Step 1: In your notes please choose ONE option from each category for your future unborn child and explain to yourself why you chose that option. One minute for each choice, total of five minutes!
Physical Features
Make my child beautiful
Make my child athletic
Make my child tall
Health
Remove all genes for inherited diseases
Add a gene strengthening my child's immune system
Intelligence
Make my child shrewd in business
Make my child a musical prodigy
Make my child an artistic genius
Emotions
Remove the gene for feeling emotional pain
Remove the genes for lying, cheating, and stealing
Add a gene for honesty
Social Skills
Make my child the life of the party
Make my child compassionate
Make my child confident
Step 2: Please read the Ashley Article handout. For further information on Ashley and her family's journey check out their family blog: Ashley Treatment. And check out the family's suggestion for the ethical treatment of patients in Ashley's condition, Ashley Treatment Summary.
Please answer these Ashley Article Questions fully in your notebook:
1. Who is the moral agent who exhibited the virtues or extremes of behaviour?
2. Describe the moral agent's behaviour.
3. Do you think the moral agent's actions were morally right or morally wrong? Why?
4. Draw a continuum similar to the one show in Fig 12.2 on p. 245 of your text. Label it with a virtue exhibited (or not exhibited) by the moral agent and add the extremes at either end. Locate the moral agent on the continuum . Please comment on what you've drawn.
5. Were the actions of the moral agent good? Were they right? Explain the difference.
6. Please comment, using quotes, on what two different philosophers might say about the situation in which Ashley and her family find themselves.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
DAY 72 Good Life? Good Person? Do the Right Thing?
We ended yesterday with you completing the personal moral decision guide.
Today we'll discuss these big Ethics questions:
1. What is a good life?
2. What is a good person?
3. What is the right thing to do?
For Socrates and Plato, a good life is one worth living. What makes a life worth living for them was a life of ethical action in a community of family friends and society.
Others have discussed a life of pleasure, wisdom, harmony, virtue, happiness, satisfaction, fulfilment, joy, freedom, truth, love, art, an afterlife, etc.
Others have argued that one must make their own life worthwhile - for example by refusing to participate in the injustices of the world.
The BUDDHIST Answer to these big Questions:
Gautama, founder of Buddhism, discussed the Four Noble Truths of life:
1. Life is suffering
2. Suffering comes from worldly desires
3. Desires can be eliminated
4. Desires can be eliminated by following the Eightfold Path (a good life-style).
The Eightfold Path:
1. Right Understanding
2. Right Thought
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
The over-riding goal of all of this is to be reborn in the next life a little closer to Nirvana, the ultimate goal of having no worldly needs, a state of enlightenment.
This ethic is egalitarian and inclusive and focuses on the individual who is responsible for his/her own actions. Also, living a peaceful existence is a worthwhile virtue and lifestyle helping one reach Nirvana.
The CONFUCIANIST's and TAOIST's Answer:
The good life is a life that searches for peace and enlightenment. This approach differs from Buddhism in that the individual sees him/herself as part of the whole of the community so that individual desires take a back seat to the well-being of family, friends, society.
Like Buddhism this is filled with virtue ethics - the five main virtues are:
1. Kindness
2. Uprightness (righteousness)
3. Decorum (propriety)
4. Wisdom (integrity)
5. Faithfulness to one's self and to others
The HEDONIST's Answer:
Originally this meant pleasures of the body, but since Epicurus (Greek Philosopher) it has meant pleasure of the mind - in particular serenity, achieved by minimizing desires and overcoming fears similar to Buddhist ideals.
Today we use the term Hedonism with a negative connotation as one who is solely interested in seeking pleasurable experiences.
The STOIC's Answer:
Very popular during Greek and Roman times, Stoicism is a lifestyle involving living happily through wisdom rather than pleasure. The universe, they believe, is a well-ordered place and people must find their harmonious place within it by living in harmony with nature. To do so means to have control over emotions and intentions yet remaining indifferent to things that cannot be controlled.
Hence our modern use of the term - to be stoic today generally means to show no emotion.
A Big Question in Ethics is what makes you a Good Person? If your only motives for doing good things is to please God or your parents, or to impress your friends or teachers, does this make you a good person? Well, the behaviour seems to be good behaviour but philosophers differ on whether your motivations for doing good constitute goodness.
VIRTUE ETHICS answers:
Virtue Ethics believe that a "Good Person" is someone who is virtuous, someone who does the right things in life because they have a good moral character rather than someone who does the right things based on the consequences of their actions.
Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, indicates that a life lived through reason is the best life which will lead to happiness. He said that moral virtue is the result of habit and training so that people must be taught to be virtuous. This is important because it means that people must KNOW what the right thing to do is and then they must CHOOSE to do the right thing.
Aquinas (13thC) said that people must use their wisdom / reasoning to know go and thus can achieve virtue or perfection. He and many other religious leaders developed the idea that goodness was a result of obedience to God and His Word. So "right conduct" became more important than "good character" as the mark of a good person.
More recently philosophers have reinvigorated the ideas of virtue as goodness of character, mixed in with good actions. Some of these ideals include:
Fidelity - keeping promises
Reparation - making up for your wrong actions
Gratitude - repaying the favours of others
Justice - working to correct injustices
Beneficence - improving the conditions of others
Self-Improvement - improving your own condition
Non-Maleficence - not hurting others
In fact WD Ross and others would argue that these virtues MUST be followed to be a good person and that ALL of these virtues must be considered in your behaviour.
For example, your friend asks if her prom dress looks fantastic. Rather than saying something truthful such as, "Actually, that dress makes you look like you're on your way to a Halloween Party", which might be your true opinion, you realize that that truth would hurt your friend's feelings. So your duty to be faithful to your friend and to not hurt her (Non-Maleficence) must take precedence over your duty to tell the honest truth. So, of course you say something like, "That's the most beautiful dress ever and I wish I had bought it instead of you!"
