According to Hume we build up all our ideas from simple impressions by means of three laws of association: Resemblance, Contiguity, & Cause and Effect. Hume distinguishes between relations of ideas and matters of fact; he says that relations of ideas are, for the most part, mathematical truths, so denial of them would result in a contradiction. Matters of fact are the more common truths that we learn from experience (for example the sun rising in the morning). Hume also says that that there is no rational justification for a belief in miracles. There are many contradictions in Hume, but there is little agreement on what these contradictions show about Hume's thought in general.
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
When teaching a student about constructing explanations it is important to understand what the purpose of the explanation is trying to say; being thorough is going to be the best option as the more details that are available the more likely the person reviewing the experiment will understand what was trying to be done. The use of computational thinking requires a student to be logical, this is required to be able to solve problems that are more complicated, it involves many aspects such as mathematics (to solve equations), gathering information from many sources; it also requires that the student be able to understand how to gather information from different sources such as the internet or different scientific books (which can be accessed in many locations
Intelligence Definition and Measurement University of Phoenix – PSYCH/525 June 15, 2013 Intelligence Definition and Measurement There are a variety of individuals that define intelligence in different ways. Experts have different opinions in regard to what intelligence truly means but a definition agreed upon by all is still elusive. With the true meaning of intelligence still being scrutinized the value and reliability of the tests that define the intelligence of an individual are still questionable. One of the most common definitions of intelligence is the capacity of an individual to acquire knowledge and then to apply that knowledge (Gardner, 1999). The chosen tests to assess intelligence is the ACER Test of Reasonability Definition of Intelligence The definition of intelligence is one that causes a lot of speculation and one that does not always provide the most accurate of answers.
Because language is arbitrary, the meanings of words can change over time. This means that language is dynamic. Symbols are ambiguous because what they mean isn’t clear-cut. Finally, symbols are abstract, which means that they are not concrete or tangible. Words stand for ideas, people, events, objects, feelings, and so forth, but they are not the things they represent (Wood, p. 95, 96).” 2.
He goes on to say that existence is a perfection. Therefore, God must exist. Both arguments have been debated by other philosophers and thinkers, and some objections have been made in relation to one or both of the arguments. One of the objections has been made by St Aquinas. Aquinas argued that the definition of God cannot be comprehended by humans.
McCloskey states that one of the major problems is believing in an uncaused first cause. He states that the mere existence of the universe does not constitute for believing in a being (God). While McCloskey has this view, we learn in the readings of Evans and Manis (2009), that the term contingency of the universe is often used to refute the question of what about the universe support the claim that God exists (pg. 69). This merely states that if we look around at the universe we will see things that may or may not have existed if there was not a God or other necessary being.
One of the difficulties faced by scientific evidence is admissibility in the court of law, validity of testing is part of the process for meeting requisite standards; the validity of the polygraph test has proven to be a hurdle difficult to overcome. “There are two major reasons why an overall measure of validity is not possible. First, the polygraph test is, in reality, a very complex process that is much more than the instrument. Although the instrument is essentially the same for all applications, the types of individuals tested, training of the examiner, purpose of the test, and types of questions asked, among other factors, can differ substantially. A polygraph test requires that the examiner infer deception or truthfulness based on a comparison of the person’s physiological responses to various questions.
The same theory can be applied to standardized testing. Intelligence is something that cannot be measured by a few simple tests. Standardized testing does not work due to the unreliability of objective measures, the detrimental attributes
There has always been great tension between the Rationalists and Empiricists in the quest into knowledge upon the existence of innate ideas and experiential knowledge. Most representatively, Locke, an empiricist, proposes that the doctrine of innate ideas is neither necessary nor conceivable whereas Leibniz objects that it is both reasonable and necessary for accounting for knowledge. In close scrutiny, however, Leibniz does not seem to be engaging directly with Locke’s proposal due to the slight discrepancy in focuses – scope of experience; and content and the psychological understanding of versus the ontological framework or structure needed for the understanding of truths – thereby making Leibniz’s objections futile. In the openings of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke radically propounds against the rationalists that there is no such thing as innate speculative principles and, that all the knowledge we are capable of attaining are derived from “experience” (I.2; II.1.2). Locke tentatively takes “innate principles” to be the very primitive notions or characters that are engraved into the mind from the very beginning of the existence of the soul and therefore refers to that which can be considered inherent to the soul (II.2.1).