Food is of the essence

3 different vegetables in olive oil & garlic,
lettuce & campari tomatoes
with snaper in green sauce w orange peel
(Descartes' Méditations métaphysiques watches close by)

I promised you this.
By the way, food is definitely a philosophical topic!

Topics for review for quiz #1 (Friday, February 3)

Find the topics for review for quiz 1 here.
In addition, here is the Website to your textbook Doing Philosophy. It contains quizzes, flash cards, etc. Play with it and grade yourself.
Remember to bring your own scantron #48/TSM to the test.

By the way, if you have any questions you can post them here.I'll get back to you ASAP.

Why Politicians Get Away With Lying? Post #2

A very interesting article for discussion in the NYTimes: 

First definitions. What's a lie? 

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies

v.intr.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

For Lynn Vavreck, politics is a high-stakes game. She writes:

... in the 2000 Democratic nominating contest, when Al Gore claimed he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” was he lying? Or did his comment seem more like a lie after it was misreported that he said he “invented” the Internet? Or how about this case: was it a lie in January of 1998 when President Clinton forcefully denied he had “sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” adding that he “never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never”? And in 2003, when Colin Powell reported to the United Nations that U.S. intelligence showed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was he lying?

See that these examples are different: The first is a public appearance, Gore was being hyperbolic. The second is a more serious instance: lying under oath. In the third example, Powell (then secretary of state under G. W. Bush) was deceived by the C.I.A. Vavreck makes an interesting point:

 Why do Americans tolerate politicians who lie? Because most political lies are exaggerations or contextual lies. They are lies of omission, or put the way a politician might, they are economies of truth.

 For Sisela Bok, lying has become a norm of politics. Bok makes a good point. If your opponent lies and gets away with it, there is little you can do but to lie as well. And the public? This is why people accept that politicians are liars.

But most of the time, the truth is hard to discern amid the barrage of accusations and counter-accusations about fraud, the broken promises, and the outright lies that fly fast and loose among campaigns. The worst outcome would be for everyone to give up -- for voters to conclude that all politicians lie and for politicians to lie when they think that they will get away with doing so, hoping that enough people will be misled and that others won’t hold it against them.

How about evading instead of "lying"?

More disturbingly, politicians who dodged the question but did so in a smooth, practiced fashion were rated more favorably than those who answered the question but in a less fluid fashion: politicians are better off answering the wrong question well than the right question poorly. (Not all dodges go unnoticed – politicians who answered a question about the war on terrorism by riffing on health care were both caught, and punished.)

 George Lakoff is a linguist. For him, it's a two way street. Voters align themselves with their politician of choice and believe what they say because they believe those things. See it as candidate "X" lying to its base (but for them is not a lie). 

What do you think. Should we accept the fact that politics is this game of partisanship and just turn the other way and let the game go on? Is it just a matter of getting used to it? But a lie is a lie: There were no WMD in Iraq.

Politics can be seen as a theater of different factions pushing their versions of governance. In America this is generally Republican vs. Democrat every four years. But aside from the theater, this is a very serious issue. These versions end up affecting our daily lives and our future. Shouldn't we have a commitment to truth?

I am closing this post this Sunday at 11pm. 

Cheap food? High price

What's good food?

There's a way of problematizing our received idea of what good food is. Let's call it nutri/conomics, the intersection between nutrition habits and the profits of the food industry.*

Check out this revealing article in TIME MAGAZINE about the kind of food we eat. It boils down to a thought experiment: Is it worth spending so many resources to raise animals for food, when doing so is more detrimental in the long run?

Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. When the pig is slaughtered, at about 5 months of age, he'll become sausage or bacon that will sell cheap, feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population. And when the rains come, the excess fertilizer that coaxed so much corn from the ground will be washed into the Mississippi River and down into the Gulf of Mexico, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around. That's the state of your bacon — circa 2009.

Through advertising, the BIG COMPANIES brainwash our appetite into consuming cheap food (by cheap I mean BAD). Can we do something about it? Modifying eating habits: improving our diets, making choices as to what and what not to eat, teaching our children the simple fact that a hamburger with fries and soda at McDonalds cannot become our lunch staple.
_____________
*By nutrition I mean the balance between our food habits and the environment. "Good nutrition" cannot imply just getting animal protein -as factory farming CEO's would like you to believe- without taking into account the environmental degradation of fauna in the sea, land and rivers.   

I am closing this post next Thursday Jan. 19, @ 11pm.

necessary and sufficient conditions

Necessary conditions: If we say that "x is a necessary condition for y," we mean that if we don't have x, then we won't have y. Or put differently, without x, you won't have y. To say that x is a necessary condition for y does not mean that x guarantees y.

Having gasoline in my car (I have a gasoline engine) is a necessary condition for my car to start. Without gasoline (x) my car (y) will not start. Of course, having gasoline in the car does not guarantee that my car will start. There are many other conditions needed for my car to start.

Having oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is a necessary condition for human life. Certainly, having oxygen will not guarantee human life. There are many other conditions needed for human life other than oxygen in the atmosphere.

Being 18 years of age is a necessary condition for being able to buy cigarettes legally in North Carolina. Of course, being 18 does not guarantee that a person will buy cigarettes. There are many other conditions that lead to a person buying cigarettes than being 18 years of age.

Sufficient conditions: If we say that "x is a sufficient condition for y," then we mean that if we have x, we know that y must follow. In other words, x guarantees y.

Earning a total of 950 points (95%) in this Critical Thinking class is a sufficient condition for earning a final grade of A. If you have 950 points for the course, then it must follow that you will have a final grade of A.

Pouring a gallon of freezing water on my sleeping daughter is sufficient to wake her up. If I pour the gallon of freezing water on her then its guaranteed that she will wake up.

Rain pouring from the sky is a sufficient condition for the ground to be wet.

Please note that in none of these example is the sufficient condition also a necessary condition.

For example, it is not necessary to earn 950 points to earn an A in this course. You can earn 920 points to earn an A. (We cannot say that if you do not have 950 points then you can't have an A.)