Virtue ethics raises many troubling questions - animal rights, human rights, equality, justice - very difficult ideas to define conclusively.
Here is some food for thought to end the class - see how these ideas fit or do not fit with our ideas of Virtue Ethics:
Today we'll discuss these big Ethics questions:
1. What is a good life?
2. What is a good person?
3. What is the right thing to do?
For Socrates and Plato, a good life is one worth living. What makes a life worth living for them was a life of ethical action in a community of family friends and society.
Others have discussed a life of pleasure, wisdom, harmony, virtue, happiness, satisfaction, fulfilment, joy, freedom, truth, love, art, an afterlife, etc.
Others have argued that one must make their own life worthwhile - for example by refusing to participate in the injustices of the world.
The BUDDHIST Answer to these big Questions:
Gautama, founder of Buddhism, discussed the Four Noble Truths of life:
1. Life is suffering
2. Suffering comes from worldly desires
3. Desires can be eliminated
4. Desires can be eliminated by following the Eightfold Path (a good life-style).
The Eightfold Path:
1. Right Understanding
2. Right Thought
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
The over-riding goal of all of this is to be reborn in the next life a little closer to Nirvana, the ultimate goal of having no worldly needs, a state of enlightenment.
This ethic is egalitarian and inclusive and focuses on the individual who is responsible for his/her own actions. Also, living a peaceful existence is a worthwhile virtue and lifestyle helping one reach Nirvana.
The CONFUCIANIST's and TAOIST's Answer:
The good life is a life that searches for peace and enlightenment. This approach differs from Buddhism in that the individual sees him/herself as part of the whole of the community so that individual desires take a back seat to the well-being of family, friends, society.
Like Buddhism this is filled with virtue ethics - the five main virtues are:
1. Kindness
2. Uprightness (righteousness)
3. Decorum (propriety)
4. Wisdom (integrity)
5. Faithfulness to one's self and to others
The HEDONIST's Answer:
Originally this meant pleasures of the body, but since Epicurus (Greek Philosopher) it has meant pleasure of the mind - in particular serenity, achieved by minimizing desires and overcoming fears similar to Buddhist ideals.
Today we use the term Hedonism with a negative connotation as one who is solely interested in seeking pleasurable experiences.
The STOIC's Answer:
Very popular during Greek and Roman times, Stoicism is a lifestyle involving living happily through wisdom rather than pleasure. The universe, they believe, is a well-ordered place and people must find their harmonious place within it by living in harmony with nature. To do so means to have control over emotions and intentions yet remaining indifferent to things that cannot be controlled.
Hence our modern use of the term - to be stoic today generally means to show no emotion.
A Big Question in Ethics is what makes you a Good Person? If your only motives for doing good things is to please God or your parents, or to impress your friends or teachers, does this make you a good person? Well, the behaviour seems to be good behaviour but philosophers differ on whether your motivations for doing good constitute goodness.
VIRTUE ETHICS answers:
Virtue Ethics believe that a "Good Person" is someone who is virtuous, someone who does the right things in life because they have a good moral character rather than someone who does the right things based on the consequences of their actions.
Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, indicates that a life lived through reason is the best life which will lead to happiness. He said that moral virtue is the result of habit and training so that people must be taught to be virtuous. This is important because it means that people must KNOW what the right thing to do is and then they must CHOOSE to do the right thing.
Aquinas (13thC) said that people must use their wisdom / reasoning to know go and thus can achieve virtue or perfection. He and many other religious leaders developed the idea that goodness was a result of obedience to God and His Word. So "right conduct" became more important than "good character" as the mark of a good person.
More recently philosophers have reinvigorated the ideas of virtue as goodness of character, mixed in with good actions. Some of these ideals include:
Fidelity - keeping promises
Reparation - making up for your wrong actions
Gratitude - repaying the favours of others
Justice - working to correct injustices
Beneficence - improving the conditions of others
Self-Improvement - improving your own condition
Non-Maleficence - not hurting others
In fact WD Ross and others would argue that these virtues MUST be followed to be a good person and that ALL of these virtues must be considered in your behaviour.
For example, your friend asks if her prom dress looks fantastic. Rather than saying something truthful such as, "Actually, that dress makes you look like you're on your way to a Halloween Party", which might be your true opinion, you realize that that truth would hurt your friend's feelings. So your duty to be faithful to your friend and to not hurt her (Non-Maleficence) must take precedence over your duty to tell the honest truth. So, of course you say something like, "That's the most beautiful dress ever and I wish I had bought it instead of you!"
Virtue ethics raises many troubling questions - animal rights, human rights, equality, justice - very difficult ideas to define conclusively.
Here is some food for thought to end the class - see how these ideas fit or do not fit with our ideas of Virtue Ethics:
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
DAY 71 Ethics
We ended last class (Thursday) with these thoughts below:
Why study Ethics? I think the best reasons are:
1. To recognize moral issues
2. To clarify your own values.
3. To act upon your personal values as per # 1 & 2 above rather than to act upon values you have inherited or have been conditioned to accept.
4. To be able to communicate your decisions and actions.
Some have suggested that Moral Choices are Not Possible.
Nihilism is a school of thought whereby moral truths do not exist because not everyone can agree on the morality of anything – there are no universal truths when it comes to morality (Gorgias also argued that nothing exists, or at least that because we use words and symbols to think about things they cannot exist with certainty, thus knowledge, and moral truths, cannot every be known universally. Others also said similar things – Determinists like Darwin, Newton, Freud – all said similar things, that nature does not care whether something is right or wrong, it just is (e.g. our brains are made of atoms arranged in a particular way so it’s that structure that is our biology which determines our thoughts. This, however, leaves little or no room for “nurture” or “experience” in the nature/nurture debate.
