Week 1 - Logical Possibility vs Physical Possibility
This week we covered a variety of different claims and a common fallacious argument used in their favour. Among the topics discussed were claims such as conspiracies, UFOs, homeopathy, Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP) and bigfoot.
A common argument used to defend these claims is the assertion that the mere possibility of their existence makes them valid claims. In other words the fact that these things are not logically impossible makes them perfectly rational stances to take. One of the reasons that this argument is fallacious is because things that are not logically possible are not necessarily physically possible.
An example given was that of a cow jumping over the moon, something which is logically possible yet physically impossible. This belief, most would agree, is ridiculous to consider and yet it has the same
…show more content…
This likely occurs at least in part due to the need for rapid assessment of our senses for survival. It is much better for our survival to take the shadow of a swaying tree to be a threat than for the reversed scenario. Though skeptics are susceptible to sensory tricks, it is also true that those more open to the idea or those who have been told to expect a phenomenon are more likely to be fooled by their own perceptions.
This sensory deception can occur even to well trained scientists if experiments aren’t set up with safeties and precautions. This occurred to a large number of scientists with a particular experiment involving what were called N-rays in the early 20th century. Numerous scientists were able to produce these N-rays in their labs, all beginning with the creator of the experiment himself (Prosper-René Blondlot) who claimed to have produced them in 1903. These N-rays were supposedly observable with the naked eye and radiated from almost everything except green
Issue Four was titled Argument Beyond Pro and Con. In this issue you they covered different points and views that would help you out with your papers. The four main topics of this issue was spotlighting strategies and arguments, setting the scene for arguable assertions, zooming in on claims and evidence, and focusing on effective organization. One example they use is immigration.” In the debate about immigration for instance, participants are actually arguing about their values and the different visions they have for the country”(Cannon pg. 150). They also talk about whether or not parents should be able to see their child's grades in college and the pros and cons of it. They also give good insight on zooming in on claims and evidences with.
The mass hysteria of UFOs and the Salem Witch Trials share many similarities between each other. Some that were stated were the fact that people claim that they have witnessed UFOs or witnessed a Witch. These claims also lead to the similarities of how people were split in both topics, never agreeing to one side of the hysteria. A difference was also expressed in this paper saying that in the Trials people died compared to UFO sightings where no one died related to them. Overall they share many similarities and differences and there are many more that can be
In "On Entering a New Place", Barry Lopez discusses how perception can be deceiving when trying something new that you don't completely understand. Typically, a person would be uncomfortable about the unknown so in their minds they theorize what could be. To continue getting rid of their nerves, they run their ideas through their heads multiple times until they believe that is how it's supposed to be.
Fox, Josh. "10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax." Listverse. N.p., 28 Dec. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
...articular. Understanding why one is not warranted in believing certain conspiracy theories will make it easier to understand why we ought to believe other things. It also gives reasons to believe that some conspiracy theories will certainly have plausibility to them. Keeley goes through with this analysis by discussing the problem of trying to define UCTs, and illustrating the challenges for finding criteria for distinguishing good theories from bad ones. He then highlights values of UCTs that make them particularly attractive and explain their popularity. He also discusses the grounds for rejecting these values, as they the very reason for UCTs being unwarranted. He discusses how directly confronting UCTs means having to decide between the almost “nihilistic” skepticism and absurdism. He concludes that it is philosophies job to look for an answer to this problem.
In arguments there are three major types of classifications, forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. An example of a forensic argument would be the article “The Assassination in Israel That Worked” by Roger Cohen for the New York Times. “Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering” by Chris Seck for the Stanford Review, and “Crowd Fill Washington For Inauguration” by Carol Morello, Allison Klein, and Donna St. George for the Washington Post are great examples of deliberative and epideictic arguments, respectively. I will examine the article by Chris Seck, specifically for it’s qualifications of a deliberative argument.
I can prove now, for instance, that two human hands exist. How? By holding up my two hands, and saying, as I make a certain gesture with the right hand, >Here is one hand=, and adding, as I make a certain gesture with the left, >and here is another=. And if, by doing this, I have proved ipso facto the existence of external things, you will all see that I can also do it now in numbers of other ways: there is no need to multiply examples.1
Sense Perception is a way of knowing in which a person can acquire knowledge using their five senses - taste, touch, sight, sound and smell. Sense perception is an important in our understanding of the world, and is a source of much of the pleasure in our lives. But, can we trust our senses to give us the truth? This may come out as an odd question to many because according to experience and history it is known that humans greatly rely on sense perception as a means of survival. However, like all ways of knowing, sense perception has its weakness; our senses can easily be deceived. In his TED Talk, “Are we in control of our decisions?” behavioral economist Dan Ariely uses examples and optical illusions to demonstrate the roles, strengths and limitations of sense perception as a way of knowing.
Phenomenal events and faith provide reasoning for seeing and not believing. In the story "The People Could Fly'' the slaves labored daily in the impeccably hot fields for the overseer, plantation owner, and slave laborer. Series of unfortunate events came to Sarah, but ultimately she flew away with the magic of Africa. Finally, the lasting result was that some slaves flew away, and the slave laborer couldn’t believe what he was actually seeing, henceforth this proves seeing isn't believing. Religious beliefs have the substance of having faith in a significant righteous leader. Faith and hope are figures of empowerment, that give a plethora of people in believing what they do not see. " Sonnet 43" is another example, that creates a turn with showing how reality is definitely not
Through the years there has been many ideas to what goes bump in the night. Mysterious, unsolved happenings blamed on the so-called supernatural. There are many myths, legends and lore based on these so called mysterious happenings. Through this research paper I am going to help to explain the biggest threats, conspiracies, and misunderstandings of aforementioned legends, myths, and lore.
In today’s world there are always people trying to come up with a new way to explain something. There will always be people trying to pedal a new product or story about an innovative new way to look at things. Some of these ideas will really be ground-breaking, but many of these will be false ideas. Many of them will just be honest mistakes, but just as many will be ideas from people trying to trick other people. Carl Sagan recognizes this and writes about it in his article The Fine Art of Baloney Detection. Within it he describes how he has been vulnerable himself wanting to believe things that people have told him that didn’t seem true, but was what he wanted to hear. He then goes on to talk about how people need to be skeptical about what they are told/read. He has developed a system using the scientific which he calls “Tools for Skeptical Thinking.” These are things that people can do when evaluating a situation or idea to check for “baloney.” I have picked six of these tools to explain in further detail.
...at people say even though when it is not true because we tends to believe what others says. Our memories in our mind can be tricky and get mixed up by what people say; it can trick us in to believing that it is true. In which that makes them unable to separate what is fake, fantasy, from reality.
Socrates is a man of great controversy. He has been portrayed as many different personalities such as a sophist to a great philosopher to just a vocal old man. The true nature of Socrates is to be questioned. He spoke his thoughts on life and what his philosophy on life was. A couple arguments that he spoke about really stood out about lying. These arguments had brute force and were made very clear through his dialogue. According to his dialogue, he felt that there were two different types of lies.
Finally, it appears that our senses are a limiting factor when searching for truth, whether it’s a physical limitation, for example a defect in the cones of person’s eyes, a limitation caused by drugs affecting the brain, or the image itself limiting the truth our senses can perceive from it. Overall however, it seems it would be more accurate to say that we can trust our senses completely; it’s our cognitive processing that can deceive our perception of the truth. The way we interpret the information our senses receive can be affected by a number of different things, whether it’s our genetic make-up, our culture, or our experiences, all can change the way the brain deciphers the stimuli.
Human beings depend on their senses to tell them what is there and what is not. Some believe only what their eyes show