It is not necessary to pour a gallon of freezing water on my daughter to wake her up. (A wrecking ball against the wall will do it as well.)

Similarly, it is not necessary for rain to be pouring from the sky for the ground to be wet. The sprinkler could be on as well.

Branches of philosophy

1. The Main Branches of Philosophy are divided as to the nature of the questions asked in each area. The integrity of these divisions cannot be rigidly maintained, for one area overlaps into the others.
   1. Axiology: the study of value; the investigation of its nature, criteria, and metaphysical status. More often than not, the term "value theory" is used instead of "axiology" in contemporary discussions even though the term “theory of value” is used with respect to the value or price of goods and services in economics.
      1. Some significant questions in axiology include the following:
         1. Nature of value: is value a fulfillment of desire, a pleasure, a preference, a behavioral disposition, or simply a human interest of some kind?
         2. Criteria of value: de gustibus non (est) disputandum (i.e., (“there's no accounting for tastes”) or do objective standards apply?
         3. Status of value: how are values related to (scientific) facts? What ultimate worth, if any, do human values have?
      2. Axiology is usually divided into two main parts.
         1. Ethics: the study of values in human behavior or the study of moral problems: e.g., (1) the rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) the kinds of things which are good or desirable, and (3) whether actions are blameworthy or praiseworthy.
            1. Consider this example analyzed by J. O. Urmson in his well-known essay, "Saints and Heroes":
               "We may imagine a squad of soldiers to be practicing the throwing of live hand grenades; a grenade slips from the hand of one of them and rolls on the ground near the squad; one of them sacrifices his life by throwing himself on the grenade and protecting his comrades with his own body. It is quite unreasonable to suppose that such a man must be impelled by the sort of emotion that he might be impelled by if his best friend were in the squad."
            2. Did the soldier who threw himself on the grenade do the right thing? If he did not cover the grenade, several soldiers might be injured or be killed. His action probably saved lives; certainly an action which saves lives is a morally correct action. One might even be inclined to conclude that saving lives is a duty. But if this were so, wouldn't each of the soldiers have the moral obligation or duty to save his comrades? Would we thereby expect each of the soldiers to vie for the opportunity to cover the grenade?
         2. Æsthetics: the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings, judgments, or standards of beauty and related concepts. Philosophy of art is concerned with judgments of sense, taste, and emotion.
            1. E.g., Is art an intellectual or representational activity? What would the realistic representations in pop art represent? Does art represent sensible objects or ideal objects?
            2. Is artistic value objective? Is it merely coincidental that many forms in architecture and painting seem to illustrate mathematical principles? Are there standards of taste?
            3. Is there a clear distinction between art and reality?
   2. Epistemology: the study of knowledge. In particular, epistemology is the study of the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge.
      1. Epistemology investigates the origin, structure, methods, and integrity of knowledge.
      2. Consider the degree of truth of the statement, "The earth is round." Does its truth depend upon the context in which the statement is uttered? For example, this statement can be successively more accurately translated as …
         • "The earth is spherical"
         • "The earth is an oblate spheroid" (i.e., flattened at the poles).
         • But what about the Himalayas and the Marianas Trench? Even if we surveyed exactly the shape of the earth, our process of surveying would alter the surface by the footprints left and the impressions of the survey stakes and instruments. Hence, the exact shape of the earth cannot be known. Every rain shower changes the shape.
         • (Note here as well the implications for skepticism and relativism: simply because we cannot exactly describe the exact shape of the earth, the conclusion does not logically follow that the earth does not have a shape.)
      3. Furthermore, consider two well-known problems in epistemology:
         1. Russell's Five-Minute-World Hypothesis: Suppose the earth were created five minutes ago, complete with memory images, history books, records, etc., how could we ever know of it? As Russell wrote in The Analysis of Mind, "There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago." For example, an omnipotent God could create the world with all the memories, historical records, and so forth five minutes ago. Any evidence to the contrary would be evidence created by God five minutes ago. (Q.v., the Omphalos hypothesis.)
         2. Suppose everything in the universe (including all spatial relations) were to expand uniformly a thousand times larger. How could we ever know it? A moment's thought reveals that the mass of objects increases by the cube whereas the distance among them increases linearly. Hence, if such an expansion were possible, changes in the measurement of gravity and the speed of light would be evident, if, indeed, life would be possible.
         3. Russell's Five-Minute-World Hypothesis is a philosophical problem; the impossibility of the objects in the universe expanding is a scientific problem since the latter problem can, in fact, be answered by principles of elementary physics.
   3. Ontology or Metaphysics: the study of what is really real. Metaphysics deals with the so-called first principles of the natural order and "the ultimate generalizations available to the human intellect." Specifically, ontology seeks to indentify and establish the relationships between the categories, if any, of the types of existent things.
      1. What kinds of things exist? Do only particular things exist or do general things also exist? How is existence possible? Questions as to identity and change of objects—are you the same person you were as a baby? as of yesterday? as of a moment ago?
      2. How do ideas exist if they have no size, shape, or color? (My idea of the Empire State Building is quite as "small" or as "large" as my idea of a book. I.e., an idea is not extended in space.) What is space? What is time?
      3. E.g., Consider the truths of mathematics: in what manner do geometric figures exist? Are points, lines, or planes real or not? Of what are they made?
      4. What is spirit? or soul? or matter? space? Are they made up of the same sort of "stuff"?
      5. When, if ever, are events necessary? Under what conditions are they possible?

What do you gain with philosophy?

The GRE score data taken from Discover Magazine (via Leiter Report). See that philosophy is at the top of writing vs. verbal skills. Philosophers are the smartest humanists, but they are pretty good when it comes to quantitative skills (mathematicians and physicists are the best in this department). Accountants are at the bottom of both writing and quantitative combined!

Basically: if you are looking to hire someone with outstanding critical, verbal, and written ability – and someone with strong quantitative ability – hire a philosophy major!