BIG QUESTION: Can People Be Good Without God?
_
What are some possible answers?
Humanists would say that Ethics is so deeply ingrained in human culture that even we all adhere to common values.
Social Peace is always a goal in societies throughout time - and the way societies reach that goal is through the pursuit of happiness, moral freedom, tolerance, moral responsibility, rational moral inquiry, etc. and both Religious and Non-Religious people can and do share these values.
For You to Do:
List 3 Reasons to "Do the Right Thing".
Possible answers include:
1. To avoid getting caught and punished. But what if you were invisible, would you still be virtuous?
2. To earn trust and respect from others. But what if no-one knew of you being virtuous?
3. Golden Rule.
These answers to these questions suggest that the outcome - security, peace, justice, etc. - are inherently good things, so this is a somewhat circular argument.
Two schools of thought on Ethics.
Ethical Absolutists - one moral code determines the rightness or wrongness of an action. They think that everyone, regardless of consequences, circumstances, culture, etc. should observe this moral code.
Ethical Universalitsts - one moral code determines the rightness or wrongness of an action. But, they believe that it's ok for the code to be broken in certain circumstances, so that the ethical code is universal but not absolute.
Sophie's Choice film clip - What would an Ethical Absolutist say about the choice that Sophie made? What would an Ethical Universalist say?
Absolutists and Universalists are at one end of the Ethical spectrum. AT the other end are Ethical Relativists - reject the idea of a universal moral code. Rather they say that all values are relative to time, place, persons and situations. They believe that all rules about ethics and moral are acceptable because we cannot judge between them - they are subject to time, place, persons and situations..
The underlying point to Ethical Relativism is that morality depends on social customs. E.g. in 13 American states the death penalty is legal, presumably because those societies agree with it, but in the other 37 states it is not legal, presumably, for the same reason. Same with Canada - society as a whole does not think that capital punishment is just (i.e. moral or ethical) therefore in Canada capital punishment is not ethical.
The idea that some moral rules are absolute while others are relative is important in a democracy like Canada. In fact we think it just (moral, ethical) to recognize the cultures of peoples from around the world and are, as a result, a very "relativist" society, while some ethics are absolute.
I used the example of a Rockwood Church, Emmanuel Canadian Reformed Church, and their depiction of a cemetery of white crosses, each representing a number of abortions performed in Canada each year. This is a link to their website - Emmanuel CRC - the discussion was about moral universals - are there any moral questions that have only one right answer. For the members of this church, abortion is wrong in any circumstance anywhere and at any time (I think, at least that was the over-riding message of their Hwy 7 display a few weeks ago). So for these people that is one universal moral law. Ashley K. also raised the issue of harm to innocent children, that for people throughout the world, it is an outrage when innocent children are harmed. The Golden Rule also came up in discussion. The nice thing about this discussion was that most of you, all of you, determined that there are very few moral universals in existence.
Crosbie and Bowie - Peace on Earth.
I used the example of a Rockwood Church, Emmanuel Canadian Reformed Church, and their depiction of a cemetery of white crosses, each representing a number of abortions performed in Canada each year. This is a link to their website - Emmanuel CRC - the discussion was about moral universals - are there any moral questions that have only one right answer. For the members of this church, abortion is wrong in any circumstance anywhere and at any time (I think, at least that was the over-riding message of their Hwy 7 display a few weeks ago). So for these people that is one universal moral law. Ashley K. also raised the issue of harm to innocent children, that for people throughout the world, it is an outrage when innocent children are harmed. The Golden Rule also came up in discussion. The nice thing about this discussion was that most of you, all of you, determined that there are very few moral universals in existence.
Crosbie and Bowie - Peace on Earth.
DAY 70 Letters of Concern
Today I distributed updated marks, again, along with a comment to those whose mark is below 60%. Copies of those letters were mailed home yesterday too. We had a catchup period today but it's the last one - so many of you are so far behind, so next Monday is the day - if missing work comes in by then I'll mark it, if it's past then I probably won't.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
DAY 68 More Intro to Ethics
Intro to Ethics Continued….
The terms “ethics” and “morals” are often used
interchangeably (from the Latin, “mores”
= character, customs, habits).
Generally speaking, we use the term “morals” or “morality”
to describe one’s beliefs about how people should act.
Generally speaking we use the term “ethics” as the study of
the theories about these beliefs.
Is there goodness in being selfish? Youtube link. First minute and a half
Three main schools of thought in Ethics:
1.
Theories of Action – how people should
act and why.
E.g. Do you download music
illegally? (This question is NOT an
ethical question)
Should you download music
illegally? (This question IS an ethical
question)
2.
Theories of Character (Virtue Ethics) – examination of peoples’
character traits as either good or bad.
E.g. Hitler had vision, wisdom and courage
but was a mass murderer, a fanatic and a racist.
3.
Theories of Value – examination
of the assessment of worth (value).
E.g. What is goodness? Badness?
Justice? Injustice? Can you describe these ideas objectively or
are they subject to cultural interpretation? What groups share similar values?
Ethical dilemmas arise in all of humanity’s pursuits.
E.g. What are good and what is evil?
What is a good life?
What is a virtue?
Why should I be moral?
What obligations to people have to one another?
What obligations do people have to shared resources?
Question
for YOU:
List FIVE
Ethical Choices that you have already made or that you will have to make in the
future.
For each of these choices, list all of the sources that you
will consult for guidance.
Humanism – way of making moral decisions (behaviour)
emphasizing human or secular, i.e. non-religious, sources for guidance,
focusing on the role of free will in one’s decision-making.
