My progress in this class went from uncertainty to discovery. I was unconvinced of my own philosophy. I started to realize my strengths and weaknesses and even learned that I have a unique voice. I learned to let go of my often-stubborn beliefs allowing me to learn by going through the often-hellish revisions of my assignments. My voice and thinking have developed significantly. I found myself focused on injustice and fair play in the world. Taking & retaking tests made me realize the improvements I needed in analytical, cohesive thinking. Taking an online course affords a student freedom and self-motivation.
Pam Coursey 12-11-06
PS: This was exactly 100 words without the title or my name & date at the end, and of course, this PS.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Discuss the difference between values and ethics.
Values are principles, standards, or qualities considered worthwhile or desirable, while Ethics are principles of right or good conduct or a body of such principles.
Every aspect of human behavior is governed by personal values. The definitions and interpretations differ from period to period, location to location, and situation to situation. Some human values have remained intact through centuries (i.e. courage) while others have declined (value of life).
Ethics are principles or standards of human conduct and are called morals. The moral regulation of behavior has been necessary to the society’s well-being. Morals were developed after religious taboos were violated by poor behavior (sins) and became habit or custom. Morals were formalized and made into arbitrary standards of conduct.
We should try our best to abide by the highest ethical standards and be quick to criticize when we fail or we see others fail to do the same.
Every aspect of human behavior is governed by personal values. The definitions and interpretations differ from period to period, location to location, and situation to situation. Some human values have remained intact through centuries (i.e. courage) while others have declined (value of life).
Ethics are principles or standards of human conduct and are called morals. The moral regulation of behavior has been necessary to the society’s well-being. Morals were developed after religious taboos were violated by poor behavior (sins) and became habit or custom. Morals were formalized and made into arbitrary standards of conduct.
We should try our best to abide by the highest ethical standards and be quick to criticize when we fail or we see others fail to do the same.
Is it possible to judge another culture? Why or why not?
I believe everyone has personal preferences and prejudices. Cultural diversity is what makes humanity not so boring. It would be very sad if we were all alike. I think it is important to make difficult situation into an opportunity to learn how to provide culturally sensitive care. Of course, you may have opinions about a particular group of people, but that should be left aside if you are providing a service for the culturally different person. First off, if you do not speak someone’s language, you should find a good interpreter.
Different cultures have different beliefs. For instances, Muslim women are extremely modest, and Muslim families expect respect for that modesty and often ask for a female to always be present during a physicians examination. The Muslim faith considers the left hand unclean, so a pregnant patient would only wish to have your right hand touch her abdomen. The Islam faith fasts from sunrise to sunset during their holy month of Ramadan. Culturally sensitive care would have the health care provider prescribe a drug that could be taken only twice a day, once before dawn and once after sunset. Islam does allow exceptions to the fasting rules for the elderly or lactating women, but someone unfamiliar with the religion and culture might not know that. Also, knowledge of acceptable foods would be vital to providing culturally sensitive care. For instance, chicken and raisins are “cold” foods in the Puerto Rican community in New York. A woman who has just delivered a baby is encouraged to avoid “cold” foods in favor of “hot” foods, like corn meal or garlic.
Many healthcare workers may just throw their hands up in defeat when confronted with a patient who might seem noncompliant or difficult to understand. Prejudice is certainly a factor. This occurs when one person doesn’t understand another person’s heritage and generalizes about an entire culture. Communication and education is vital for respecting cultural diversity. There are language differences, verbal and nonverbal behaviors difficulties, and silence. Education to incorporate an awareness of cultural differences is a step in the right direction. People need to bring things up about different cultural matters so that others will be aware of our differences.
