft, I did not take the time to
remove the references, cite them or to
rephrase the ideas into my own words.
Decision: Upheld charge of plagiarism, failing grade on
assignment
1
48. Some common mistakes in philosophy papers
Colin Marshall, Feb. 2018
This is a work in progress. Comments and suggestions are
welcome!
In the typical philosophy paper, your aim is to convincingly,
efficiently, and clearly make a
focused point that an intelligent but uninformed reader could
understand. Below are some
common mistakes students make that keep them from achieving
that aim.
Assumptions about your reader
Mistake: Assuming that, since your paper makes sense to you, it
will make sense to your reader.
Why this is a mistake: Your reader isn’t approaching your paper
with your same background and
way of thinking. So it’s part of your job to spell things out in
such a way that a patient, thoughtful
reader can understand. This requires some intellectual empathy:
imaging how your sentences will
seem to someone who has been thinking about different things
in different terms.
Mistake: Assuming background knowledge on the reader’s part.
Why this is a mistake: A good philosophy paper is one that any
intelligent reader could
understand, even if she did not have any background knowledge
of philosophy.
49. Stylistic mistakes
Mistake: Writing more abstractly than you need to.
Example of this mistake:
“The conceptual space in which the objection is considered can
shift the reasons for denying the
acceptability of the dialectical context.”
Why this is a mistake: Abstract language is typically harder to
understand than concrete language,
and much more open to misunderstandings. Your writing will be
more efficient and (so) more
convincing if it is simple.
Mistake: Writing long sentences.
Why this is a mistake: Longer sentences take more mental work
to understand, and so reduce
your reader’s ability to understand (and so be convinced by)
what you’re saying.
Mistake: Using lots of semi-colons
Why this is a mistake: Semi-colons are somewhat difficult to
use well. They’re often used in
ways that make a sentence longer than it needs to be (see
previous mistake). It’s safest to just
avoid them.
Mistake: Using demonstratives and pronouns without clear
antecedents for them.
Example of this mistake: “Kant claims that the space is merely a
form of intuition and that
transcendental realism is false. He assumes that it is self-
evident.”
Why this is a mistake: The reader cannot easily figure out what
“it” in the second sentence here
refers back to. This can also occur with “this,” “that,” “the
50. former,” “the latter,” and all pronouns.
If it’s not clear from the written context what these would
mean, then give the full noun instead.
2
Small-scale content mistakes
Mistake: Using jargon without defining it.
Why this is a mistake: Undefined jargon makes it impossible for
an intelligent but uninformed
reader to fully understand what you are saying. Your reader has
to guess what a term or phrase
means.
Mistake: Using jargon, acronyms, and abbreviations (even
defined ones) when they are not
needed.
Why this is a mistake: Jargon makes a paper harder for an
intelligent but uninformed reader to
understand what you are saying. Even if you provide
definitions, your reader has to keep track of
what the jargon, acronyms, and abbreviates mean.
Mistake: Adding formalism (symbols, mathematics, etc.) when
it’s not needed.
Why this is a mistake: In rare cases, formalism is needed to
make a point clearly, and some topics
in philosophy are about formal issues. But most of the time,
formalism just makes the paper
harder to read (see previous mistake).
Mistake: Giving more definitions and background than is
51. needed.
Why this is a mistake: You want to make your core point as
efficiently as possible. Adding more
definitions and background takes up some of your reader’s
attention, and so leaves less mental
space for your point to sink in. So you have to make a judgment
call about which words really
need definitions, and which ones don’t (most don’t).
Mistake: Not distinguishing uses of a word from mentions of it.
Example of this mistake: “The term metaphysics refers to the
study of ultimate reality.”
Why this is a mistake: When you’re talking about (mentioning)
a word, such as “metaphysics,”
that word should be in quotation marks. When you’re using the
word to talk about something in
the usual way, you don’t need quotation marks.
Mistake: Using rhetorical questions.
Example of this mistake: “Does Kant really think that everyone
will agree with him that space is
infinite?”
Why this is a mistake: A rhetorical question doesn’t give
reasons for accepting or rejecting some
claim, but merely indicates that it should be accepted or
rejected. Philosophical writing is about
giving reasons. In addition, any rhetorical question can be
rewritten as a direct statement. Doing
so almost always makes it easier for the reader to follow.
Finally, many rhetorical questions have
the effect of alienating those who disagree with the implication
(think about how you’d feel if you
read “Is anyone really stupid enough to spend their time reading
about common mistakes in
philosophy papers?”), and so make it harder to convince those
readers.
52. Larger-scale content mistakes
Mistake: Discussing the author or the author’s presentation of
her view, instead of the view itself.
Example of this mistake:
“Conway begins her second chapter with a summary…”
“Kant seems to be biased in favor of…”
Why this is a mistake: Philosophy is primarily interested in
figuring out whether we should
accept or reject certain views. Most of the time, when we want
to decide whether a view is right,
it’s just not relevant who the person is who proposed the view,
or how they chose to present it.
3
(There are exceptions to this, such as when a person’s identity
or position gives them special
justification for making some claim.)
