MIDTERM EXAMINATION:
MIDTERM EXAMINATION: SUMMER 2008, Critical
Professor David C. Lane
Instructions
1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when you are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due NO LATER than JULY 12TH at midnite.
----------------------------------
4. What is your real name?
William David Lee
5. What is your "user" name?
supwilliamlee
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
7. Name and address for your website.
William Lee’s Blog (http://supwilliamlee.blogspot.com/)
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
No, I didn’t get the chance to read Huxley’s Scientific Education
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
No, for some reason I couldn’t access Nicholas of Cusa
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them)
Karma
Many people believe karma to be a black and white concept. If you do good, you are rewarded; if you do bad, you are punished. However, there is a gray area not limited by that way of thinking. Karma is indefinite. There are no fixed outcomes for one's actions. Students get away with cheating on tests, con artists get away with swindling people's money, and that caring neighbor, who never sinned once in his life, is filing for bankruptcy because of business problems. I feel that the video shows mixed feelings about karma.
The creator of the video seems to wants to believe in karma, but feels that karma is nonexistent at times. The guy who gets hit by a car after robbing someone shows that karma exists. On the other hand, the guy who gets away after beating up another guy shows that karma does not exist. The girl who won the scratch card and the guy with the crazy girlfriend both lay in the gray area. Why should that one girl win a game of chance over thousands of others who are morally good and decide to play as well? Why should that one guy get shot for overreacting to anger, when his family might be more accustomed to violence? These questions cannot be answered simply with karma. In the end of the video, I feel that the main character is trying to get the message across that one cannot
predict karma.
Furthermore, the whole concept of good and bad is a socialistic issue. People who think themselves as good people are just following what their society deems as "good."
Cargo Cult Science
Richard Feyman's views in Cargo Cult Science strike a peculiar message about conformity in science. While it might be a good idea to stick with the norm when in doubt, some scientists take it too far when they discourage the practice of repeating experiments for newer, more accurate results. Even more disappointing is the fact that this method is accepted by authority figures, such as teachers and professors. Feyman rings up a good example with the Cornell student. It's a shame that potential scientific breakthroughs are being held back by the fact that certain scientists feel that redoing experiments are a waste of time.
The Young experiment acts as an excellent counter-example to cargo Cult science. Mr. Young discovered valuable information regarding experimenting on rats. His work should be appreciated by other scientists, yet it is greatly ignored because of the fact that there is already a standard procedure on experimenting with rats. If this mindset persists, future scientific experiments will remain limited in results and discoveries.
Freyman's message is clear and should be acknowledged by both established science organizations and the scientists themselves. Science should not be so deeply entwined with money and position.
The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
Richard Feyman uses many simple, yet interesting stories to explain an intriguing way to think critically. After listening to the many examples, I feel that I have some sort of gist of what he's trying to convey, which is to think critically, one must think beyond their initial thoughts. He wants people to consider different perspective on everything that exists, from processes to objects to people. In simpler terms, he talks about thinking beyond the names of things, and instead turn to what makes them unique, in order to fully understand them. He talks about imagining every possibility that can lead to a certain outcome. He brings up an example at one point about chess, where there can be so many different ways a bishop can arrive at a certain position on the board.
As a person who values thinking, I have practiced Feyman's ideas a couple times when I'm evaluating certain things. Feyman takes it to a new level by suggesting that people use his way of thinking for just about everything. The use of this method in everyday life does provide some interesting enlightenments. One can start appreciating the simpler things just by allowing them to provide critical thinking.
John Maynard Smith and Evolution
The John Maynard interview gave me an in depth overview of
One thing that was interesting was Smith's views on the human consciousness. He simply did not have an answer or explanation for it. He says that such a thing that gave us all our instincts was difficult to believe in, yet there was not evidence against it. He has a similar view on religion. I felt that he gave a good answer when asked about religion by saying that he would be an atheist, but since he couldn't prove religion wrong, he would rather be considered agnostic.