Kongfuzi (Confucius) and Guatama (Buddha) are some of the
earliest writers in Humanism. Based on
the Golden Rule – “What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to
others.”
This begs the question, “Is something right because the gods
favour it, or do the gods favour it because it is right?” Plato and Aristotle developed this question
in a time where society believed in multiple gods (Roman and Greek gods).
More recently Gandhi said, “For a long time I believed that
God was truth. Now I know that truth is
God.”
Aristotle took this a step further and developed the “Golden
Mean” (virtue, or moral excellent) which is the middle path between two extremes. E.g. Generosity is the happy medium
between Extreme Stinginess and Extreme Wastefulness.
Question for YOU:
List FIVE of your personal VIRTUES in the middle of three columns and
list, on either side of it, the two extremes.
Here are some virtues that might apply to you:
Acceptance, Accountability, Bravery, Caring, Charity,
Commitment, Compassion, Confidence, Consideration, Cooperation, Courtesy,
Dependability, Determination, Discretion, Discipline, Empathy, Enthusiasm,
Forgiveness, Generosity, Grace, Gratitude, Helpfulness, Honesty, Humility,
Humour, Integrity, Joyfulness, Kindness, Love, Perseverance, Reliability,
Responsibility, Sincerity, Tact, Trustworthiness, Vitality, etc.
Moral Agents – someone who is capable of thinking about a
moral problem, making a decision on how to act and then taking responsibility
for her/his action. E.g. most adults are
considered moral agents. Babies and most
non-human animals are not considered moral agents because they cannot
understand the consequences of their actions.
However babies and most non-human animals are still part of the equation
because their interests and desires are considered to be important and
deserving of moral treatment and consideration – these moral “patients” (not
“moral agents”) have moral standing in the moral community. So, you cannot abuse animals and you must
give the necessities of life to babies.
Why study Ethics? I
think the best reasons are:
1.
To recognize moral issues
2.
To clarify your own values.
3.
To act upon your personal values as per # 1
& 2 above rather than to act upon values you have inherited or have been
conditioned to accept.
4.
To be able to communicate your decisions and
actions.
Some
have suggested that Moral Choices are Not Possible.
Nihilism
is a school of thought whereby moral truths do not exist because not everyone
can agree on the morality of anything – there are no universal truths when it
comes to morality (Gorgias also argued that nothing exists, or at least that
because we use words and symbols to think about things they cannot exist with
certainty, thus knowledge, and moral truths, cannot every be known
universally. Others also said similar
things – Determinists like Darwin, Newton, Freud – all said similar things,
that nature does not care whether something is right or wrong, it just is (e.g.
our brains are made of atoms arranged in a particular way so it’s that
structure that is our biology which determines our thoughts. This, however, leaves little or no room for
“nurture” or “experience” in the nature/nurture debate.
DAY 67 Ethics Intro Cont'd.
More introduction to Ethics - great discussion, many ideas tossed about.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
DAY 66 Ethics Intro
We did a brief brainstorm on what Ethics means. Then you broke into groups and each group write up five examples of their own particular part of being an Ethical Person in a Modern Country like Canada.
The groups are:
Caring
Fairness
Respect
Responsibility
Trustworthiness
Citizenship
Then we posted these at the front and spoke about them for a brief time coming to the conclusion that a "good" person in the 21st century should exhibit many or most of these qualities....
Watch this video from the 30 second mark - Immanuel Kant in Three Minutes.
Watchi this video of Kid Rock - Steal Everything! Sorry, he swears at the very beginning but it's still worth a look.
The groups are:
Caring
Fairness
Respect
Responsibility
Trustworthiness
Citizenship
Then we posted these at the front and spoke about them for a brief time coming to the conclusion that a "good" person in the 21st century should exhibit many or most of these qualities....
Watch this video from the 30 second mark - Immanuel Kant in Three Minutes.
Watchi this video of Kid Rock - Steal Everything! Sorry, he swears at the very beginning but it's still worth a look.
DAY 65 Catch UP!
Most of you are at least one assignment behind so I distributed "no mark" updated marks and actual Updated Marks showing missed assignments as zeros, so you spent the day catching up.
Monday, May 14, 2012
DAY 63, 64, 65 - Seminars in Epistemology
For these three days we're doing seminars in these groups as listed below. Remember a few things that you need to do:
1. Come to the seminar with your short list of 5 questions and bullet-point answers.
2. Bring a copy of the document in question.
3. Bring along a list of philosophers and quotes from them to use in the seminar.
4. Day after, reflection is due (see assignment handout).
5. You need 3 full Questions & Answers by the end of the seminars, let's call that this Friday. See handout. One question/answer for each of the three documents, i.e. 3 Qs and 3 As total.
Seminar 1 - - Tuesday- Francis Bacon and the New Method
New Group: Ashley K, Nicole, Sara, Emily, Dana, Kaitlyn B., Kim, Taylor, Siobhan, Nirubaa
Seminar 2 - Wednesday and Karl Popper on Falsifiability
New Group: Justin, Carly, Kyle, Jake, Lorenzo, Ryan, Rachael, Chris, Nick, Jade, Cassie (11)
Seminar 3 - Thursday- John Locke and the Essay on Human Understanding
New Group: Ashley S., Kandis, Kaitlyn T., Avery, August, Jaslynn, Rhiannon, Dani, Michelle, Liny, Chelsea
1. Come to the seminar with your short list of 5 questions and bullet-point answers.
2. Bring a copy of the document in question.
3. Bring along a list of philosophers and quotes from them to use in the seminar.
4. Day after, reflection is due (see assignment handout).
5. You need 3 full Questions & Answers by the end of the seminars, let's call that this Friday. See handout. One question/answer for each of the three documents, i.e. 3 Qs and 3 As total.
