Does Reason have Enemies?

Enemies of Reason. What does this statement mean?

Religious Extremists

Can atheists be angry like religious fundamentalists? They can get angry of course, but would they, for instance, blow themselves up, taking hundreds of innocent lives with them? I can't imagine so. Atheists believe that this life is it, and when you die, it's all over. Doesn't sound like the type of person who would blow themselves up to me. A radical Muslim has been brainwashed into believing that such an action will land him in paradise, complete with a harem of "virgins." These people are definitely enemies of reason. "What is wrong with believing in a God?" the question states. Nothing. What is wrong is believing that God commands His believers to kill those who do not believe. I am not saying that all Muslims believe this. I am not saying that most of them do either. I have not read the Qur'an, and so I cannot make assertions either way as to what exactly it tells Muslims to do. Anyone who has please leave comments.
Following God's true Will will never be harmful. Those who strap themselves with explosives or hi-jack planes are NOT FOLLOWING GOD'S WILL. So far I have only mentioned Muslims. How about the crusades, or "Holy Wars" of medieval times? Catholics fought in bloody battles against Muslims. But the Muslims did not instigate the wars. These "Christians" believed that God wanted them to purge the world of the Muslims. That is so against the teachings of Jesus! But the crusaders of this time did not listen to His teachings. Read this from Wikipedia:
"In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins."
All of the Christians who fought in this war did not listen to what God wanted them to do, they listened to what a MAN wanted them to do, this Pope Urban II. He brainwashed them with promises that fighting would gain remission of their sins. If these Christians read their Bibles, they would know that the ONLY person who can cleanse a person of sin is Jesus Christ. Jesus gave His life for all of us. From that point on, it became the mission of Christians to follow Jesus' teachings and spread the Gospel, or "good news," for everyone to hear. To hear, not accept or die! That's what the crusaders were guilty of, which is just what the radical Muslims today are guilty of. But what about all the fighting and wars documented in the Bible? It is a grave mistake to take that as any sort of instruction to take up arms against those who don't believe. If everything in the Bible was taken as something OK for us to do, that would be ridiculous! Under that premise, someone could take any instance of one person in the Bible committing murder and say that it is OK to do so. This is an example of taking the Scriptures out of context, which is something that should never be done.

To conclude, those who truly follow God will not be harmful to mankind, but those who follow earthly leaders who have abused their power and influence and twisted God's words to fit their agendas are. The same for people who take the words of the Bible, or Qur'an or whatever out of context and apply them in a way that suits them personally.

Psychics

What is the harm in psychics and fortune-telling, Tarot reading cards &c.? If these people want to do this, are they not affecting only themselves? Well, the thing is, people who believe in these things can have their emotions manipulated by these "psychics." And most of the time, it's not just emotional damage these people can do. They can empty your wallet. Watch the video.



Just one way "psychics" can scam you out of your money. But money is just on the surface! What really matters are peoples' emotions and, as seen in Richard Dawkin's documentary during the seance, these can be manipulated by "psychic" readers with ease. How is a person who has lost a loved one supposed to have peace if they are constantly pursuing them? They need to accept that they are gone from their life, and posthumous conversations with them are not going to resolve these feelings! They say at first that they need closure, but as the video states, most of the congregation are regulars. They have not moved on, and are addicted to what they think is being in the presence of their departed friends and family. True, this may be soothing for some of these people, but this entire thing could cause some to go mad. Or what if the "psychic" reader had a change of heart, and decided to reveal that he was a fake? What would the emotional response of these victims then be? I will say no more on the matter; I think I have said enough to make my point.

What is the harm in believing in a superstition?