Philosophical provocations

*human existence questions (nature of.., meaning of…, value of ….) how the world be without me?
*the mind (nature of thought, consciousness, ….) is my mind mine alone?
*religion (theism, mysticism, supernaturalism, biblical study and criticism) ---> mortality (what's the meaning of death?) if God exists, am I God?
*nature and function of the natural sciences (human vs. natural sciences) if humans do the thinking, what's natural, what's human?
*nature of mathematics (quantity, structure, space, change) if numbers can sequence to infinity, where is the sequence?
*metaphysics: the study of being and the world:  
*scope of human knowledge (Epistemology, Psychology): is knowledge finite, and if so what's the limit? (the idea being we don't produce more knowledge, merely recycle it).
*truth vs. reality (if all that's real is true, is there something false?)
*logic, linguistic clarity, metaphor and the uses of language: what's the difference between "logical" and "illogical"?
*importance of evolutionary sciences: biology, anthropology, psychology. once we accept the possibility of evolution, into what are we evolving?
*relevance of theories in contemporary physics and cosmology (physics is the discipline that studies matter and its motion through space-time). when does a theory get old?
*moral values and behavior (also called Ethics): if something is right in the present, is it right forever?
*noösphere: culture, politics, history, economics, governmental policies, etc. what does culture do to human beings?

Syllabus for PHI 2010 Honors (in progress)

Alfredo Triff, Ph.D.

Room 3604-37 (Building #3)
Tel. 305.237.7554
E-mail: atriff@mdc.edu
Office Hours: Posted
Text: Doing Philosophy: An Introduction through Thought Experiments, by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn (Fourth Edition).

Goals
* To become familiar with contemporary trends in philosophy.
* To stimulate the philosophical spirit: problemitizing issues, as well as the ethics of dialogue.
* To further one's critical thinking skills in order to deal with the challenges posed by the professional world.

Evaluation
1. Grades "A," "B" and "C" stand for outstanding, good and average respectively. "D" is below average. "F" means not enough work to justify credit for the course.

2. We have four multiple-choice tests: two quizzes, (20 points) a midterm and a final exam (60 points); blog posting and final paper (10 points) and class participation and effort for the remaining 10 points. This breakdown reflects a qualitative approximation since my grades are generally curved.

3. Students are supposed to write quasi-weekly 100-word comments in this blog and a final paper. I will post entries to which you are supposed to respond. We'll talk about this in more detail.

4. Attendance is expected. Three non-excused absences are permitted. Each absence thereafter will lower the participation grade by a 1/3 of a grade. Missing exams must be justified by a doctor’s note or the equivalent.

5. Homework is very important. The routine is as follows: We start each class with a HW-review. I'll compel you to answer the questions already assigned -which will count as participation in class.

Schedule of Classes

Chapter 1: Philosophical Problems
1.1: Explaining The Possibility Of The Impossible: Philosophical Problems. Stakes In Philosophical Enquiry: An Account Of Problems, Such As Mind-Body, Free Will, Personal Identity, Moral Relativism, And The Concept Of Evil. 1.2: Evidence And Inference.
1.3: Thought Experiments

Chapter 7: Epistemology
7.1 Skepticism As A Key To Certainty: Descartes
7.2 Perception Of The External World.
7.3 How Much Do We Know? What Knowledge Is: Defeasibility Theory; Causal Theory; Reliability Theory; Explanationist Theory

Quiz #1

Chapter 2: The Mind/Body Problem
2.1 The Ghost In The Machine: Mind As Soul: Descartes’ Doubt; Je Pense Donc Je Suis; Conceivability Argument; Divisibility Argument; Causal Impotence Of The Mental; Causal Closure Of The Physical; Other Minds
2.2 You Are What You Eat: Mind As Body: Empiricism; Positivism; Logical Behaviorism; Identity Theory
2.3 I, Robot: Mind As Software: AI; Functionalism And Feeling; The Turing Test; Intentionality
2.4 There Are No Ghosts: Mind And Myth: Psychology; Subjective Knowledge
2.5 Mind As Quality: Primitive Intentionality; Mental Dependence; Downward Causation

Chapter 3: Free Will Or Determinism?
3.1 Freedom As Chance: Hard Determinism; Indeterminism
3.2 Freedom As Necessity: Traditional Compatibilism; Hierarchical Compatibilism;
3.3 Freedom As Self-Determination: Agent Causation

Midterm Exam (cumulative)

Chapter 4: Personal Identity And Selfhood
4.1 Self And Substance: Animalism; The Soul Theory
4.2 Golden Memories: Self As Psyche: Memory Theory; Inconsistency Objection; Circularity Objection; Reduplication Problem
4.3 Self As Process: The Brain Theory; Split Brains; Identity And Survival; Identity And Responsibility; Explaining Selfhood

Quiz #2

Chapter 5: Ethics and Political Philosophy
5.1 Might Makes Right: Subjective Absolutism And Relativism; Cultural Relativism; Divine Command Theory; Are There Universal Moral Principles?
5.2 Good Makes Right: Ethical Egoism; Act Utilitarianism: Problems With Rights, Duties And Justice; Rule Utilitarianism
5.3 Duty Makes Right: Kant’s Categorical Imperative: First And Second Formulations; Ross’ Prima Facie Duties;
5.4 Virtue Makes Right: The Virtuous Utilitarian, Kantian; Purpose Of Morality; Aristotle On Virtue, Mcintyre On Virtue; Virtue Ethics

Chapter 6: Philosophy of Religion
Cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments:
Theism, agnosticism, atheism, deism, fideism
Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments with C/A
Watch-watchmaker analogical argument with C/A
Best Explanation Argument with C/A and Intelligent Design
Argument from Religious Experience with C/A
Anselm’s Ontological Argument with C/A
Descartes variation of Anselm’s argument with C/A
Pascal’s Wager
6.2 Theodicies:
Ontological Defense with C/A
Knowledge Defense with C/A
Free-Will Defense with C/A
Ideal-Humanity Defense with C/A
Character building defense with C/A
6.3 Fideism and Evidentialism:
Kierkegaard’s leap of faith with C/A
Importance of evidentialism.
World without God: Existentialism