Mistake: Trying to include multiple objections or arguments.
Why this is a mistake: For most philosophy writing, it takes an
entire paper to make one point or
argument well. You might have a number of good points in
mind, but if you try to include more
than one, chances are that you won’t be able to make any of
them persuasively. Aim to make one
point decisively, in a way that anticipates (and deals with)
likely ways your reader might
misunderstand you.
Mistake: Using hand-wave-y, grandiose claims, especially at the
beginning of the paper.
53. Example of this mistake: “For millennia, philosophers have
tried to discover the nature of
consciousness.”
Why this is a mistake: These sorts of claims don’t help you
make your argument, and are
typically either highly ambiguous or false.
Mistake: Not giving an independent reason for why you reject
the conclusion.
Example of this mistake: “I believe that Strawson’s claim that
we lack free will is incorrect, since
my choices are free. As an example, I freely chose to come to
class today. Since I made this free
choice, I have free will.”
Why this is a mistake: To convince someone of a claim, it’s
rarely enough to just state the claim.
You want to give reasons in favor of the claim that could draw
your reader in. Those reasons
should be distinct from the claim itself, not just another
formulation of the claim.
Mistake: Sliding between talk of representations and of objects
Example of this mistake: “We make choices because we have an
idea of our free will.”
Why this is a mistake: Normally, we don’t think it’s our idea of
free will that explains why we
make choices, but free will itself. Don’t talk of ideas, beliefs,
opinions unless that’s really your
topic.
Words and phrases to avoid
Here are some words that I often see misused in student papers
(though some of these uses would
be fine in other contexts). It’s best to just avoid them unless
you’re sure you really need them:
54. • “logic”/“logical”/“illogical”: These terms have a specific,
technical use in philosophy,
concerning inferential relations. Do not use them to mean
“good”/ “bad” or “reasonable”/
“unreasonable.”
• “valid”/ “invalid”: These terms also have a specific technical
use in philosophy. “Valid”
is used to describe arguments or inferences where, if the
premises were true, the
conclusion would have to be true (so an argument can be valid
even when its premises
are false). Arguments or inferences without that property are
invalid. Do not use these
words to mean “good”/ “bad” or “reasonable”/ “unreasonable.”
And do not talk about
individual claims being valid or invalid – only arguments have
those properties.
• “sound” / “unsound”: These terms also have a specific
technical use in philosophy.
“Sound” is used to describe arguments or inferences that are
valid (in the above sense)
and have true premises. Arguments or inferences without that
property are unsound. Do
not use these words to mean “good”/ “bad” or “reasonable”/
“unreasonable.” And do not
talk about individual claims being sound or unsound – only
arguments have those
properties.
4
55. • “true argument”: Philosophers never say that an argument or
inference is true. Arguments
and inferences can be valid and sound (see above), but only
claims, statements, and
propositions can be true. Same goes for “false.”
• “infers”: This word is fine if it’s talking about something a
person does. For example:
“From the fact that he thinks, Descartes infers that he exists.”
But students sometimes use
it to mean “implies,” as in: “The fact that Descartes thinks
infers that he exists.” Don’t
use it in this second way. For philosophers, implication is a
logical relation that holds
between facts or propositions. Inferring is an action a thinker
performs.
• “rational”: Rationality is a fascinating and difficult
philosophical topic. When you say
something is rational, you are bringing that topic into your
discussion. Unless you’re
actually writing about rationality, it’s better to leave this word
out.
• “essential”/“essentially”: Essences are a fascinating and
difficult philosophical topic in
metaphysics (some philosophers deny essences exist). When you
mention essentiality,
you are bringing that topic into your discussion. Unless you’re
actually writing about this
metaphysical issue, it’s better to leave this word out.
• “obviously”: Very little is obvious in philosophy. Moreover,
stating that a claim is
obvious does not give your reader any reason to accept it. Never
assume that the views
56. you are arguing against are stupid.
• “proves”/ “refutes” / “demonstrates”: In philosophy, these
terms indicate certain success.
If you have proven something, you have shown that it is true
with 100% certainty, and if
you have refuted something, you have shown it is false with
100% certainty. That kind of
success happens in philosophy, but it’s rare enough that most
professional philosophers
avoid claiming to have proven or refuted anything unless
they’re working within a formal
system like modal logic.
• “subjective” / “objective”: These terms are used in a wide
number of ways in philosophy
(there are books and articles about their different meanings!). In
fact, they have so many
meanings that you shouldn’t use them without explaining what
you mean by them. Better
to just leave them out unless the topic really calls for them.
• “highlight”: Students sometimes use this word to mean
“claim” or “state.” What it means,
though, is to draw attention to something that we’re already
aware of.
• “begs the question”: In philosophy, this term has a specific
technical meaning. It
describes the mistake of using a premise in one’s argument
when that premise could only
be justifiably accepted if one already were justified in accepting
the conclusion of the
argument (a form of circular reasoning). In non-academic
English, however, this phrase
is instead often used to mean “raises a question.” To avoid
57. confusion, avoid the phrase
altogether unless you really need the philosophical sense.