I have a facebook account. I am a member of a number of groups on facebook, one of which is, "No, I don't care if I die at 12 a.m, I refuse to pass on your chain letter!" I loved this group and joined at once. I have seen some chain letters in my time. (Oddly enough, they are usually asking for an increment of money...) I find them laughable, but what is NOT funny is the fact that some people take them seriously! This can be very harmful, depending on the "instructions" of the chain letter. But just what is a chain letter, you might ask? Here's a definition, courtesy Dictionary.com: "A letter sent to a number of people, each of whom is asked to make and mail copies to other people who are to do likewise, often used as a means of spreading a message or raising money."

Seems harmless enough. Often these letters request putting a dollar in or even just a penny. It's just a get-rich-quick scheme, and often messages like this one will appear:

LITTLE JESSICA STROM IS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFERING FROM AN ACUTE AND VERY RARE CASE OF CEREBRAL CARCINOMA. THIS CONDITION CAUSES SEVERE MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS AND IS A TERMINAL ILLNESS. THE DOCTORS HAVE GIVEN HER SIX MONTHS TO LIVE.AS PART OF HER DYING WISH, SHE WANTED TO START A CHAIN LETTER TO INFORM PEOPLE OF THIS CONDITION AND TO SEND PEOPLE THE MESSAGE TO LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST AND ENJOY EVERY MOMENT, A CHANCE THAT SHE WILL NEVER HAVE. FURTHERMORE, THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND SEVERAL CORPORATE SPONSORS HAVE AGREED TO DONATE THREE CENTS TOWARD CONTINUING CANCER RESEARCH FOR EVERY NEW PERSON THAT GETS FORWARDED THIS MESSAGE. PLEASE GIVE JESSICA AND ALL CANCER VICTIMS A CHANCE.
http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/cyberspace/folklore/examples.shtml

Now I would not trust this one bit. First of all it's in all caps. They can't have good intentions writing in all caps. Anyway, con artists use tear-jerker stories like this to turn 1 dollar into 1000 bucks. What's the harm in one dollar? Well, this example might be innocuous enough, but take this example: Imagine someone gets a letter telling them to pass on the letter with 5 Euros enclosed to another person, or they will receive 7 years of bad luck. Let's say this person thinks about it rationally and tosses the letter in the bin. What if, by chance, the person has a bad day the next day? Or gets a paper cut when throwing away the letter, then falls down the stairs due to unnecessary paranoia? That person might abandon reason and start to believe that the unfortunate events, which would have transpired whether the letter was binned or passed on, were caused by the chain letter. A person could potentially be driven to dumpster-diving just to retrieve the letter and send it on. The problem is a Confirmation bias of sorts. Bad things happen to the person by coincidence, and they start to connect those things to the letter, and from that point on, every unfortunate event is seen as confirmation that the chain letter is genuine. It's just like the pigeon that connected looking over its right shoulder to getting fed. It happened, by chance, a second time. It jumped to conclusions. By merely the second time it took it as confirmation that the particular action led to food. And what happened with the pigeon? It became an obsession, looking over the shoulder. Superstitions can lead to obsessive behaviour, which is dangerous to the person guilty of superstition, and possibly those around them.

In closing, I will say that many of these things can definitely be harmful to mankind.

Inductive or Deductive? Contemplation is the greatest good...

What I believe he is referring to is the importance of thinking (or contemplating) about what you are going to do or say before you do it. He is discouraging rash actions or statements. This is basically what my parents instilled in me at a young age, “Always think before you act. Consider the potential consequences of your actions.” I usually plan what I am going to say before a syllable leaves my lips, and consider the possible outcomes of my actions, or at least, I try my best to do so. I think that this is what Aristotle was talking about. Only fools act rashly, and it would a disservice to one’s self and others to not think before acting. This is why contemplation is indeed the greatest good.
I surmise this statement to be formed from inductive reasoning, on the premise that the statement itself is rather vague, and seems to have been formed by more specific instances.
Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore, I am. Said by Descartes. It’s similar to Aristotle’s statement, but not the same. Aristotle’s statement is more of a general statement, able to be interpreted in different ways. Descartes’ statement is a bit more specific. He uses the first person perspective, which automatically assumes that the only thing he truly knows is that he thinks. He cannot know that other people think for certain and therefore he cannot know that others exist, but for in his own mind (this guy might really have enjoyed The Matrix). Perhaps “Contemplation is the greatest good” has more significant meaning than I have written about above. Maybe Aristotle’s statement inspired the statement that I believe to be far more profound: I think, therefore, I am. Perhaps Aristotle meant that Contemplation leads to truth, and knowing one’s self at a higher level than ever before. Considerably more deep than simply thinking before acting! So what right do I have to say that one statement is more or less profound than the other? None! Let’s just agree that they are both statements that were brought about with a substantial amount of thought on both philosophers’ respective parts. They are also both quite similar in nature, and merit a good deal of open-minded contemplation.