Different cultures have different beliefs. For instances, Muslim women are extremely modest, and Muslim families expect respect for that modesty and often ask for a female to always be present during a physicians examination. The Muslim faith considers the left hand unclean, so a pregnant patient would only wish to have your right hand touch her abdomen. The Islam faith fasts from sunrise to sunset during their holy month of Ramadan. Culturally sensitive care would have the health care provider prescribe a drug that could be taken only twice a day, once before dawn and once after sunset. Islam does allow exceptions to the fasting rules for the elderly or lactating women, but someone unfamiliar with the religion and culture might not know that. Also, knowledge of acceptable foods would be vital to providing culturally sensitive care. For instance, chicken and raisins are “cold” foods in the Puerto Rican community in New York. A woman who has just delivered a baby is encouraged to avoid “cold” foods in favor of “hot” foods, like corn meal or garlic.
Many healthcare workers may just throw their hands up in defeat when confronted with a patient who might seem noncompliant or difficult to understand. Prejudice is certainly a factor. This occurs when one person doesn’t understand another person’s heritage and generalizes about an entire culture. Communication and education is vital for respecting cultural diversity. There are language differences, verbal and nonverbal behaviors difficulties, and silence. Education to incorporate an awareness of cultural differences is a step in the right direction. People need to bring things up about different cultural matters so that others will be aware of our differences.
Explain and discuss the following claim by William James: “We have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready to call it false
William James was a pragmatist. He believed that what was true was good. James promotes life, health, and happiness. His concept of truth is that true ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot. James rejects the idea that truth is static. He believes that "truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events." He describes this by telling of a man who is lost in the woods and is starving. The man sees a cow path and reasons that it should lead to a farmer's house. If it does, he saves himself. This was an obvious and practical result for James.
James states: "Truth for us is simply a collective name for verification processes, just as health, wealth, strength, etc. are names for other processes connected with life, and also pursued because it pays to pursue them. Truth is made, just as health, wealth, and strength are made, in the course of experience."
One of the most controversial statements of James is that "we have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood." The simple reality is that today what we believe to be truth may be discarded tomorrow for a better truth, or a better description of the facts. Pragmatists conclude that pragmatism supports a relativity of truth position.
Looking at the opposite of truth, falsehood, James states that untrue beliefs work as harmfully in the long run as true beliefs work beneficially.
James tried to verify his theory of truth. When something is verified, it is known as truth.
James was someone who believed that he could find truth by the use of drugs and did experiment with substances that made him hallucinate. I totally disagree with the use of drugs for any purpose, other than to save a life. However, I am willing to believe that it may be proved that a drug such as marijuana is completely harmless and even good for a person to use in the future. I am a person who has “free will” and I still will make a choice not to partake in it.
I know that today alcohol is no better a substance than marijuana, but it is a legal drug. I make a choice not to partake of either as I truly believe that I was born with only so many brain cells and I believe that substance abuse destroys brain cells…..I need all of the brain cells I have!
James states: "Truth for us is simply a collective name for verification processes, just as health, wealth, strength, etc. are names for other processes connected with life, and also pursued because it pays to pursue them. Truth is made, just as health, wealth, and strength are made, in the course of experience."
One of the most controversial statements of James is that "we have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood." The simple reality is that today what we believe to be truth may be discarded tomorrow for a better truth, or a better description of the facts. Pragmatists conclude that pragmatism supports a relativity of truth position.
Looking at the opposite of truth, falsehood, James states that untrue beliefs work as harmfully in the long run as true beliefs work beneficially.
James tried to verify his theory of truth. When something is verified, it is known as truth.
James was someone who believed that he could find truth by the use of drugs and did experiment with substances that made him hallucinate. I totally disagree with the use of drugs for any purpose, other than to save a life. However, I am willing to believe that it may be proved that a drug such as marijuana is completely harmless and even good for a person to use in the future. I am a person who has “free will” and I still will make a choice not to partake in it.
I know that today alcohol is no better a substance than marijuana, but it is a legal drug. I make a choice not to partake of either as I truly believe that I was born with only so many brain cells and I believe that substance abuse destroys brain cells…..I need all of the brain cells I have!
Explain and discuss the following claim by William James: “We have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready to call it false
William James was a pragmatist. He believed that what was true was good. James promotes life, health, and happiness. His concept of truth is that true ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot. James rejects the idea that truth is static. He believes that "truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events." He describes this by telling of a man who is lost in the woods and is starving. The man sees a cow path and reasons that it should lead to a farmer's house. If it does, he saves himself. This was an obvious and practical result for James.