Another interesting point was when they started talking about the continuing evolution of humans. Considering that we have been constantly evolving since back when in the Neanderthal days, one can wonder if humans will develop into an even more advanced species sometime in the distant future.
Critical Thinking in an Online World
In our society today, the internet has the biggest impact on everyday life. The internet can provide interaction between people around the globe, give people the chance to conduct financial operations online, and, most importantly, allow people to access any information at any time. The internet is quickly replacing the obsolete library. In a couple years, we might not even need a library in every city anymore. However, is the internet going to cause the downfall of critical thinking? I don't think the internet will cause people to stop thinking critically. With the internet, people are able to access information on all sides of an argument, at any given time. With that access, those who want to practice critical thinking, are able to do so more than at a library.
In this article, Debra Jones is saying that librarians need to invoke their methods of finding information onto everyone else. For the most part, I agree with this if critical thinking is to survive this online revolution. However, I find there will always be narrow-minded people in this world, regardless of whether or not librarians and critical thinkers decide to step up and attempt at getting others to think critically.
What is Cold Reading?
Being raised by Asian parents in an Asian community, I was often exposed to the art of palm reading. I remember one of my uncles claimed to be fairly decent at it and he would tell me everything from my life expectancy to my future wealth. For a long time, I believed in simple readings, because they just cannot be proven wrong until after many decades. In a sense, I think my uncle used this fact to come off as a legitimate palm reader.
Other than that, I don't think I was ever exposed to what this article labels as a cold reading. However, I did learn from the article that people are always so easy to convince. Experienced cold readers are able to prey on the emotions of happiness and fear. It's surprising how people don't tend to challenge what they hear, especially when there's so much reason to be skeptical about it.
Another thing that I got from this article was that people with a great understanding of society in general can easily influence others. If they put on a convincing act, they are able to persuade people into thinking they have certain powers. This makes me wonder if those, so called, cold readers are really just experienced critical thinkers.
Viruses of the Mind
Richard Dawkins talks about the conformity of the human mind by comparing the mind with a human computer. The main focus of this reading is that parents have the biggest influence on people's lives. This is true, because of the fact that parents mold their children's minds at a stage where the mind is still developing. Any information given to them at this time becomes engraved in their minds and has an affect on them one way or another. Dawkins explains that faith and anything that isn't definite are like viruses to a child's mind, because they are gullible to believe inexplicable things, yet they
don't do any good for the child.
Another thing Dawkins talks about, that I firmly agree with, is that the society where a child is raised has a huge impact on his or her life. In essence, the stories that are told and the way a child is brought up can greatly affect his or her future thinking. In that sense, the practice of throwing religion onto young children can potentially harm them, because of the fact that they are forced into that religion, without truly knowing their other options.
Believer Skeptic
This book was quite an extensive read and it's certainly different to read a book written by my own teacher. As a fresh out of high school graduate that never really found a preferred major, I have not read many books out of the literature and science fiction genres. This was a new experience for me to read a book on a specific study.
The first section that really caught my attention was Chapter 3 on gurus. I never realized that, excuse me for being harsh, the ignorance some people hold for their guru can be so great. I always thought people looked at gurus as some sort of gifted leader, yet here I'm reading about people who worship gurus as gods. I had quite the laugh reading some of the excuses that people give when trying to defend the "holiness" of their gurus. Upon further evaluation, I start to empathize with some of these blind followers. They are gathered together under a certain guru, so that there is something for all of them to believe in, something that gives more meaning to their lives. However, I agree with Dr. Lane's conclusion that they are much like mindless sheep caught in the crossfire of people posing as gods. It's hard to believe there can be such a lack of skepticism when dealing with followers of certain religions or gurus.