Final

(I reserve the right to make changes in the order or chapters, provided I let you know in advance).
_______________
Note: If you feel that you will be unable to complete the requirements for passing this class, you have the option to withdraw from the class by the College's "drop date" of_____. However, there are consequences of which you need to be aware if you drop a class or stop attending and you should always speak to your instructor or an advisor first. For example, you must earn at least two-thirds, or 67% of the total credits for which you have registered -failure to comply with this requirement will adversely impact your financial aid status with MDC. Also, once the course has been paid for, you will generally not receive a refund for the course after the 100% drop date. A "W" will appear on your transcript or degree audit, and it counts as a "course attempt" which may have an impact on your academic status and/or record at the College. If after considering the possible consequences, you still wish to drop the class, keep in mind that it is your responsibility to do so and failure to withdraw will result in your earning a final grade that is based on your overall class performance. If extenuating circumstances (e.g., illness, accident, change in employment situation, etc.) prevent you from continuing to attend class after the drop date, speak to your instructor first and if needed, to the Chairperson to assess your options.

I promised you

A Thai vegetable soup

A crab and egg w avocado & kalamata olive salad

Roasted young chicken, red rice, with grilled vegetables (infused with truffle vinegar)

Tuna tartar with wakame and salmon roe

Diego Singh: STALKER

Diego Singh's STALKER at Miami Bourbaki.

Thanks for a great semester!

I wanted to thank you for your company, the discussions, for all the interesting questions. It has been an honor to share time with all of you.

Chapter 6 (Review for Final)

Section 3
Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith: According to Kierkegaard, God needs not be proved because -at best- He would become probable. The best solution is to believe by faith. At this point we need St. Paul's definition of faith: Faith is the certainty in things that although one cannot see, yet one believes. The more absurd the predicament, the more intense the faith. What’s important with faith is not "what" one believes but "how" one believes. Kierkegaard defines it as "subjective truth." Counterargument: 1- What if one is wrong? 2- How about the result of blind faith in fundamentalism or fanaticism? Evidentialism: It holds that not only we need evidence to support our beliefs, but that we have a responsibility to have adequate evidence to avoid unnecessary wrongs to innocent people (Torquemada and the Inquisition is a good example: He had faith in what he was doing, yet, he didn’t have evidence; same with the religious fundamentalism that Bin Laden defends).

Existentialism: In a world without a God, humans are free and responsible for what they do. We constantly create ourselves in the act of making choices. Life is absurd: There is no single explanation for the way things are.

Religion without God: Being non-religious or atheist doesn't prevent one from being deeply religious. What makes them religious is not what they belief, but the kinds of persons they are and the kinds of lives they lead.

Section 2 THEODICIES
The Ontological Defense: Goodness cannot exist without evil. So a world without evil is impossible. C/A: 1- Goodness isn’t a type of evil. Goodness and evil and like “red” and “non-red.” With contradictory concepts it’s possible to have one without the other. 2- Lack of evil doesn’t preclude goodness. If it did, there would be no goodness in heaven.
Knowledge Defense: Knowledge of evil is important (even to understand goodness) and it cannot exist unless there’s evil in the world. C/A: Suppose this is true, then how can one explain the excess of evil? Unnecessary evil is not justified by the knowledge defense. Evil must be necessary for something other than our education. Necessary evil: Evil that is required to prevent further evil or to bring about a greater good.
Free will defense: Evil is necessary for free will. We choose and sometimes we choose evil over good. C/A: 1- There’s still much more evil in the world that is necessary. Why is evil chosen so often? The theist needs to answer this question. 2- Heaven offers another example. Angels are free and yet they don’t choose evil. Why not?
Ideal Humanity Defense: Evil improves the human race. C/A: This is an argument of the living, not the dead. Why should unnecessary evil be justified for my moral edification?

Character (or soul) building defense: Evil is not wrong for our own sake. C/A: If this is true, then fighting evil becomes wrong (you shouldn’t alleviate a person’s suffering because it’s good for her character).

 

Section 1
Cosmological Argument by St. Aquinas: The universe must have a “first cause,” which must spring from an eternal Being. That eternal Being is God. Aquinas is doing 12th century physics. He is trying to demonstrate the existence of God from a series of (cause and effects), i.e., the series must have a beginning = GOD. C/A: 1- Quantum physics, which proves that not every event has a cause (there are events at the microworld that are uncaused). 2- In rthe Big Bang Theory the universe just “happens”.

Analogical Design Argument: A watch is to a watchmaker as the universe is to God. C/A: 1- John Stuart Mill sees the creation of the universe as evidence against the omnipotence of God. If God needs the universe to accomplish HIS goals, then HE is not omnipotent. 2- One can see the universe an "organism" rather than a machine (where living things come into being through reproduction rather than conscious design). 3- Hume also thinks of the fact that there is nothing in the idea of a watch that necessarily connect us with a watchmaker. So, one does not necessarily imply the ohter.
Best Explanation Argument: The best explanation for the existence of such complex universe is that it was created by a supernatural Being. C/A: Evolution, i.e. natural selection.

Intelligent Design: (Considered a pseudo-scientific argument) Evolution is false because there are structures that are so complex that they cannot have evolved through natural selection. Michael Behe’s idea of "irreducible complexity" claims just that. Irreducible complexity refers to a system composed of well-matched parts, interacting to bring forth a basic function (ex. a mouse trap). C/A: Most biologists believe that there are instances of systems that contradict Behe’s argument, ex. air bladders (or primitive lungs) made it possible for some fish to acquire new sources of food, but they were not necessary to the survival of the fish. Then as fish acquired legs and arms, lungs became essential.
Argument from Miracles: The universe must have been performed by a miracle worker. C/A: Why should God bend its own rules?Argument from Religious Experience: A subjective experience that’s so powerful and unique that the only possible explanation is that it was produced by a supernatural being. C/A: Hallucinogenics have been used by ancient civilizations as worship experiences to tap into altered states. This kind of experience is internal and vague and not enough to warranty an external source.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument: If one can conceive of a God (the greatest possible Being), then that God could also exist in reality, but then it would not be the greatest possible Being. So, God must exist in reality. C/A: Following Anselm's argument one could easily justify the “Superman”'s existence (ex. just plug "Superman" wherever you see God in Anselm's proof).