James states: "Truth for us is simply a collective name for verification processes, just as health, wealth, strength, etc. are names for other processes connected with life, and also pursued because it pays to pursue them. Truth is made, just as health, wealth, and strength are made, in the course of experience."
One of the most controversial statements of James is that "we have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood." The simple reality is that today what we believe to be truth may be discarded tomorrow for a better truth, or a better description of the facts. Pragmatists conclude that pragmatism supports a relativity of truth position.
Looking at the opposite of truth, falsehood, James states that untrue beliefs work as harmfully in the long run as true beliefs work beneficially.
James tried to verify his theory of truth. When something is verified, it is known as truth.
James was someone who believed that he could find truth by the use of drugs and did experiment with substances that made him hallucinate. I totally disagree with the use of drugs for any purpose, other than to save a life. However, I am willing to believe that it may be proved that a drug such as marijuana is completely harmless and even good for a person to use in the future. I am a person who has “free will” and I still will make a choice not to partake in it.
I know that today alcohol is no better a substance than marijuana, but it is a legal drug. I make a choice not to partake of either as I truly believe that I was born with only so many brain cells and I believe that substance abuse destroys brain cells…..I need all of the brain cells I have!
James states: "Truth for us is simply a collective name for verification processes, just as health, wealth, strength, etc. are names for other processes connected with life, and also pursued because it pays to pursue them. Truth is made, just as health, wealth, and strength are made, in the course of experience."
One of the most controversial statements of James is that "we have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood." The simple reality is that today what we believe to be truth may be discarded tomorrow for a better truth, or a better description of the facts. Pragmatists conclude that pragmatism supports a relativity of truth position.
Looking at the opposite of truth, falsehood, James states that untrue beliefs work as harmfully in the long run as true beliefs work beneficially.
James tried to verify his theory of truth. When something is verified, it is known as truth.
James was someone who believed that he could find truth by the use of drugs and did experiment with substances that made him hallucinate. I totally disagree with the use of drugs for any purpose, other than to save a life. However, I am willing to believe that it may be proved that a drug such as marijuana is completely harmless and even good for a person to use in the future. I am a person who has “free will” and I still will make a choice not to partake in it.
I know that today alcohol is no better a substance than marijuana, but it is a legal drug. I make a choice not to partake of either as I truly believe that I was born with only so many brain cells and I believe that substance abuse destroys brain cells…..I need all of the brain cells I have!
Identify and discuss four of the six characteristics by which Velasquez distinguishes science from pseudoscience.
Science deals with natural phenomena that can be observed, measured, and tested. It is successful in dealing with problems within the limits of science. Scientific study is based upon the assumption that the universe is orderly, reasonable, and testable. A valid scientific theory offers a well-defined naturally occurring cause which explains why or how a natural event occurs. Theories are always subject to change. Science does not have the answers to all of the questions in the universe, or the solutions to all of human problems.
There are six criteria of science: Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative. The acronym "CONPTT" makes a good memory hook. 1. Consistency: The results of repeated observations concerning a naturally occurring event are the same when performed and repeated by proficient examiners. The evidence is also compatible with well-established observations and limits. 2. Observable: The event under study can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as a microscope. 3. Natural: A natural cause must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test. 4. Predictability: The natural cause of the naturally occurring event can be used to make predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true of false. 5. Testable: The natural cause of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. 6. Tentative: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.
Emerging science (protoscience) may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria, but falls short in one or more of the criteria. Mental telepathy could be considered as a "protoscience".
Non-science may be defined as an area of knowledge which does not meet the
criteria of science (CONPTT). Non-science topic areas may be very logical and based on good reasoning, but simply do not fall within the realm of science. They would include any belief systems.
False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science that is portrayed as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include astrology, parapsychology, paramid power, and UFO’s.