Another interesting section was Chapter 7 of Richard Feynman. I mildly enjoyed the story in the introduction about his wife's watch. In order to be a critical thinker, one must look past his or her emotions. Instead of looking for what one wants to believe is the answer, one have to look for what is indeed the answer. Another thing about critical thinking is that one has to be able to think on all sides of an argument. In order to find the truth about something, one must be willing to doubt his or her primary beliefs.
Beyond Belief (Session 1)
As an agnostic, I never doubted the existence of God, but if I were to choose between the belief of either science or religion, it would have to be science. I believe religion in a sense was created as a good thing. It allowed people to gather under a common interest and have hope for a better future during bad times. I also believe that certain groups of people under certain religions have often taken things too far. In an essence, what makes it hardest for me to believe in certain religions is the fact that people are conformed into the religion of their society. Some people never get the chance to follow the religions of others, just because they do not have access to them throughout their lives. If there was a divine being, I don't believe that being would leave so many people out of what is promised to his or her followers.
For the video, I agree with Sam Harris and his bit about how religion has no room for error. I do not like how certain religious people blindly defend their own religion and look down upon those who disagree. This point binds into what I said earlier about how not everyone has the same access to certain religions based on where they are raised.
Science is a gold mine for a thinker, because science leaves room for error. In science, people are not encouraged to blindly defend their ideas and when they are proven wrong, they must accept it. While I will agree that religion does indeed have it's strong points for certain groups of people, I believe that science is the stepping stone into the future.
Beyond Belief (Session 2)
I liked the lecture from Neil Tyson, who was talking about past thinkers such as Isaac Newton and gave a meaningful insight into past ideas. I learned that unexplainable things that cannot be clarified through science mostly fall into the element of intelligent design.
Isaac Newton defined intelligent design by acknowledging that there are boundaries that science cannot cross and that there is a threshold to what science can explain. Although he does not acknowledge that there is a higher power, he does not deny that there is one. Thus, for things that cannot be explained, intelligent design can be applied towards any idea.
Thinking Clearly
Bertrand Russell brings up the simple point that people need to start thinking clearly instead of allowing emotions and other personal feelings to get in the way. While this may seem like an obvious observation that everyone should already know, the amount of people who do not practice clear thinking is staggering. It is of a human nature to think the way that one wants to, instead of thinking in a way that allows one to see all sides of an issue. The world is full of individuals with biased thinking, which, like Russell says, is not good for mankind. Like how courts should follow the philosophy of blind justice, people should follow the philosophy of unbiased thinking and not allow prejudice to affect their decisions.
I didn't quite get the last bit of what Russell was saying. I think he's saying something along the lines of how old-fashioned philosophy does not fit in with how the world works today. The way I see it, the world today has a huge population of people and not all of them have access to teachers who can teach them clear thinking. For the rest of the people, many of them do not have the urge to think outside the little bubble that society has created for them. In that sense, old philosophy would probably have an impact on only a small percentage of today's world population.
Why I Am Not A Christian
Bertrand Russell has a similar view of Christianity as most other thinkers and scientists. He brings up many good points as to why he should doubt the religion, while not really denouncing it. He states that while Christianity could be a good thing for others, it is not for him. This article stands out from most other previous readings and lectures against Christianity because Russell thinks of it more from a reasoning and thinking standpoint, rather than directly trying to prove certain parts of Christianity to be wrong.
I enjoyed reading about the reasons people give for believing in God. I have had some previous encounters with Christianity, where all I learned was that people had a blind faith in their creator and that they assumed others were just inconvenienced. Russell breaks down all of these explanations with his deep ideas. This is my first experience in learning about the basis and creation of Christianity, rather than just the practice of it, which I am more accustomed to seeing.
I strongly agree with Russell's points about the emotional factor. Many people accept Christianity, as well as other religions, on an emotional standpoint rather than a logical one. However, I don't feel this is necessarily bad, in the sense that it allowed people to unite under a common set of morals. On the other hand, I will agree that certain church procedures and ignorant believers can often bring society down with the die-hard Christian faith.