Pascal’s Wager: We’re better believing in God rather than not, just in case he exists.

Why not seeing Genesis as an allegorical interpretation? 

Chapter 5 (Review for Final)

Section 5.1

1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it; Counterarguments: (a) By "Logical contradiction" we mean that two opposing arguments cannot be right at the same time, and (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT).
2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person. Counterarguments (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist.
3. Emotivism: The doctrine that moral utterances are expressions of emotions. Basically, the emotivist is saying that right and wrong ARE NOT REALLY OUT THERE! Counterargument: Blanshard’s Rabbit. What matters is not one's suffering but the victim's suffering (factual force of the victim's suffering).

4. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: (a) Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and (b) differences between deep values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and superficial values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.
5. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).6. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).

Section 5.2.

1. Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).
2. Intrinsic (value for its own sake; personhood is an essential value: 1-reason, 2-autonomy, 3-sentience, 4-freedom) and instrumental values (value for the sake of something else):
3. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office).
4. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people"). Counterarguments: (a) Mc Closkey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality.
5. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.

Section 5.3.

1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule)
2. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties. Problems with Kant's first formulation: (a) Hare’s Nazi fanatic (Triff's The Bin-Laden Syndrome). How do you solve that?
3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS AND NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation: Problem of exceptions: Some times we have to treat people as means to ends: Broad's Typhoid Man.Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.
4. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, 2- fidelity and 3- reparation being the first three, because they explain out the remaining ones: beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, self-improvement.
5. Why is Pluralistic Formalism better than Kantian theory? Because it allows for exceptions.

FINAL EXAM FOR M,W,F, 10AM IS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28

FINAL EXAM FOR M,W,F, 11AM IS FRIDAY, APRIL 30

The Big Bang

I'm closing this post tonight saturday, at 10pm.

PHI 2010 Honors, MWF, 10am

PHI 2010 Honors, MWF, 11am

Population explosion, food production and sustainability

The issue of world population has been of concern to economists, politicians, sociologists, and philosophers. How to increase the rate and amount of food production? We are not decreasing the rate of human reproduction. The rate of population increase exceeds the rate of increase in food production in many areas of the world. Nowhere is this more true than in sub-Saharan Africa, where 800 million people must subsist on local yields of one ton per hectare—one third of yields in the rest of the developing world and one ninth those of the U.S. and Europe. That means that a sub-Saharan African person eats nine times less than what we normally eat in America! 

From Scientific American: Agriculture seems to be the main driver of most ecological problems on the planet. We are literally eating away the other species on the planet.

Agriculture—thanks to deforestation, nitrous oxide from fields, methane from cattle and rice paddies—is responsible for one third of global greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, making emissions from transporting food, known as "food miles," a "rounding error," said ecologist Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment (IonE) at the University of Minnesota. Pasture has become the dominant ecosystem on the planet, he added, and humans directly employ some 40 percent of the surface of the planet. "Very little of that is urban." In addition, agriculture accounts for at least 85 percent of human water consumption—a growing concern as aquifers diminish and hydrology changes in the face of climate change. Humans now use some 171 million tons of nitrogen as fertilizer every year, much of which ends up polluting lakes, rivers, streams and even the ocean.
_______
All of the above is tied to the issue of UNDERDEVELOPMENT: poverty, lack of education, lack of infrastructure, poor or non-existent public health. Not an easy task to solve.

What do you think? You may have the solution.

PHI 2070 Eastern Philosophy, this summer

Should “ahimsa” rule the world? 

Can “nothingness” exist? 

Is evil also good? 

Is God “in the excrement”? 

Why “miracle” is just a metaphor for the containment of power. 

Does “reincarnation” mean to change one’s personality? 

Did the Chinese invent pragmatism? 

How “koan” can change your life (and your idea of poetry).

What’s Bodhidharma’s mindless mind?

Why losing is not always losing and winning not always winning. 

Can “bravery” consist in dying?

Does silence speak better than words?

 Why to destroy is to transform (careful! only for gods!).

______________
In case you're interested, I'll be teaching PHI 2070 during Summer A.

I'm closing all posts this Friday @ 10pm

Honors 10am

Honors 11am

Human trafficking

If you have a chance rent The Unknown Woman, a raw portrait of female trafficking and violence against women. Here are some links, so you get an idea of what's going on:

Cheated out of childhood in Russia.
Rape in Japan.
Sex slaves in Italy.
Child sex workers in Nepal.
Child prostitution in South Africa.
You don't have to go overseas. Sex exploitation happens in our own backyard.

The evidence is overwhelming, why do we still struggle with these horrible issues in the Twenty-First Century?

Here is the wikipedia entry on prostitution, which brings the bigger issue of human trafficking.
Prostitution in the United States. (see that there are different kinds, from brothel, to escort to child prostitution).
_____________
Following the guidelines of the previous assignment, I'd like you to comment on the ethical issues involving the sexual exploitation of women.