Seminar 1 - - Tuesday- Francis Bacon and the New Method
New Group: Ashley K, Nicole, Sara, Emily, Dana, Kaitlyn B., Kim, Taylor, Siobhan, Nirubaa
Seminar 2 - Wednesday and Karl Popper on Falsifiability
New Group: Justin, Carly, Kyle, Jake, Lorenzo, Ryan, Rachael, Chris, Nick, Jade, Cassie (11)
Seminar 3 - Thursday- John Locke and the Essay on Human Understanding
New Group: Ashley S., Kandis, Kaitlyn T., Avery, August, Jaslynn, Rhiannon, Dani, Michelle, Liny, Chelsea
DAY 62 Seminar Prep
Here are the new groups:
Seminar 1 - - Tuesday- Francis Bacon and the New Method
New Group: Ashley K, Nicole, Sara, Emily, Dana, Kaitlyn B., Kim, Taylor, Siobhan, Nirubaa
Seminar 2 - Wednesday and Karl Popper on Falsifiability
New Group: Justin, Carly, Kyle, Jake, Lorenzo, Ryan, Rachael, Chris, Nick, Jade, Cassie (11)
Seminar 3 - Thursday- John Locke and the Essay on Human Understanding
New Group: Ashley S., Kandis, Kaitlyn T., Avery, August, Jaslynn, Rhiannon, Dani, Michelle, Liny, Chelsea
Seminar 1 - - Tuesday- Francis Bacon and the New Method
New Group: Ashley K, Nicole, Sara, Emily, Dana, Kaitlyn B., Kim, Taylor, Siobhan, Nirubaa
Seminar 2 - Wednesday and Karl Popper on Falsifiability
New Group: Justin, Carly, Kyle, Jake, Lorenzo, Ryan, Rachael, Chris, Nick, Jade, Cassie (11)
Seminar 3 - Thursday- John Locke and the Essay on Human Understanding
New Group: Ashley S., Kandis, Kaitlyn T., Avery, August, Jaslynn, Rhiannon, Dani, Michelle, Liny, Chelsea
Notes on Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding - we did background info on Thursday, today here are some notes on the primary source document . . .
First paragraph - describes the idea of the "Tabula Rasa" - or blank slate. Think of the mind as a blank sheet of paper . . . EXPERIENCE. School of thought . . . Empiricism.
EMPIRICISM. Locke
IDEALISM.
SKEPTICISM - Descartes
RATIONALISM - Aristotle
PRAGMATISM -
"...sensible objects . . " agree & disagree.
Agree - eg of airplanes.
Disagree - e.g. of floating hot-dog before your eyes, bent pencil in a glass of water.
2nd parag. sensation is one source of ideas. Locke gives a list of what our senses tell us - hot cold, colour, texture, taste, etc. these help us understand things.
3rd paragraph. Operation of our minds . . another source. perception, thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, willing, etc.. Because we are conscious of all these things, we understand different ideas. This is "reflection." e.g. learning from mistakes, building on experiences, building upon previous understanding.
4th para. ALL ideas are from either experience or reflection.
Experiences furnish the mind with perceptions, then reflecting upon these produces ideas.
Uses Children as an example: children go from an empty mind to a full one by degrees as above.
5th paragraph - different interactions, produce different results (thoughts) depending upon experience - Nature vs. Nurture argument.
Popper -
Science - falsifiable.
Pseudo-science. e.g. Astrology/Horroscopes - the way we can collect data is exactly the same as one would collect it in "true" science. He also explains that we can see much truth in Marxism if we look around. In each case you can collect lots of data and draw conclusions.
Problem is with how the data is collected. The empirical method is absent, as if falsifiability.
Lists 7 criteria: roughly defining the Modern Scientific Method.
He refutes the idea that observations alone, despite how much they might support an idea/theory/hypothesis, are enough to "prove" an idea to the point where the idea can be considered knowledge or fact. Rather, he says, each bit of information/data/empirical evidence must have been collected in an attempt to refute, rather than support, the original premise to begin with. See earlier notes on Astrology, Marxism, and consider the ideas we raised in class.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
DAY 60 Locke, Popper, Seminar Prep
We spend the day prepping for the seminar, notably going over Locke and Popper - notes below. We chose numbers out of a hat and then signed up for our groups as follows: (if you're not on the list below please email me and I'll put you in either Group 2 or 3 - first come first served, max 11 in a group :-)
Seminar 1 - - Monday - Francis Bacon and the New Method
(Previous Day 1 Group Siobhan, Nirubaa, Rachael, Nicole, Kaitlyn T.,Chelsea , Kandis, Jaslynn, Sara, Ashley K., Holly (11))
New Group: Ashley K, Nicole, Sara, Emily, Dana, Kaitlyn B., Kim, Taylor
Seminar 2 - Tuesday - John Locke and the Essay on Human Understanding
(Previous Day 2 Group - Emily, Taylor, Kim, Liny, Avery, August, Kyle, Jake, Rhiannon, Carly, Dani (11))
New Group: Ashley S., Kandis, Kaitlyn T., Avery, August, Jaslynn, Rhiannon, Dani, Michelle, Liny, Chelsea
Seminar 3 - Wednesday and Karl Popper on Falsifiability
(Previous Day 3 group - Lorenzo, Kaitlyn B., Ashley S., Nick, Jade, Cassie, Chris, Michelle, Dana, Ryan, Justin (11)
New Group: Justin, Carly, Kyle, Jake, Lorenzo, Ryan, Rachael, Chris, Nick
If you're not on a list above please email me and I'll put you in a group of your choice.
Notes on Locke -
Discusses how we think and perceive - through language, logic, religion. Our biggest problem as people is that we fail to see the limits of our understanding.