The Secret of Faqir
This was another new insight into the whole guru concept for me. However, this guru is quite different from the previous ones I read about. Faqir Chand is probably the most guru-like of all the gurus I have read about, but that's not because he can "miraculously" solve people's problems. It is because he understands his role as a leader is to change a faulty way of thinking that his people have been blindly following. Faqir Chand's secret is that there is neither gods nor religions. There is only oneself.
In this life, the only thing you can truly rely on is yourself. People often turn to religion in order to answer their questions and solve their problems, which isn't exactly a bad thing because it can give them a more meaningful life, but in order to truly appreciate life, I believe people have to realize that they have to realize that their life is their own doing. Faqir states that he doesn't know whether he is right or wrong, yet people still blindly follow his teachings. This just proves that many groups of people around the world are in dire need of the ability to consider the possibility that their religion could be wrong. Hopefully, the true teachings of Faqir were not completely wasted.
Pretext/Text/Context
Dr. Lane provides a valid point about cheap reductionalism. When breaking things down, one does not want to take the step from analyzing into oversimplifying. This method is similar to what Richard Feynman mentioned when talking about looking past the names of things. However, Dr. Lane wants to point out the correct approach into breaking something down. The goal of critical thinking is not to simplify something, but to learn everything. In an essence, Dr. Lane's main idea for writing this article was to teach that science deals with reducing something as much as one can, without losing any information about it.
Further into the article, Dr. Lane strongly argues between simplifying things and finding information about things. One cannot make something out to be so simple that nothing can be learned from it. Dr. Lane suggests that there is a fine line in which critical thinkers must tread upon. Throughout the text, it is also suggested that pretext, text, and context are all important in thinking about things. To be honest, I didn't really like how Dr. Lane brought up this issue. I felt that he complicated what should have been a simple matter with some of his examples. However, I might just be missing a larger picture that he wants his audience to see.
Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations
After my first look at this article, I was a bit disappointed. While it did provide for an interesting read, I was looking forward to something more philosophical like the previous articles. Then I thought about it for a few minutes and realized that this article was supporting a simple, yet important, rule about critical thinking. Thought should not be limited to what one first perceives. A bed of broken glass might appear to be fairly dangerous, but it can be proven by science to be harmless in a way. This goes the same with all the other examples.
David Wiley seems to be an interesting professor. I'll admit that I often find it hard to pay attention to boring teachers. In order to teach effectively, Wiley has found a way to incorporate critical thinking into his lessons. He challenges his students to doubt their perception of things, in order to learn more about the subject matter. It's enlightening to realize that science can hold so many answers to so many different scenarios.
Eleven
This short film triggers many emotions including sorrow, anger, sympathy, and confusion. The state of the world today is far from perfect. This partly has to do with the fact that people don't understand each other. They don't think outside of their own beliefs enough to try and understand why someone else thinks a certain way. This is another film promoting the evolution into critical thinking. If people weren't limited to their own thinking, then the world would be an easier place to get along with others.
For the film, the story causes a lot of finger pointing. The reporter and student were killed because of the vengeance dwelling in the heart of the guy who lost his father because of 9/11. In turn, the terrorists of 9/11 attacked
This film also brings up the issue of racism. Racism would also not exist if people learned to understand more than what they perceive. The guys who were killing Muslims didn't think outside the fact that some wore turbans and were of the same color skin as the terrorists. Emotion and perception often get in the way of clear thinking.
Freeman Dyson and the Mathematical Universe
Freeman Dyson is a rare scientist, in the sense that he believes that religion and science can coexist. He believes that religion can exist because it can be a cause for a number of things people do. Dyson accepts religion as a way of life and believes that science should not go out of its way to disprove it, but should instead strive to accept it. I like this way of thinking, because both sides have such an impact on people's lives, that why should we not just accept both of them? Critical thinking is the practice of seeing all sides of an argument, so this could just be an extreme example.