Some interesting facts you should know:

1- "About 80% of women in prostitution have been the victim of a rape. It's hard to talk about this because..the experience of prostitution is just like rape. Prostitutes are raped, on the average, eight to ten times per year. They are the most raped class of women in the history of our planet. " (Susan Kay Hunter and K.C. Reed, July, 1990 "Taking the side of bought and sold rape," speech at National Coalition against Sexual Assault, Washington, D.C. ). Other studies report 68% to 70% of women in prostitution being raped (M Silbert, "Compounding factors in the rape of street prostitutes," in A.W. Burgess, ed., Rape and Sexual Assault II, Garland Publishing, 1988; Melissa Farley and Howard Barkan, "Prostitution, Violence, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," 1998, Women & Health.
2-  Prostitution is an act of violence against women which is intrinsically traumatizing. In a study of 475 people in prostitution (including women, men, and the transgendered) from five countries (South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, USA, and Zambia):
62% reported having been raped in prostitution.
73% reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.
72% were currently or formerly homeless.
92% stated that they wanted to escape prostitution immediately.
(Melissa Farley, Isin Baral, Merab Kiremire, Ufuk Sezgin, "Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder" (1998) Feminism & Psychology 8 (4): 405-426.
3- Many of the health problems of women in prostitution are a direct result of violence. For example, several women had their ribs broken by the police in Istanbul, a woman in San Francisco broke her hips jumping out of a car when a john was attempting to kidnap her. Many women had their teeth knocked out by pimps and johns. (Melissa Farley, unpublished manuscript, 2000). One woman (in another study) said about her health: "I’ve had three broken arms, nose broken twice, [and] I’m partially deaf in one ear….I have a small
fragment of a bone floating in my head that gives me migraines. I’ve had a fractured skull. My legs ain’t worth shit no more; my toes have been broken. My feet, bottom of my feet, have been burned; they've been whopped with a hot iron and clothes hanger… the hair on my pussy had been burned off at one time…I have scars. I’ve been cut with a knife, beat with guns, two by fours. There hasn’t been a place on my body that hasn’t been bruised somehow, some way, some big, some small." (Giobbe, E. (1992) Juvenile Prostitution: Profile of Recruitment in Ann W. Burgess (ed.) Child Trauma: Issues & Research.Garland Publishing Inc, New York, page 126).
4-  The commercial sex industry includes street prostitution, massage brothels, escort services, outcall services, strip clubs, lapdancing, phone sex, adult and child pornography, video and internet pornography, and prostitution tourism. Most women who are in prostitution for longer than a few months drift among these various permutations of the commercial sex industry. All prostitution causes harm to women. Whether it is being sold by one’s family to a brothel, or whether it is being sexually abused in one’s family, running away from home, and then being pimped by one’s boyfriend, or whether one is in college and needs to pay for next semester’s tuition and one works at a strip club behind glass where men never actually touch you – all these forms of prostitution hurt the women in it. (Melissa Farley, paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Women’s Health Issues, University of California College of Nursing, San Francisco. 1-28-2000)

If you have any questions, post them here. YOU HAVE UNTIL NEXT FRIDAY, MARCH 26, TO POST YOUR COMMENTS. PLEASE, SIGN YOUR NAME AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR COMMENT.

Psychological continuity (creepy version)

Topics for Review Quiz #2, Chapter 4

1. Numerical identity: two people are identical if they are one and the same. The idea of "individuality" = indivisibility. Qualitative Identity: Two people are identical if they share same qualities.
Animalism: Sort of "I'm my body." We are embodied, bodies being crucial for our physical interactions. C/E Locke's Tale of the Prince and the Cobbler, Siamese Twins. Also with the phenomenon of "transgender" (the transgender rejects his/her body for a different one, i.e. "I was born in the wrong body" is the claim).
 
2. Memory Theory of personal Identity.
a- Direct memory, indirect memory (by virtue of this theory, when the senile general remembers being the hero but not the boy, he's indirectly remembering the boy).
b- Real memory, apparent memory (the difference between a memory whose experience I can consciously recall and one I may have created myself).
C/E Circularity in Locke's theory.
 
3. Psychological Continuity Theory: Real memory, apparent memory, quasi-memory. Pshychological conectedness. Two people are psych-connected in they form part of an overlapping series of persons who are...
 
4. C/E: Williams’ (Reduplication Argument) Parfit's Teletransporter: Consequences. If Parfit dies, Parfit (the copy) is psych.-continuous with the original and has a similar body (remember that it is not really the same body, i.e., Parfit is only numerically identical to himself). One implication at the end of section 4.2 is that identity IS NOT a necessary condition for survival.
 
5. Brain Theory. Two people are psych-continuous if their psyches caused and realized in the same brain. C/A: Split Brains, Multiple personality syndrome (see the movie Identity) , Parfit’s Division (in this case Parfit's surviving brothers are psych with Parfit and have similar bodies being that they are twins). The experiment shows that one can be psyhc identical to someone else in the same brain (each brother share Parfit's half-brain hemisphere).
 
6.  Character. Character NOT SELF is what matters for responsibility.  

7. What is the SELF? A PROCESS. It means a transformation whereby the self is constantly changing while maintaining certain characteristics. Process is time-dependent in the sense that if we look for the change minute by minute we may not see it at all. Once we let time take its course, we start perceiving the change (as when we don't see a person for 5 years and notice how much she has physically and psychologically changed).
_________
An interesting summary on Personal Identity here.
On Thought experiments.
What matters for psychological continuity?

Homework for BC or CC in the class

Write three comprehensive paragraphs, a paragraph per page, explaining the best theories of knowledge, mind and freedom that we've studied so far. In your words, but following the language provided in the textbook. I want it if possible by next Wednesday. If you have questions regarding this assignment, you may post them here.

How are you doing in my class?

Now that the midterm is behind us, I'll be sending emails to you regarding your academic progress. Given the number of students I have, I cannot send emails to all of you. If you don't hear from me you're Ok. We'll talk more about this in class.

Topics for the Midterm Exam (coming up)

Click here for the topics for the Midterm Exam.

If you have any questions regarding this review, post them here.

Are we just our bodies?

An amazing story of the first "pregnant man."

Then there is the Hensel twins.

I'm closing the comment post Friday 27 at 10pm.