Biggest argument - we are NOT born with innate knowledge, a priori knowledge. Plato and Descartes argued that we were. Came up with the concept of a blank slate, "tabula rasa". We can only know things if we first experience them.
Robert Boyle - Corpuscular Hypothesis of Matter - the matter is made up of tiny, invisible particles. This gave Locke the idea that even though we cannot detect these tiny particles, they still exist, and they give matter its properties (size, shape, movement).
Science can define these properties but is still limited.
Locked examined:
1. Where our ideas come from
2. What it means to have these ideas and what exactly are these ideas
3. Issues of faith and opinion
Argued against a priori knowledge. Plato and Descartes said there many universal bits of knowledge. But, Locked said that there are no things accepted by ALL humans.
Also argued that people cannot have ideas in their minds of which they are not aware. He said that we cannot possess even the most basic principles unless we are taught them or have thought them through.
So, I guess Locke was happy with how he eliminated a priori knowledge.
Two sources of knowledge, Simple and Complex:
Simple Ideas:
1. ideas we get from a single sense (sight, or taste)
2. ideas we get from many senses (shape, size)
3. ideas coming from reflection on experiences
4. ideas coming from a combination of sensation and reflection (unity, existence, pain, substance)
Within Simple ideas there are:
Primary Qualities: texture, number, size, shape, motion - these resemble their causes
Secondary Qualities: colour, sounds, taste, smell - these do not resemble their causes
Complex Ideas:
Complex ideas combine, compare and abstract (subtracting everything until you're left with the item/idea)
Locke had a problem with the language we use to describe knowledge:
1. a word can imply a complex idea
2. words have no standard meaning
3. people use words without knowing what they really mean
4. we use words inconsistently
5. we change the meanings of words
6. we assume that others understand us
Locke argued that KNOWLEDGE is the relation between ideas, all of which is in the mind. We produce knowledge:
1. Identity (blue is blue), diversity (blue is not yellow)
2. relation (explain a triangle, then explain another triangle similarly and they are congruent)
3. coexistence (iron is affected by magnetism)
4. realizing that existence belongs to the ideas themselves, and is not in the mind.
Notes on Sir Karl Popper on Falsifiability
Bottom line on the Scientific Method is that science is trial and error.
This idea, widely accepted today, defines the Modern Scientific Method - learning from our mistakes.
Falsifiability - logical possibility that a hypothesis or theory can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of an experiment.
"All Swans are White" - this IS falsifiable - we can go looking for swans and note their colour. So, falsification tests for falseness instead of testing for correctness.
"White Swans Do Exist" - this is NOT falsifiable - no counter-example is logically possible.
Popper stressed that unfalsifiable statements are important in science because they can and should be embedded. E.g., while "all people are mortal" is NOT falsifiable, it IS a logical consequence of the true statement, "Every human dies before the age of 150."
Science is a successive rejection of falsified theories - when newer work shows improved or different results, they supersede previous work.
According to Popper and Anceriz, no hypothesis is EVER confirmed. The best we can hope for is that a hypothesis survives so many tests that it's just silly to keep testing it.
It's at that point that we start to consider it a FACT - even though it remains in the realm of theory or hypothesis.
Popper explains how science developed from myths.
Seminar 1 - - Monday - Francis Bacon and the New Method
(Previous Day 1 Group Siobhan, Nirubaa, Rachael, Nicole, Kaitlyn T.,Chelsea , Kandis, Jaslynn, Sara, Ashley K., Holly (11))
New Group: Ashley K, Nicole, Sara, Emily, Dana, Kaitlyn B., Kim, Taylor
Seminar 2 - Tuesday - John Locke and the Essay on Human Understanding
(Previous Day 2 Group - Emily, Taylor, Kim, Liny, Avery, August, Kyle, Jake, Rhiannon, Carly, Dani (11))
New Group: Ashley S., Kandis, Kaitlyn T., Avery, August, Jaslynn, Rhiannon, Dani, Michelle, Liny, Chelsea
Seminar 3 - Wednesday and Karl Popper on Falsifiability
(Previous Day 3 group - Lorenzo, Kaitlyn B., Ashley S., Nick, Jade, Cassie, Chris, Michelle, Dana, Ryan, Justin (11)
New Group: Justin, Carly, Kyle, Jake, Lorenzo, Ryan, Rachael, Chris, Nick
If you're not on a list above please email me and I'll put you in a group of your choice.
Notes on Locke -
Discusses how we think and perceive - through language, logic, religion. Our biggest problem as people is that we fail to see the limits of our understanding.
Biggest argument - we are NOT born with innate knowledge, a priori knowledge. Plato and Descartes argued that we were. Came up with the concept of a blank slate, "tabula rasa". We can only know things if we first experience them.
Robert Boyle - Corpuscular Hypothesis of Matter - the matter is made up of tiny, invisible particles. This gave Locke the idea that even though we cannot detect these tiny particles, they still exist, and they give matter its properties (size, shape, movement).
Science can define these properties but is still limited.
Locked examined:
1. Where our ideas come from
2. What it means to have these ideas and what exactly are these ideas
3. Issues of faith and opinion
Argued against a priori knowledge. Plato and Descartes said there many universal bits of knowledge. But, Locked said that there are no things accepted by ALL humans.
Also argued that people cannot have ideas in their minds of which they are not aware. He said that we cannot possess even the most basic principles unless we are taught them or have thought them through.
So, I guess Locke was happy with how he eliminated a priori knowledge.