School of lateral thinking list

What if....

• Students took turns teaching each other: no teacher. Just a supervisor.
• Vending machine tokens were awarded for homework turned in early.
• Homework passes awarded for every 7 or really high mark on a test.
• Instead of red forms, students had to do extra community service.
• Teachers only got paid for each student that passes their class.
• Students get a monetary reward at the end of the year, but every single lesson they miss or assignment handed in late makes the amount lower. Students could do extra credit assignments and serve detentions cleaning classrooms to redeem lost cash.

That's all I could come up with.

Syllogisms

Syllogisms...

Example:

All humans are sinners.
Paul is a human.
Paul is a sinner.

This syllogism is valid: if all humans are sinners, and Paul is one of those humans, he must be a sinner as well.

Here's another example:

All humans are excellent hunters.
Helen is an excellent hunter.
Helen is a human.

This one is not valid: ignore the fact that not all humans are excellent hunters for the moment and consider, what if Helen is a lioness? She may be an excellent hunter, but a human she's not. One way to make this syllogism valid would be to change All into Only...

Only humans are excellent hunters.
Helen is an excellent hunter.
Helen is a human.

Now it is valid. But it isn't true, is it? Or maybe it is? Depends on your idea of what an excellent hunter is. Readers of The Most Dangerous Game can attest that there is something to be said about the ability of humans to reason.
Let's go back to my first example, about Paul and his sordid transgressions, and discuss the truth or falsity of it:

All humans are sinners. As a Christian and believer in God's Word, this is something I believe to be true. For me, the syllogism is valid and true. I really don't think that anyone can deny that they have done something wrong at some point in their life, but different people do have different moral compasses. People's respective opinions on what is wrong and what is right will no doubt differ from one person to the next. A mass murderer might justify what he does by thinking that we are just animals running around in the aftermath of this "big bang," and that what we do doesn't really matter. Of course there are plenty of believers in these theories who would never kill anyone, so please don't take offense from this; and there are believers in God who commit murder as well. All of this to say, "All humans are sinners" is a statement that has a meaning interpreted differently by everyone. But I do believe that there are certain universal, inexorable truths in the world, and I believe that this syllogism is not only valid, as I have defended, but True.

Optical Illusions as Metaphors

This image is from the artist Shigeo Fukuda. (Source: http://blog.miragestudio7.com/2006/05/architecture-and-optical-illusion/) In case it it not entirely clear as to what this image is, let me explain. It is a photo of a sculpture and its reflection in an adjacent mirror. We can see a piano in the glass, but when we look at the thing from a different angle, we see a deformed monstrosity, bearing very little semblance to real a piano. Indeed, many who look at this photo will be incredulous that it hasn't been doctored in some way. It is hard to believe that the sculpture would look like a piano at any angle, but it does. We humans are wont to seeing things one and only one way. That this could actually look like a piano might be very hard for some to grasp (myself included!).
The topic of this assignment is focusing on the metaphorical or symbolical use of optical illusions. Like most artists, Shigeo did not go through the immense effort of making this work purely for the fun of it; he is sure to have a meaning behind it. What I believe Shigeo is trying to say is that something or someone can have an outward appearance, or façade if you will, that is deceptive as to its true nature. People can change how they act around other people, and behave and talk the way that they know they are expected to. This is just a front, and to approach them from a different angle, or to get closer to them, would be to expose their true character. The reflection of the piano looks perfect, and it has been made to look that way. What happens when we see the true form of the sculpture? What happens when someone lets slip a secret that they perhaps did not intend to disclose? We see the true character. How we interpret what we see is different to every individual. Some may look at the sculpture above, and their response could be, "Man, that is actually an ugly sculpture." It might, on the other hand, attract their imagination, inspire them. The idea is that we cannot always take what we see at face value. We should always inspect, investigate, endeavour to learn as much as we can about our world, in order to truly understand its wonders.

Of course, art is all about interpretation, and it's different for everyone! If anyone who reads this blog wants to leave comments on how they interpret this sculpture, then please feel free to do so!

Animals and their Use (or lack thereof) of Language

Two questions: Do animals use language? Do animals communicate?

To the latter posed question, the answer is yes, they certainly do! What do birds communicate when they chirp and whistle their eloquent songs? This is my territory—Stay away from my nest. Bees use elaborate dances to communicate to their hive where honey is to be found. Ants leave pheromone trails that lead the other ants to food. When a cobra opens its hood or a rattlesnake rattles its tail, they are communicating a warning: stay away. Whatever the case, it is apparent that animals communicate, and usually, their meaning comes across quite clearly. That is to say, other animals can interpret and understand communication.

What about the first question? Do animals use language?

We have already established that animals can communicate with one another, so the real question has to be, "Are language and communication synonymous?" Let us look to the dictionary's definition of the words, so that we might compare and contrast them.

Language:
"A body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition."

That's just one definition; there are more: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/language

Communication:
"The imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs."

What can be determined from these definitions is that communication encompasses more than does language, as communication includes language, and language itself is more specific. Language is about the use of words, or sound we make with our mouths, and the use of those words to communicate our thoughts and ideas with each other. Language also discriminates nationality, wheras communication is universal (e.g. a person looking menacingly at someone and cracking their knuckles communicates violence, which anyone can understand; however, if a French person tells an American, "I am going to kill you" in French, the American probably won't understand). Animals don't use words. They don't have a phonetic system or alphabet, and are incapable of expressing specific ideas. But wait, don't animals use sounds? Dogs bark when something alerts them, cats purr when they are content. Does that not fall under language? No. A dog's bark is akin to a man's nondescript grunt of pain, a cat's purr like a satisfied sigh of relief. These are not language specific, for they are broad and universally understood methods of communication.

To that end, I have come to the conclusion that animals, whilst certainly adept at communication, do not use language. However, it is worth noting that different people might have different interpretations on the word language and its definitions. Some might argue that language and communication are indeed the same thing, more or less, and that language includes communication (body language?). My personal opinion is that communication includes language, and if language included communication, the broader term, the respective definitions of the words would be lost. So we must stick to the definitions of the words, and this is why I say that animals do not use language.

*As far as the argument between Dolly and Guy is concerned, I believe that I have provided analysis of both sides of the argument enough to represent the dialogue. Hopefully no further summarisation is neccessary; I feel that I have covered all of the points well enough. I did read the pages, naturally, and it did help me to formulate my ideas and opinions on the matter.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Dicionary.com gives this definition for the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:

A theory developed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf that states that the structure of a language determines or greatly influences the modes of thought and behavior characteristic of the culture in which it is spoken.

Do I agree with this? Definitely. I remember one book I read, in which there is a character who speaks both Arabic and French. When he speaks French, he treats women with respect. When he speaks Arabic, there is far less politeness. Language and culture are very closely linked. A language is really an entire mindset, not just a different list of vocabulary and grammatical rules. Language definitely shapes how you think.

But do I agree with what Mr. Philpot suggested, that thought is not possible without language? No, it is certainly possible. The reason someone might think it is not would be because they, like all of us, have been brought up with language. Our thoughts are in words, and we can't imagine thinking any other way, because the brief time that we did when we were babies, we can't remember. I think the words we use to formulate ideas within our minds are just on the surface. They represent something deeper. [Spoken] Language makes it easier to communicate ideas, but without words, we could still communicate. Take for instance the part in "A day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" where Shukhov is working with Senka. Senka is deaf, and yet the two of them are able to communicate without words. I see that I have gotten off-subject. Back to the original topic of thought being impossible without language, I just don't agree with it.

Article on language

I thought I'd upload this interesting article about the English Language, since we're talking about language now:

"Today when we spell the word "color" instead of "colour" we can thank a crotchety, humorless man for saving wear on our fingers, not to mention savings on paper and those obscenely expensive inkjet printer cartridges. Oct 16 marks the 250th birth anniversary of Noah Webster (1758-1843), lexicographer extraordinaire, who compiled the American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), the first authoritative lexicon of American English.

Webster believed in establishing cultural independence from Britain and as such he emphasized a distinct American spelling and pronunciation. His dictionary listed various unusual and shortened spellings of words. He would hardly have imagined how the tide would turn one day. According to reports, more British children today spell "color" instead of "colour", for example. Webster's suggestion of using "tung" instead of "tongue" didn't stick, though.

Today Webster's name is synonymous with dictionaries and the date of his birth is observed as Dictionary Day. In his honor, this week we'll present words about words. As Webster said, "the process of a living language is like the motion of a broad river which flows with a slow, silent, irresistible current."

Babel Fish

Will Babel Fish ever work satisfactorily? An interesting question, to be sure. There are so many intricacies to language; words have different meanings in different contexts, we use idioms that literally translated mean something completely different than what we mean to say, and so on. That is why online translators give us translations that are sometimes quite comical.
In an episode of the TV series “Get Smart”, there is a character that is a robot. His master has to be careful with what he says to him, because he takes everything literally. The scientist tells the robot to “take off” and pursue agent 86, but the machine-man merely stands in one place and flaps his arms. This is very much like what an online translator would interpret a text.
In order for a translating program to work at its fullest potential, the programmer would have to put every idiomatic expression known to man into the database. Not an easy task by any means. It would be impractical, and it would still be an imperfect system. Babel Fish and Google translate definitely have ample room for improvement, and perhaps they will improve greatly in the next few years, but I don’t think that they will ever be perfect.
Much of understanding language involves making judgments on what we hear based on our knowledge. For instance, if someone says to us, “break a leg,” we know that they are wishing us luck, not physical injury (hopefully). But could a computer discern the difference? If the programmer told the computer that “break a leg” meant “good luck,” then what happens when a text is actually referring to a broken leg? This is why I believe that these things will never be perfect, and that human judgment is needed in a successful interpretation of language.

*EDIT*
In response to Mr. Philpot's comment, "But if you tell a computer to translate 'break' into 'good luck' every time it is mentioned within an immediate proximity of 'a leg', then it can translate it properly. Couldn't it?"
Here is why I disagree. Let's say we have the sentence, "My mom won't let me skateboard; she's afraid I'll break a leg." This would translate into "My mom won't let me skateboard; she's afraid I'll good luck." I really don't believe that there is a way around this.

Identifying reliable internet sources

I decided to research a different myth than the ones suggested (unless I missed something), hopefully that's OK. I chose the rather controversial myth about mobile phones causing brain cancer. Personally I hate cell-phones. Of course, fears of brain tumors are not what makes me dislike them, but all the same I will try to keep any bias out of my reports.

Here is a link to an article bursting at the seams with "evidence" that mobiles are killers, to the point where it seems ridiculous in places.
http://www.rense.com/general63/FACTS.HTM
Maybe it's true, but I don't know; I'm not a scientist. It is clear however that this article's author has a bias against mobile phones stronger than mine, so I am loath to take this article at face value.

Here's an article at the other side of the argument (more accurately, it tells it like it is).
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phones.asp

As it is from the website for the American Cancer Society, most of us would logically assume that it is a trustworthy source. But wait, didn't Mr. Philpot warn us against such "Authority worship"? Bearing that in mind and reading the article, I really don't think it's an issue. The article avoids sounding biased by stating that cell phones might present some risk (so it's not openly denying the possibility), and goes on to give reports from tests. It even states that the testing has been limited (because mobiles haven't been around long). I feel that the article really presents both sides of the controversy equally, and gives the facts. At no point does any emotion enter the text, unlike the first article, in which it is apparent that the author feels quite strongly about this subject. Her emotions perhaps cloud her judgment (I really sounded like Yoda there). Jokes aside, I will finish by saying that the credibility of articles could be determined by:
The source of the article (e.g. some average Joe's blog versus an article from an accredited scientific website, such as nasa.gov)
The feel of the article (i.e. if emotions enter the picture)
How the information is presented (if an article doesn't even talk about the other side of the argument for instance, readers should be careful before accepting it as truth)

A note about emotion in articles: With this example, a writer's feelings or emotions might very well create a bias, which can easily blind them to the truth, or at least limit what they report. However I believe that there are some topics in which writers should put emotion into their words. This particular subject is not one where that should be done, in my opinion.

I was not able to bust this myth, because I'm not a scientist. But looking at these two articles (and others) I would have to say that the risk of getting brain cancer from using cell phones is very small, but to say it is non-existent would be unwise.

Still. I hate mobile phones.

Is School a Cave?

This is my reply to the "Is school a cave" question posed.
You can see the question here: http://teachingheads.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-02-18T12%3A40%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

I think that Plato's cave analogy is definitely very close to what the atmosphere of school is. There are many elements of school that are preparing all of us for life independent of our parents, where we have to learn to fend for ourselves. In fact, more than just school could be considered a cave, our entire childhood, up until graduation, could be considered living in a sheltered environment. It is a sheltered environment, but we are also trapped inside, like prisoners in the cave, until we reach a certain age. The elements of school that prepare us for life outside the cave: Interacting with other people. In school it is with classmates, outside the cave it is with co-workers or neighbours. Obeying orders from superiors. You have to do what the teachers say, or suffer consequences, and in the real world, disobey your boss or break the law, and you can lose your job or go to jail. You have to hand in work on time in school. Miss paying bills in the real world, and you’ll go into debt. The list goes on, and anyone can see that school (whether or not that is its primary purpose) is purely an immense training course for life outside the cave.

What should be taught in schools?

This is my list of what should be taught in schools, and yes, it is biased of course, with music at the top....

1: Theory of Music (Elective class)
2: Music Practical (playing instruments) (Elective class)
3: Visual Arts (for traditional and digital art, such as 3D modelling) (Elective class)
4: Languages (English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese) (Mandatory for at least one language)
5: Theory of Knowledge (Mandatory)
6: Mathematics (Mandatory)
7: Humanities (Geography, History, Economics, Business & Management) (At least one is mandatory)
8: The sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) (At least one is mandatory)
9: Physical fitness/Martial Arts (Elective class)

This is basically what is taught at the AICS, with some minor exceptions. I couldn't really think of anything different.

Religion is not listed because everyone will have different beliefs in a given class group; a class where atheists are taught about God and Christians are taught about Islam is obviously not practical.
Language: In my opinion, every school should offer at least all of those languages listed above.
Visual Arts: In this day and age, programs such as photoshop are being used more and more (e.g. advertisments) and we should be taught how to use it in school.
The Music practical class would simply be a time for students to practise playing their respective instruments. In my opinion, every school should have a concert grand piano... but I am getting off-subject....
I think that it is important that Physical Education be offered in schools, but for other students, their time would be better spent, say, practising the pianoforte, and thus PE shouldn't be mandatory, in my opinion.