Fankfurt on bullshit

MWF, 10am

MWF, 11am

Arguments in favor of animal rights

Peter Singer defends animal rights from their ability feel pain. Since animals have no language, leading scientists argue that it is impossible to know when an animal is suffering. This situation may change as increasing numbers of chimps are taught sign language, although skeptics question whether their use of it portrays real understanding. Singer writes that, following the argument that language is needed to communicate pain, it would often be impossible to know when humans are in pain. All we can do is observe pain behavior, he writes, and make a calculated guess based on it. As Ludwig Wittgenstein argued, if someone is screaming, clutching a part of their body, moaning quietly, or apparently unable to function, especially when followed by an event that we believe would cause pain in ourselves, that is in large measure what it means to be in pain. Singer argues that there is no reason to suppose animal pain behavior would have a different meaning.

Tom Regan argues that animals are what he calls "subjects-of-a-life," and as such are bearers of rights. He argues that, because the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain cognitive abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some non-human animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans. Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal-case humans, such as infants, and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients." Moral patients are unable to formulate moral principles, and as such are unable to do right or wrong, even though what they do may be beneficial or harmful. Only moral agents are able to engage in moral action. Animals for Regan have "inherent value" as subjects-of-a-life, and cannot be regarded as a means to an end.

Some critics of Regan, like Roger Scruton, argue that rights also imply obligations, which animals cannot be forced to have (although Scruton disagrees with Regan over the issue of rights, he opposes factory farming.

Abolitionism: It falls within the framework of the rights-based approach, though it regards only one right as necessary: the right not to be owned. Abolitionists argue that the key to reducing animal suffering is to recognize that legal ownership of sentient beings is unjust and must be abolished. The most prominent of the abolitionists is Gary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers School of Law-Newark. He argues that focusing on animal welfare may actually worsen the position of animals, because it entrenches the view of them as property, and makes the public more comfortable about using them.

Factory farming

 

What is factory farming? Read here, about ethical consequences of factory farming:

Factory farms hold large numbers of animals, typically cows, pigs, turkeys, or chickens, often indoors, typically at high densities. The aim of the operation is to produce as much meat, eggs, or milk at the lowest possible cost. Food is supplied in place, and a wide variety of artificial methods are employed to maintain animal health and improve production, such as the use of antimicrobial agents, vitamin supplements, and growth hormones. Physical restraints are used to control movement or actions regarded as undesirable. Breeding programs are used to produce animals more suited to the confined conditions and able to provide a consistent food product.

The large concentration of animals, animal waste, and the potential for dead animals in a small space poses ethical issues. It is recognized that some techniques used to sustain intensive agriculture are cruel to animals. As awareness of the problems of intensive techniques has grown, there have been some efforts by governments and industry to remove inappropriate techniques (...) In the UK, the Farm Animal Welfare Council was set up by the government to act as an independent advisor on animal welfare in 1979. It expresses its policy as five freedoms: from hunger & thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury or disease; to express normal behavior; from fear and distress.

There are differences around the world as to which practices are accepted and there continue to be changes in regulations with animal welfare being a strong driver for increased regulation. For example, the EU is bringing in further regulation to set maximum stocking densities for meat chickens by 2010, where the UK Animal Welfare Minister commented, "The welfare of meat chickens is a major concern to people throughout the European Union. This agreement sends a strong message to the rest of the world that we care about animal welfare.”

For example, in the UK, de-beaking of chickens is deprecated, but it is recognized that it is a method of last resort, seen as better than allowing vicious fighting and ultimately cannibalism. Between 60 and 70 percent of six million breeding sows in the U.S. are confined during pregnancy, and for most of their adult lives, in 2 by 7 ft gestation crates. According to pork producers and many veterinarians, sows will fight if housed in pens. The largest pork producer in the U.S. said in January 2007 that it will phase out gestation crates by 2017. They are being phased out in the European Union, with a ban effective in 2013 after the fourth week of pregnancy. With the evolution of factory farming, there has been a growing awareness of the issues amongst the wider public, not least due to the efforts of animal rights and welfare campaigners.

C_O_N_C_I_O_U_S_N_E_S_S

It's going to take time (Professor Michio Kaku)

"Consciousness is just a collection of tricks."-- Daniel Dennet, professor of Philosophy at Tutfs.

Chalmers (the Durer-like philosopher) taking about consciousness. Is it primitive or derivative?

Complexity from simplicity

 As in the ant colony.

Birds coordinated flight maneuvers over Gretna, Scotland.

A NOVA short on emergence of life. 

This smart girl offers a pretty cool explanation on nature patterns of complexity (keep in mind this emergence is less complex than what we find in consciousness).

The idea of complexity from simplicity, coming from different fields of science.

Alan Turing's achievements!

Emergent properties (David Chalmers)

"Gays are too precious"

PHI 2010 Honors 10am

PHI 2010 Honors 11am

Gays in the military

Don't ask don't tell. Our current policy stopping gays and lesbians from serving in the military spells like bad faith. The practice harks back to 1916, to the so called "neutral blue discharges" given to homosexual servicemen. Up to 1947, a service member found to be homosexual but who has not committed any homosexual acts while in service, would receive an undesirable discharge. Those who were found guilty of engaging in homosexual conduct were dishonorably discharged.  We know that homosexuality was taboo in the 1950's. But the 1960's Civil Rights Movement changed that archaic perception. Let's see what the present science says:

1- Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993). 2- Most experts believe that military effectiveness is related to military service members’ shared commitment to a common goal that motivates them to work together to achieve the goal (MacCoun, Kier, & Belkin, 2006; MacCoun, 1996). Leadership of the group is also considered crucial. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to task cohesion, the only type of cohesion that critically predicts the team’s military readiness and success (c.f. Herek & Belkin, 2005). (Taken from WKPD).

What do we learn? That other than sexual preference, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a homosexual and a heterosexual person. 

Does that matter? Yes and no. For some people science and accepted social norms have no weight. There's too much ideology: the power of dogma plus plain unfounded hate. Fundamentalism has it that homosexuality is wrong because God doesn't like it. Without trying to argue this point here, I'd say that Christians don't follow many (other) biblical stipulations, such as not eating shrimp & pork; men not cutting their beards; executing some hookers by burning them alive, etc. How about literally beating your child with a rod? Prov 23:14 is clear: Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel). Why not these? The answer is that they are archaic or seen (interpreted) as applying only to jews. Could one reinterpret the so called "clobber" passages in the Bible for our society?