Two sources of knowledge, Simple and Complex:
Simple Ideas:
1. ideas we get from a single sense (sight, or taste)
2. ideas we get from many senses (shape, size)
3. ideas coming from reflection on experiences
4. ideas coming from a combination of sensation and reflection (unity, existence, pain, substance)
Within Simple ideas there are:
Primary Qualities: texture, number, size, shape, motion - these resemble their causes
Secondary Qualities: colour, sounds, taste, smell - these do not resemble their causes
Complex Ideas:
Complex ideas combine, compare and abstract (subtracting everything until you're left with the item/idea)
Locke had a problem with the language we use to describe knowledge:
1. a word can imply a complex idea
2. words have no standard meaning
3. people use words without knowing what they really mean
4. we use words inconsistently
5. we change the meanings of words
6. we assume that others understand us
Locke argued that KNOWLEDGE is the relation between ideas, all of which is in the mind. We produce knowledge:
1. Identity (blue is blue), diversity (blue is not yellow)
2. relation (explain a triangle, then explain another triangle similarly and they are congruent)
3. coexistence (iron is affected by magnetism)
4. realizing that existence belongs to the ideas themselves, and is not in the mind.
Notes on Sir Karl Popper on Falsifiability
Bottom line on the Scientific Method is that science is trial and error.
This idea, widely accepted today, defines the Modern Scientific Method - learning from our mistakes.
Falsifiability - logical possibility that a hypothesis or theory can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of an experiment.
"All Swans are White" - this IS falsifiable - we can go looking for swans and note their colour. So, falsification tests for falseness instead of testing for correctness.
"White Swans Do Exist" - this is NOT falsifiable - no counter-example is logically possible.
Popper stressed that unfalsifiable statements are important in science because they can and should be embedded. E.g., while "all people are mortal" is NOT falsifiable, it IS a logical consequence of the true statement, "Every human dies before the age of 150."
Science is a successive rejection of falsified theories - when newer work shows improved or different results, they supersede previous work.
According to Popper and Anceriz, no hypothesis is EVER confirmed. The best we can hope for is that a hypothesis survives so many tests that it's just silly to keep testing it.
It's at that point that we start to consider it a FACT - even though it remains in the realm of theory or hypothesis.
Popper explains how science developed from myths.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
DAY 59 Seminars in Epistemology
Seminar Documents -
and
Seminar Instructions
Notes on Francis Bacon's "New Method"
This was Part 1 of a larger work, the Great Instauration - a new way of investigating nature - really, the beginning of the journey to the modern scientific method.
He suggests a new system of logical conclusions based on induction rather than on syllogism.
Induction - begins with the facts and works towards general axioms. An axiom is a statement generally thought to be true.
'Currently men's minds are filled with various foolish and incorrect notions that prevent them from understanding nature properly.' "False notions" are based on idols -
Idol of the Tribe - overestimate our own importance in how we perceive things.
Idol of the Cave - we think we all live in the same cave, that our personal experience is similar to others'.
Idol of the Marketplace - language interferes with understanding - it's always biased.
Idol of the Theater - we don't want to lose face, we tend to defend our own beliefs.
Up to 1620, the Aristotelian Method of Syllogism was used widely. Bacon argued that people gave excessive respect for ancient authors.
Syllogisms
Categorical Syllogism:
a. Madelle is human.
b. Humans are mortal.
c. Therefore, Madelle is mortal.
Disjunctive Syllogism:
a. The meeting is either at home or at school.
b. The meeting is not at home.
c. Therefore, the meeting is at school.
Conditional Syllogism:
a. If Johnny is eating sweets every day, he is placing himself at risk of diabetes.
b. Johnny does NOT eat sweets every day.
c. Therefore, Johnny is not placing himself at risk of diabetes.
This last example is flawed because there are OTHER factors that could be involved. It is this kind of thinking involving understanding nature that Bacon argued against. He argued that the original Organon (Aristotle's method of acquiring information) was flawed as it was based on the third example AND that if based on the first two examples, there was still much room for error.
William Gilbert (Elizabeth I doctor) - he established the fact that the earth is like a giant magnet - positive charge at both poles. He began the new thinking, but died before completing it. Bacon completed this line of thinking.
Privileged Instances - Bacon identified many examples of nature that reveal the truth in great detail and with great clarity.
and
Seminar Instructions
Notes on Francis Bacon's "New Method"
This was Part 1 of a larger work, the Great Instauration - a new way of investigating nature - really, the beginning of the journey to the modern scientific method.
He suggests a new system of logical conclusions based on induction rather than on syllogism.
Induction - begins with the facts and works towards general axioms. An axiom is a statement generally thought to be true.
'Currently men's minds are filled with various foolish and incorrect notions that prevent them from understanding nature properly.' "False notions" are based on idols -
Idol of the Tribe - overestimate our own importance in how we perceive things.
Idol of the Cave - we think we all live in the same cave, that our personal experience is similar to others'.
Idol of the Marketplace - language interferes with understanding - it's always biased.
Idol of the Theater - we don't want to lose face, we tend to defend our own beliefs.
Up to 1620, the Aristotelian Method of Syllogism was used widely. Bacon argued that people gave excessive respect for ancient authors.
Syllogisms
Categorical Syllogism:
a. Madelle is human.
b. Humans are mortal.
c. Therefore, Madelle is mortal.
Disjunctive Syllogism:
a. The meeting is either at home or at school.
b. The meeting is not at home.
c. Therefore, the meeting is at school.
Conditional Syllogism:
a. If Johnny is eating sweets every day, he is placing himself at risk of diabetes.
b. Johnny does NOT eat sweets every day.
c. Therefore, Johnny is not placing himself at risk of diabetes.
This last example is flawed because there are OTHER factors that could be involved. It is this kind of thinking involving understanding nature that Bacon argued against. He argued that the original Organon (Aristotle's method of acquiring information) was flawed as it was based on the third example AND that if based on the first two examples, there was still much room for error.
William Gilbert (Elizabeth I doctor) - he established the fact that the earth is like a giant magnet - positive charge at both poles. He began the new thinking, but died before completing it. Bacon completed this line of thinking.
Privileged Instances - Bacon identified many examples of nature that reveal the truth in great detail and with great clarity.
DAY 58 Seminar Start and Critical Thinking
I distributed the materials for the upcoming seminars - then you worked on your Critical Thinking Question for Epistemology.
I'll post the Seminar Stuff in tomorrow's blog.
I'll post the Seminar Stuff in tomorrow's blog.
Monday, May 7, 2012
DAY 57 Thinking Critically in Epistemology
Today we are having a good look at the Critical Thinking expectations for your upcoming work.
Tomorrow I'll hand out the Seminar Readings for next week.
Tomorrow I'll hand out the Seminar Readings for next week.
DAY 56 Bully, the film
Today we joined 125 students and six staff for a trip to the Bookshelf Theater in Guelph to see the film, Bully. We noted that bullying is not part of human nature, rather it is a behaviour that is a choice. The most important group in preventing and stopping bullying is the bystander - those around the victim and the bully need to take action and intervene with a few words letting the bully know that their behaviour is not cool and letting the victim know that they have some support and are not alone in a difficult situation.
The connection to Philosophy here is that this is a real-life situation that should be approached from a particular point of view, i.e. a particular philosophy. Bullying is a choice of behaviours, it is not inevitable. Victims need to speak up to a caring adult. And bystanders need to say something - by saying nothing they are empowering the bully.
So, when asked about your own ideas about bullying you can now articulate this philosophy!
So, when asked about your own ideas about bullying you can now articulate this philosophy!
DAY 55 Critical Thinking Question
Today we reviewed Descartes' Cogito argument and then we got to work on the Epistemology Critical Thinking Question.
Tomorrow is our field trip to see Bully at the Bookshelf Theater in Guelph.
Tomorrow is our field trip to see Bully at the Bookshelf Theater in Guelph.
DAY 54 Summary of Descartes' "Cogito" Argument
This is a summary of Descartes' "Cogito" Argument - his famous, "I think therefore I am" statement. While he actually never wrote that exact phrase, the main point of Descartes was that it is necessary to establish a clean foundation upon which to build knowledge (the beginning of the school of Foundationalism in Epistemology). Descartes accomplished this by doubting away each presupposition to the point where the only thing he could know for certain was that he was thinking - in other words by the very act of doubting things he could prove only that he was a doubter, a thinker. Yes, he was the ultimate skeptic!
I had to leave at 12:00 today and you took up the Cogito torch with Mrs. Edwards.
I had to leave at 12:00 today and you took up the Cogito torch with Mrs. Edwards.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Day 53 Descartes and Epistemology - the "Foundation"
Many of you were away today due to the play and other things. First, our opening discussion . . .
IS IT THE TRUTH WHEN . . .
1. No one believes it?
2. Only one person believes it?
3. It is accepted as fact?
4. It is proven by science?
5. It is proven by religion?
6. It hurts someone or a group?
In two columns, write the titles - 1. One thing I "Know", 2. One thing I "Believe" (Things you think are true).
Things I Know are True
Stop Signs are Red
We need O2 to live
Two masses will be attracted by gravity
You know your own age
The earth is a ball
The Sky is Blue
You have ten digits on your hands
You know you're loved
You woke up today (on the right side of the bed!)
You exist
You can think
Your own birthdate
You live in Acton
You can drive a car
Air contains O2
1+1=2
Things you Believe are True
Religions are False
That space exists
Videogames are fun
We learn in school
We don't learn in school
Fitness is healthy
Jesus died on the cross for you
Jesus died on the cross for you
Jesus died on the cross for you
That a higher power exists
The universe is expanding
Other lifeforms exist out there
Religion is false
Religion is false
You have a bright future
What is it about "1." that makes it different from "2."?
# 1 will always have the same result while # 2 could have different results.
# 1 is a complete reality to you but # 2 still has room for movement.
# 1 is less subjective than # 2
# 1 is objective, # 2 subjective
Can you establish a "rule" to "test" the notion of "truth" for you?
More frequent experiences can help determine the truth. But what is the evidence is false? The Methodology could be flawed.
Homework - have this conversation with your mom or dad tonight - what is their "rule" for determining truth? what is your "rule"?
IS IT THE TRUTH WHEN . . .
1. No one believes it?
2. Only one person believes it?
3. It is accepted as fact?
4. It is proven by science?
5. It is proven by religion?
6. It hurts someone or a group?
In two columns, write the titles - 1. One thing I "Know", 2. One thing I "Believe" (Things you think are true).
Things I Know are True
Stop Signs are Red
We need O2 to live
Two masses will be attracted by gravity
You know your own age
The earth is a ball
The Sky is Blue
You have ten digits on your hands
You know you're loved
You woke up today (on the right side of the bed!)
You exist
You can think
Your own birthdate
You live in Acton
You can drive a car
Air contains O2
1+1=2
Things you Believe are True
Religions are False
That space exists
Videogames are fun
We learn in school
We don't learn in school
Fitness is healthy
Jesus died on the cross for you
Jesus died on the cross for you
Jesus died on the cross for you
That a higher power exists
The universe is expanding
Other lifeforms exist out there
Religion is false
Religion is false
You have a bright future
What is it about "1." that makes it different from "2."?
# 1 will always have the same result while # 2 could have different results.
# 1 is a complete reality to you but # 2 still has room for movement.
# 1 is less subjective than # 2
# 1 is objective, # 2 subjective
Can you establish a "rule" to "test" the notion of "truth" for you?
More frequent experiences can help determine the truth. But what is the evidence is false? The Methodology could be flawed.
Homework - have this conversation with your mom or dad tonight - what is their "rule" for determining truth? what is your "rule"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)