I like Dyson's philosophy that every aspect of life should be considered. Whether it be science or religion, nothing should be discredited. He is agnostic towards God, like myself, yet considers the morals and ethics of Christianity to be worth practicing. Dyson ended off his lecture talking about how life is interesting because of its mysteries. In that sense, science and religion are both huge aspects of life, because they both deal with the mysteries of life. Science is the solving of mysteries, while religion is the general belief of certain mysteries. If everyone could think the way Dyson does, the world might be an easier place to get around.
Dyson brings up a good point when he compares science and religion as two different windows looking onto the same thing. Both religion and science can explain life in their own different, and seemingly opposite, ways, yet ultimately, either of them can be true. However, when you look past the way they are explaining things, in the end, they are explaining the same thing, life.
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
This lecture was set up in an intriguing way. It starts off with a prayer, which is then followed up by Ken Miller's expert lecture on the debate of evolution. I found this interesting, because Ken Miller is pro-science and evolution, yet allows a religious practice to prepare the crowd for him. Miller gives a standard argument for the science side of this debate. He argues around the idea that science is based off theories and facts. The true beauty of science is that science leaves room for correction.
Throughout his lecture, Miller uses many funny examples of how religion takes things to the extreme sometimes when campaigning against science. I find it amusing how certain schools put warning stickers onto books about evolution, when students have the access to more potentially dangerous reading. I think that stunts like these are a sad attempt from religion to downplay science. One of the biggest arguments against the Theory of Evolution is the theory, itself. People argue that evolution is not a fact. I liked Miller's use of how gravity is also just a theory to back up his argument. Miller states that, in science, theories are on a higher level than facts. Theories are thought of to explain facts.
One thing I don't like about this whole science vs. religion debate is that both sides seem to want to win. In order for this, one must disprove the other, yet why can't we just live in a world where people can accept both religion and science? Yes, they are almost like opposites in the sense that in order for one to be completely true, the other must be false. However, I think both sides are trying too hard to discredit their opponents. This interview was just another example of one side trying to win over the other.
Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?
At first glance of this article, Paul Kurtz's questioning of this controversy allowed me to think in both a scientific and a religious perspective. Religion is all about being devoted, accepting what you believe in, and putting it into practice. Science however, seems to be the opposite of religion where seeing is believing; it is based on the study of facts and truths. Those who are religious and those who are not have the common difference of skeptical inquiry.
While the devoted are blindly faithful to their beliefs, they tend to turn away from skeptical inquiry and accept the guidelines of their religion. Those who apply the skeptical mind towards reason, however, find justification in answers that have explanation and can be proved. Although the religious are mostly born into their faith and are raised to accept their beliefs, they are also born with the right to think for themselves. If someone had to voluntarily put all their faith into something that they cannot even see, they should skeptically inquire with it before they start believing it. Therefore, I agree with Paul Kurtz and think that skeptical inquiry essentially needs to be applied.
11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a "virus" of the mind? Do you agree or disagree? Substantiate your view.
Dawkins considers religion as a “virus” of the mind, because religion is taught to people when they are not mentally stable enough to not learn it. He brings up the fact that religion is often taught to children while they are still developing their minds and are gullible to believing anything they hear. Furthermore, a religion can also act like a virus in the sense that it can undermine the potential for one to think clearly, because it causes people to turn away from facts and reason. It also spreads fast into the mind of a young child, like a virus spreading quickly into an unprotected computer. For the most part, I agree with Dawkins, because I think on a philosophical standpoint, religion can greatly hinder critical thinking and would ultimately be a scourge to the potential development of the human race.
12. Give an example of a "cargo cult" belief and critically analyze it from a scientific perspective? Hint: think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelming evidence to support it.
An example of a “cargo cult” belief can be superstitions. Many people believe in superstitions such as how walking under a ladder can bring bad luck and how four-leaf clovers are a lucky charm. While there is almost no valid evidence supporting superstitions, people around the world still have a knack for believing in them. I think this is mainly due to the fact that superstitions usually involve the emotions, fear and happiness. People are always looking for more happiness in their lives, so when they hear that a small charm can bring them luck, they will generally want to accept it. Then on the other hand, people are also easily convinced of bad superstitions, because in the back of their minds, they fear that they world is out to get them in one way or another. Superstitions are just another way that people turn to their emotions and perceptions of things, instead of stepping back and thinking clearly.
13. How does one do "science" according to Richard Feynman. Why is this form of science so important to human beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one's appreciation for beauty? Be sure to give YOUR own example of Feynman's point (no "flowers" allowed).
Feynman has a philosophy of taking things apart down to the most basic steps, in order to see everything about them. He believes that when looking at something, people should think about all the parts that make it a whole and also all the steps it takes to develop. In his way of doing science, one never stops running out of questions to wonder. This process allows people to appreciate the complexity that exists in every single thing and Feynman believes that the complexity of something is its true beauty. A simple example of Feynman’s point can be stars. Most people look to the sky at night to see the beautiful sparkles in the dark. However, I can look past the outer beauty and remember that stars are just balls of fiery gas. While that might not seem as appealing, the thought that those gaseous spheres can look so beautiful from down here is very intriguing.
14. Give your interpretation of the movie "Karma."
In my opinion, the “Karma” movie is supposed to give off the message that karma does not exist. At first glance, this movie just seems like a simple “subject and examples” video, where the creator brings up the idea of karma and then shows examples of it. However, upon further evaluation, I believe that the creator purposely threw in inadequate examples to prove the point that karma is inexistent. The video first starts off with an example where karma doesn’t exist at all; the guy beats up someone else and then gets away with it. The second example involves a seemingly innocent girl winning something off a scratch card. I believe this example first comes off as showing that good people get rewarded, but then I thought about it and wondered what made this girl better that she was able to win over other people that play the game. I came to the conclusion that she was just lucky. The next example shows a guy getting shot by a girl after they have an argument and he strikes at her. I believe this is similar to the previous one in the sense that it first comes off as showing that people who do bad things are punished, but then I also questioned this one, as to if someone deserves to die over a heated argument. I also thought about how the guy could have grown up in a rough environment, where violence was a common practice. The last example is the most obvious showing of karma, where a guy gets hit by a car right after he mugs someone. I believe that the reason for all these conflicting examples is that the creator of the video wants to show that karma is like a cargo cult belief and that people should think past the misconception.
15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John Maynard Smith's contribution is important in thinking differently about survival of the fittest.
John Maynard Smith explains Darwinian evolution past the standard motto of “survival of the fittest.” The whole concept of survival of the fittest suggests that there has to be conflict where certain species win and survive, while others lose and die out. Smith brings up the point that species are aware of their existence and, through evolution, understand that avoiding conflict can be a key to survival. Another thing Smith talks about is how the rarity of a species can also increase its chances of survival. Other species seem to understand that an uncommon species will be high in demand, yet low in output, so natural selection benefits those rare species by giving them an advantage in survival.
16. What are Freeman Dyson's views on the "design" of the universe or the purpose of humankind?
Freeman Dyson believes that humans were put in this universe for a reason and that they must find that reason. He comes off as saying that everything, including science and religion, was put in this world to accommodate each other. Dyson states that many things in this world are able to coexist and that people should learn to be accepting of that process. He also brings up the fact that while he cannot prove there is a God, he cannot prove that there isn’t, so instead, he just learns to accept it as a way of life. In his point of view, religion is not a purpose to life, but more like an art form and just a way of life. He also believes that there are many mysteries to life that he cannot explain, such as the human consciousness, but he acknowledges that there might be more meaning to them.
17. What IS the "secret" that Faqir Chand discovered about religion and its founders?
Faqir Chand’s secret about religion is that there is actually no higher beings out there that people should follow. Religion is just a creation of society and Faqir understands that, ultimately, it shouldn’t exist. People need to learn that the only entities they should truly follow are themselves.
18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it? In other words, what is the underlying message that the director is trying to convey?
I think the underlying message from the movie Eleven is that the practice of following emotions without thinking clearly is a dangerous concept. When faced with certain strong emotions, people often lose the ability of practical thinking. Negative actions can result from this, as shown in the video. I think that the big picture is a trail of finger pointing, starting from the delinquents to the terrorists to the American government. In order for societies to coexist with each other, people need to learn the utmost importance of keeping an open mind.
19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important? Use the Da Free John article as your context.
The message of something should not be confused with the medium. In the Da Free John article, Dr. Lane again brings up a problem of certain professors and students when studying critical thinking. I understood what he was getting at after reading the example of how an elegant writing on something the author might not actually believe in can often confuse readers into thinking that the author is a strong advocate of said thing. This can lead to a sort of biased thinking on a manner, something that should always be avoided.
20. What are Bertrand Russell's reasons for NOT being a Christian? Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con).
Bertrand Russell’s reasons for not being a Christian revolve around these two main ideas: 1) God does not exist; 2) Christ was not the wisest of men. Russell believes that in order for someone to consider themselves true Christians in today’s society; they must believe the opposite of those two concepts. He first starts with stating reasoned arguments as to why certain explanations of God’s existence do not make sense. Then he goes off to talk about certain defects in Christ’s teachings and then finished with the extremism of certain churches. I agree with Russell’s argument. There just isn’t definite, inexplicable evidence that God truly exists. Russell gave good logical responses that discredited the existing explanations. I also agree churches are retarded in a sense when they blindly stand by their opinions with the mentality that they cannot be wrong.
21. Give a summary of Jim Lett's field guide to critcal thinking (in your own "300" words, no more). Don't use quotes but write it like a letter to a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett's numerous points.
Dear Crystal,
I heard that you’ve been having problems applying critical thinking. Lucky for you, I recently read Jim Lett’s guide to critical thinking. Lett believes that critical thinking revolves around 6 major points. The first point is Falsifiability, which means that you must first be able to differentiate what is false from the truth. You need to be able to prove something is false using evidence. The next point is Logic, which means that any argument you bring up must be rational. If it isn’t logical, then it would only hurt your claim. The next point is Comprehensiveness, which is very important, because you need to be able to understand your standpoint enough that you can help others comprehend. The next point is Honesty, which means that you cannot falsify evidence in order to believe what you want. The next point is Replicability, which means that your experimental results need to be able to be repeated. This is just precaution against things like coincidence and phenomenon. The last point is Sufficiency, which means that just because something cannot be proven wrong, does not mean it is the exact truth. Just follow these 6 points in order to start thinking critically.
Your friend,
William
22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied to religion? Do you agree or disagree?
In order for science to study religion, skepticism of religious beliefs needs to be in place. I don’t necessarily agree with what Kurtz is saying because of his idea that science and religion can be intertwined. Religion and science are two completely different perspectives about life; some might even say that they are opposite viewpoints. I don’t mind the thought of religion and science coexisting, but Kurtz’s ideas are different.
23. Why is pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a book or an argument. Provide your own example.
As Dr. Lane states in his article, pretext, text, and context are important because they all help the process of breaking down a book or argument. They are the simplest things you can find that still give adequate information. If reduced any further, the information becomes too simple and nothing can be learned out of it. Dr. Lane describes the three as pretext being fundamental, text being informative, and context being eliciting. This process has a “step by step” concept, where each step leads to a whole; if one is missing, than the whole is gone. An example would be how circuitry comes together to form parts which come together to form a computer.
24. What is a "transformative" UFO encounter and does the author of the Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuine extraterrestrials?
A "transformative" UFO encounter is when an alleged UFO sighting reoccurs in different places. The author does not believe in genuine UFO encounters. He believes that people are quick to believe what they want to; in this case, it is only something of their imagination. The author states that there is just not enough evidence, yet people like to stick with their first perception of things. When the mind wants to believe something, it has a strong affect on individuals, so even though it may seem highly doubtful to us, it might not be for certain people.
25. How does one think more critically when using online sources? (hint: think of one of the required articles). Substantiate your views.
Online sources allow us to access many different viewpoints on a certain topic at any time. With libraries, information will always be limited in a sense, because the internet is just able to hold so much more information. All this information gives us opinions and facts on every argument, including sides that we might have never thought of on our own. Like Dr. Lane said at our first meeting, critical thinking involves the consideration of any belief. With the internet, people have access to just that. I also think that because online sources are not limited to the opinions of professionals, we are given a broader selection of standpoints to think about.
26. What are Steven Weinberg's views on religion? Do you agree or disagree?
Steven Weinberg felt that religion, as a separate entity from science, would never entwine with it. In a sense, Weinberg could be said as not believing in religion. He understands that science is more accurate because it is based off facts. He strongly believes in evolution and the fact that science gives a more definite explanation to life than religion. I agree that the theory of science works out with what he believes.
27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argue against his views? If so, how?
Sam Harris is an atheist, because he agrees with evolution on one side, and lost faith in religion on the other side. Harris saw that natural selection gave a more accurate explanation to life than religion could ever give him. With religion, Harris saw its many flaws, including the stupidity of blind faith and how religion will almost never admit when it’s wrong. While also seeing the shortcomings of religion, Harris was also able to understand the accuracy of evolution and the whole “survival of the fittest” concept. Since they are arguable opposing views, Harris jumped ship and became an atheist.
28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speaker did you find most persuasive? Explain why.
To be honest, I had a hard time staying focused while listening to these extremely long lectures. However, there was this black man, I think his name was Neil, who was talking about past thinkers such as Isaac Newton and gave a meaningful insight into past ideas. He used a lot of emotion during his lecture, added with the fact that he was also a good speaker. I remember he made a good point about how science was the philosophy of discovering things, while religion was the philosophy of ignorance.
29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe's notion of irreducible complexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is he right? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not.
I agree with Miller, because I don’t believe in the notion of irreducible complexity. I believe people, along with all other species, all went through evolution from simple predecessors. I don’t think that intelligent design belongs in biology, as they are two completely different ideas.
30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find to be the weakest in terms of substance? Explain.
I don’t really recall who was the weakest, but I remember there was this one lady who was arguing against Darwinism and was talking about another model of evolution. I remember that she came off as a weak speaker when faced against criticism.
31. What constitutes a scientific education according to Huxley?
Huxley talks about the necessity of a natural education, where people are taught the essential laws of nature. He believes that once educated in that manner, people can use science to solve any problem. Huxley also believes that nature and example can teach people a lot about science. He talks about examples where the study of simple objects in nature can lead to extensive scientific discoveries.
32. Why is the book BELIEVER-SKEPTIC so critical of Ken Wilber and this thinking? Be specific in your answers
Dr. Lane is very critical of Ken Wilber’s thinking partly because of the high regard he has for Wilber. Wilber apparently had a tendency to exaggerate things that are not yet proven yet. Dr. Lane must feel that Wilber’s frequent use of these exaggerations greatly undermine his otherwise professional work. Dr. Lane doesn’t feel that Wilber should over hype some of his own opinions, such as when he considered The Dawn Horse Testament to be the “greatest spiritual book of all time.” Dr. Lane seems to feel strongly towards the fact that this professional thinker didn’t think to add “in my opinion” to that statement. For me, something like that seemed trivial at first, but after thinking about it, I realized well-known, prestigious thinkers should not make such claims like that without adding the proper pretext.