Let's come back to our topic. Here, again, the science:

Homosexuality refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them. Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and sexuality, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and social gender role (adherence to cultural norms defining feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation is matter of important choice and self-definition. 

Another argument against homosexuals in themilitary is that of sharing close quarters with a homosexual in the military, as if homosexuals were predators by nature. Nonsense. How about heterosexual stalking? Is it any different?

BREACH OF ARMY DISCIPLINE: If heterosexual harassment is treated as a breach of army discipline and decorum, why can we not do the same with homosexual harassment?

This is a hot topic and I want the class to probe it. Again, you can see where I stand. If you disagree with my take it's Ok. Just be ready to support your views.
___________
FACT: Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO right now, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (Britain, France) permit gay people to serve openly, and three (United States, Russia, China) do not.

Why is this man walking, in Miami Bourbaki.

PHI 2010 Honors, MWF, 10am

PHI 2010 Honors, MWF, 11am

"The most partisan decision since Bush vs. Gore"

This is the blogwork for this week. It's due next Thursday 10pm.

This month The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are protected by "free speech" rights and can contribute enormous sums of money to influence elections. This is a de jure endorsement of the de facto dominance of corporations over our lives. As William J. Astore of Truthout puts it: Corporations are the new citizens, and ordinary Americans, the old "citizens," have become consumers.

It's all about 5-4...

What's at stake? Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.

The case: A documentary called "Hillary: The Movie," a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it. But the film was shown in theaters in six cities, and it remains available on DVD and the Internet.

Precedent: The 2002 law, usually called McCain-Feingold, banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.

One would think this is good enough: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

I know we tend to consider corporations as individuals in a legal sense, but the comparison stops there. Are corporations really individuals when it comes to the power they yield in contemporary society? Ask yourself if Adam Smith ever would've envisioned the giants of today he would've defined his invisible hand in the same manner.

What the court ruled in favor of is campaign money. And if campaign money cannot be restricted because that would restrict "speech," the court has definitively decided that money equals speech. Since that is now the legal precedent, the court should have likewise ruled that you cannot have equal speech without equal money — i.e., equal protection under the law.

This is my take, but you can have your own and defend it. Go ahead. All points of view are respected and welcome provided they are defended with candor and good points.

Link to text book

Here is the link for your textbook Doing Philosophy. If you click on Chapters 1 & 7 you'll find the different chapter's sections with flash cards, true or false quizzes, and multiple choice questions. Test yourself and good luck.

You most bring a scantron # 48TSM to the quiz.

Truth as process with the help of collective evidence

Forensic anthropology is the application of the science of physical anthropology and human osteology (the study of the human skeleton) in legal -often criminal cases- where the victim's remains are in the advanced stages of decomposition.

I made the point of Descartes' criteria of "absolute certainty" being too tough. In real life, we don't access truth that way. In this video, see Dr. Thomas Muriello addressing the importance of "collecting evidence," and teams of people sharing technologies. Crime evidence are clues, bits and pieces of the whole puzzle. If the puzzle is our 100%, we start with sections of it. Sometimes the whole puzzle may never be reassembled. That doesn't mean we can have a pretty good idea of its form.

Difference between explanation and justification

If you hold a belief, you must be ready to justify it. You may explain why your belief is true or how you know you know. Don't confuse explanations justifications. A justification takes the form of an argument. For example, you try to justify why it's wrong to verbally abuse a child. On the other hand, an explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the context and consequences of those facts.

Spaghetti & "chicken" balls a-la-Triff

I'm beginning to share my cuisine with you guys. Remember, it's all about the how-to & hands-on of food/sharing with friends and family. When you cook, you nurture. This recipe is an Italian-American classic, a comforting meal for our Miami winter. It's pretty simple, and quick to make too.

Ingredients: 3 or 4 organic chicken-sausages from Wholefoods or the Gardener's Market in Coconut Grove (they have different varieties: feta, asiago, sun-dried tomato, etc), spaghetti (any brand will do), Xtra-virgin olive oil, fresh sage and basil, peperoncino (red pepper), good Parmesan cheese, plenty of garlic, a bit of fresh ginger, a good Pinot Grigio or Chardonnay, canned tomatoes (optimally, you should make your own sauce like I did, but for the sake of brevity, you could use Hunt's "diced" and Cento "crushed" varieties.

Execution: Cut the sausages in one-inch sections & set them aside. Chop the garlic and mince the ginger. Get the oil going at medium-to-high. As the garlic sizzles in the pan, add the diced tomatoes and a bit of the "crushed" puree. Pour a generous quantity of white wine over the mix. You'll get a nice burst of edible aromas from the wine, chocking the concoction. Put water in a 6-8 quarter pan over high-heat. When boiling, add the pasta "as is." How much pasta is a serving? The amount of noodles that fit inside your curled index-finger over your thumb's first knuckle. The pasta should be "al dente," as such: 

The saucepan above is a Ruffoni copper-ware. I've worked Xtra hours as a writer-for-hire to be able to afford this babe. In it, I cook my risottos and tomato sauces. Copper is an excellent heat conductor (don't worry, you can make a tasty sauce with a regular pan, just make sure your ingredients can "dance" in the pan without being overcrowded). Let the sauce thicken for 10-15 minutes at medium-high. You can always tweak the liquid for desired consistency: for a thicker sauce, dissolve a bit of cornstarch with water, or combine an egg-yolk dissolved with just a touch of lemon (when the sauce is ready to be served mix it with the rest of the sauce, caution, it shouldn't be too hot or the egg will coagulate). To serve, add  the chopped basil and sage. Trick: to properly chop the herbs so they don't get bruised, rock your chef-knife forward and back. Accompany your pasta with a nice Italian Chianti or a California Pinot Noir. To mop the left-over amalgam & juices, nothing better than a baguette rustic. The spaghetti was so delicious I could barely stop to take this photo: