In ‘If Free Will Doesn’t Exist, Neither Does Water’, Vargas asserts that most people nowadays connect science and free will and use it to prove that free will does not actually exist. I personally believe that these claims are too hasty as the issue requires substantive commitments about disputed philosophical ideas. Aside from that, he also mentions that science has a different way to explain the detail of history of the things that we know without abandoning anything else. In section 1, I will explain the connection between science and our actions. In section 2, I will discuss why if our actions are casually determined, then we don’t have free will.
When conducted honestly and thoroughly, the scientific method can and has provided valuable information about the world and the world’s people (Jackson, 2009). Though some people rely on other methods for gaining knowledge, scientists only accept knowledge gained through science to arrive at plausible truths (Jackson, 2009). Due in part to human error and the tendency of human nature to succumb to temptations to bias research, the results of the scientific method should be viewed with skepticism (Garzon, n.d.). The scientific method of seeking knowledge and finding truth must stay within the limits of scientific ability and allow for human fragility in order to be effective (Slick, 2012). References Garzon, F. (n.d.).
Ingraham then proceeds to conclude the literature review by stating that there is no conclusive agreement in the body of literature dealing with the impact of race on consulting. The conclusion produced about the literature dealing with MSC is so that the body of knowledge is too small and that there is a need to produce a framework and conduct empirical research. Although the previous conclusion could be taken as a truism and a catch phrase. Also the fact that the article is very well supported except for its main area of focus leads to the conclusion that more research is needed (the author referencing her own older works shows that the body of knowledge is indeed small). As for the procedures in the article itself, there seems to be an over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, with the argument being supported with stories about one person or with hypothetical situation.
ch1 Key 1. People sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between scientific explanations of common events and other kinds of explanation (superstition, prejudice, magic, etc.). Which of the following best helps to identify a scientific explanation? A. The explanation goes against the results of public opinion polls.
Also it may be possible that the information didn’t decay but displaced by the numbers that were being used to count down. We cannot be sure on Peterson & Peterson’s study as it does not give us clear evidence for decay and shows elements for supporting displacement theory. The second theory is displacement which explains that we forget because of a new set of information that physically overwrites the older set of information. This happens because the STM is limited
Jim Tarter and Pamela Paul both constructed similar essays on the topic of chemicals within our environment that prove to be harmful to humans and their lack of regulation. However, each writer gathers their research in a different type of way this creates a contrast between essays enabling the reader to determine which argument is more persuasive. For example, in Pamela Paul’s ‘Green If Not Clean’ she uses her own primary research in order to argue her viewpoint. Whereas in Jim Tarter’s ‘Some Live More Downstream than Others’ essay the research is mainly derived from other sources (secondary research). Although Jim Tarter’s essay may contain valid and strong research, I believe that Pamela Paul’s essay is more persuasive from a reader’s point
According to the scientific method in order to test a hypothesis one must make sure the claim is falsifiable. Although there is evidence that the planets move almost like clockwork, however that is not enough to prove astrology specifically. However studies and tests have been conducted in the past in order to verfiy its claims. Similar to the practise of witchcraft, the failure of producing the desired result is almost always blamed on the psychic or astrologers inability and not the fault of astrology itself.5 The difficulty to test this is due to its subjectivity. This makes it unscientific; the result of every experiment must either be true or
Explain the criticisms of the Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument has been criticised time and time again, but i am only going to go into two of the most well known criticisms. Hume criticised the link between cause and effect and says that just because we have an effect that doesn't mean we have to have a cause, an example of this is the universe it is an effect but it doesn't necessarily have to have a cause. Hume also said that our senses can be wrong, meaning the way that i may see something can be different to how someone else may see the same thing, and Hume said that when we see an effect it is instantly in our human nature to make an assumption about the cause. This shows that the argument is subjective and not solid
The writer could rephrase the term ‘poor people’ as under privileged or poverty stricken. Also, rather than starting the sentence ‘and most notably’ they could have just stated ‘notably.’ The writer then goes on to express their own opinion by throwing in the question “And in fact, why would there be?” As a scholarly writer one must avoid expressing their own opinion so blatantly. As a scholarly writer one must express an original thought carefully, by synthesizing the information from multiple sources the writer can then express their opinion but constructively with supporting evidence. No one can win an argument without evidence to support it! While this may appeal to many different audiences including computer experts, people researching the ‘digital divide,’ teachers of high school students, or high school students, it’s intended audience is unclear.
Most of the 'undesirable' traits were not heritable, they came from environmental conditioning. Even if they were heritable traits, sterilizing these people would not purge the defective genes from our gene pool. The reason for this is because there is a spontaneous pattern of mutations in our genetic make up. Mutations can be caused by numerous environmental factors also and not just from the existing gene pool (Crow, 200). To support this misuse of evolutionary theory, this paper will argue against eugenic programs and sterilization by proving that behavior is not solely heritable, how gene pool size discredits an ideal gene pool, and how deleterious mutations can occur to even the most genetically fit people.