I ain’t that crazy about Manuel Velasquez and the writing of this book. 4 of his conclusions are scientific methods are made of empiricists (observations), rationalists (simplicity), and transcendental idealists (reasoning ideas into nature). He says scientific methods rely on inductive method of organization, generalization, and repeated confirmation by new observations. And, he says science can formulate a hypothesis that can guide research that can then be tested by observation. The theory must be falsifiable, that is, it must be able to make predictions.
There are six criteria of science: Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative. The acronym "CONPTT" makes a good memory hook. 1. Consistency: The results of repeated observations concerning a naturally occurring event are the same when performed and repeated by proficient examiners. The evidence is also compatible with well-established observations and limits. 2. Observable: The event under study can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as a microscope. 3. Natural: A natural cause must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test. 4. Predictability: The natural cause of the naturally occurring event can be used to make predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true of false. 5. Testable: The natural cause of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. 6. Tentative: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.
Emerging science (protoscience) may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria, but falls short in one or more of the criteria. Mental telepathy could be considered as a "protoscience".
Non-science may be defined as an area of knowledge which does not meet the
criteria of science (CONPTT). Non-science topic areas may be very logical and based on good reasoning, but simply do not fall within the realm of science. They would include any belief systems.
False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science that is portrayed as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include astrology, parapsychology, paramid power, and UFO’s.
I ain’t that crazy about Manuel Velasquez and the writing of this book. 4 of his conclusions are scientific methods are made of empiricists (observations), rationalists (simplicity), and transcendental idealists (reasoning ideas into nature). He says scientific methods rely on inductive method of organization, generalization, and repeated confirmation by new observations. And, he says science can formulate a hypothesis that can guide research that can then be tested by observation. The theory must be falsifiable, that is, it must be able to make predictions.
In what way is Kant said to have wrought a Copernican revolution in knowledge?
Immanuel Kant brought together rationalism and empiricism, like Copernicus thought it out and decided the planets do not evolved around the earth. After Kant, nobody discussed the reality or knowledge without being aware of the role of the human mind in constructing reality and knowledge.
Kant found that rationalists do not trust their senses, although his way of thinking was that human must trust their senses. Rationalists also believed in reasoning to provide knowledge, which does not always work.
Kant found empiricists had no innate ideas. Empiricists tend to think general or complex ideas are derived by abstraction from simple ideas. We can think hard, but we will never escape the innate constraints of our minds.
Thus, according to Kant:
Both rationalism and empiricism claimed we can know things in themselves, and both were wrong.
Rationalists were wrong not to trust senses; in the phenomenal world, senses are all we have.
Rationalists were right about innate ideas, like Descartes’ in argument of the wax.
Hume was wrong when he claimed the concept of self is unsupported by senses.
Hume was wrong when he said that the future will resemble the past is due only to custom & habit”.
Hume was wrong when he says the source of our morality is our feelings. Morality links the noumenal (real) and phenomenal (apparent) worlds. Kant argues that if morality is real, then human freedom is real. So, humans are not merely creatures of the phenomenal world.
I’m still sticking to my females “guns!”
Kant found that rationalists do not trust their senses, although his way of thinking was that human must trust their senses. Rationalists also believed in reasoning to provide knowledge, which does not always work.
Kant found empiricists had no innate ideas. Empiricists tend to think general or complex ideas are derived by abstraction from simple ideas. We can think hard, but we will never escape the innate constraints of our minds.
Thus, according to Kant:
Both rationalism and empiricism claimed we can know things in themselves, and both were wrong.
Rationalists were wrong not to trust senses; in the phenomenal world, senses are all we have.
Rationalists were right about innate ideas, like Descartes’ in argument of the wax.
Hume was wrong when he claimed the concept of self is unsupported by senses.
Hume was wrong when he said that the future will resemble the past is due only to custom & habit”.
Hume was wrong when he says the source of our morality is our feelings. Morality links the noumenal (real) and phenomenal (apparent) worlds. Kant argues that if morality is real, then human freedom is real. So, humans are not merely creatures of the phenomenal world.
I’m still sticking to my females “guns!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)