WEEK 1
Expert Lecture: I think that Bertrand Russell had some valid points in his speech on thinking clearly. He said, “Clear exact thinking important to man kind.” I believe that it is necessary for man to think clearly and not be influenced by outside sources. Inexact thinking is when biases come in and your judgment is no longer your judgment but instead an array of ideas from others around you. When one thinks like this one does bad things without knowing they are doing them. The one statement that most grabbed my attention was when Russell said, “I don’t think that philosophy in the old fashion sense is what the world needs today.” This is interesting to me because Russell is stating that old ideologies of philosophy are no longer relevant to today’s time and changes including in philosophies are needed. The first video on Richard Feynman and Critical thinking in physics was deleted and I was not able to watch it.
Assigned readings:1) CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard FeynmanIs Feynman inferring that no research is truly correct because of the lack of integrity of scientists and the unconcern of the scientist who do exhibit integrity but fail to find new discoveries?I believe that Feynman makes a valid point when he states that scientific integrity is needed. However, I do not believe that most scientists exhibit this integrity. Unfortunately, today’s sciences have become a field of money and fame instead of honest discoveries. Feynman’s references to urban legends and myths seem kind of useless at first but I realized that he was trying to use them as examples to prove that research is not being done. Had research been done many of these myths would be expelled today. His last paragraph is a plea to the reader to go forth in integrity within the sciences and any field. So that one day a person may have the freedom to be honest no matter what the circumstances at hand.2) CRITICAL THINKING IN AN ONLINE WORLD by Debra JonesTo what extent has the internet and online search engines taken over the need for librarians in today’s society?This reading was interesting because it shed on the light on the fact that librarians are no longer a profession that is required when information is needed. The internet has taken over our ability to critically think and search for things the old fashion way. When walking into a library how many people are on the computers compared to those in the aisles looking for a book? Today’s society does not regard reading as much because there is no need to read a book. That is what spark notes is for, that is what online text is for. Librarians are still respected for their profession but the point of Debra Jones article was to show that librarians need to figure out a way to change their methods so that they may allow the library users to regain some sense of critical thinking. Until then, the internet and thoughtless individuals will reign. CRITICAL THINKING VIDEO: Karma is the concept of "action" or "deed" in Dharmic religions understood as denoting the entire cycle of cause and effect described in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist philosophies.(Wikipedia: Karma) It basically says that the total of what a person has down will come back to them. In the words of Newton, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. The consequences of a person’s actions depend on their deeds. This is karma. The video was hard to watch and I had to play it a few times in order to fully understand because of the static and noise level. As the main character walks he encounters an array of people and seems to draw a mixed reaction after every person. The only person he encounters that is depicted as having good karma is the girl with the scratchers. At the end of the video, the main character takes a looks at himself in the mirror. This is important as he does not seem to get a premonition of his own life. Metaphorically speaking he cannot see his own destiny within his mirror because people never are able to see themselves. We always want to draw conclusions about someone else instead of looking at ourselves. Although the karma of the main character is not shown, one can infer that it is hidden because of his ability not to truly see himself. WEEK 2EXPERT LECTURE: John Maynard Smith begins his interview by referring to himself as an atheist and not missing his faith. He says that he never was really able to think a complete though out when he was in a part of the Church of England but after reading Darwin suddenly everything made sense. Furthermore, he states that he does not miss his faith. This is interesting because although faith is not concrete it does require a person to believe. And for a person to not look upon their own beliefs without some regard shows that the person may or may not be strong in their beliefs. So that makes me question whether his beliefs in evolution should be considered passionate if he cannot even be passionate about his own faith. Then Smith went on to say that one day humans could be replaced by electronic super organisms. While I do believe that the technology to do so is there, a super electronic organism will not have the ability to truly think which is what separates us. Ken Millers spew on intelligent design was interesting as well. At first I thought intelligent design should be taught along with science. However, I changed my mind because of the lesson plans proposed by the intelligent design. These plans had little to no scientific backing and were almost like a fake science. I agree with Ken's point that teaching the intelligent design would allow students to choose between believing in God or evolution. However, I do not believe that schools should teach this religion because it is biased. Just as Catholics, Christians, and Muslims are biased towards their own religions. Religion is not science as religions is based almost completely on faith and belief while science is based on facts and theories. You cannot pick up a bible and read, there is a theory that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose from the dead. Evolution is just a theory of our existence. I think that Ken was correct in teaching his children both religion and science. I think that a complete person has a background in both and is able to decipher between what they really believe. It is through questioning one’s beliefs that one is made stronger in them. ASSIGNED READINGS:1) THE PHYSICS BEHIND FOUR AMAZING DEMONSTRATIONS by David WilleyThis reading was particularly interesting because Willey describes how to demonstrate physics in an attention getting fashion. Learning is always easier when a student’s attention is first grabbed. Willey then goes into the physics of each experiment and how even though they are really done, there are some hidden procedures. For example, Willey does not show that the hand dipped in water before dipped in molten lead stops the lead from burning as all the energy goes into the evaporation of the water. It is a great way to show the physics in demonstrations that are both attention grabbing and highly heard of.2) SHOULD SKEPTICAL INQUIRY BE APPLIED TO RELIGION by Paul KurtzI really enjoyed this reading because I have been thinking similar to Kurtz for a while now. I am a devout Christian and believe in Jesus Christ dying for my sins. However, I love science as well. Now the hardest thing about loving two subjects which often seem to conflict with each other is forming your own beliefs and ideas. Most scientists do not believe in God because of skeptical inquiry being applied to religion. They have questioned belief and religion and often found that there are flaws in the reports. In the reading they talked about Jesus’ shroud and how when scientists tested it, it was only 700 years old. Still people continued to believe that it was his despite the evidence. I agree with Kurtz when he states that events that have occurred a long time ago and are miraculous in nature should require strong evidence. Although I believe that skeptical inquiry should be applied to religion I do not believe that it will make any changes. The difference between religion and science is that religion is based on belief and science on doubt. No matter what scientific evidence may come out, most people will hold onto their beliefs before conforming to some idea found by scientists who ‘doubted’ their beliefs. Kurtz says that by trying to find these answers we are shaking the foundations of the social ladder. This is completely true. While science finds the “truth,” belief will continue to reign and religions will stay intact. My father always use to tell me, “Who is to say if the Bible is the greatest book ever written or the biggest lie known to man?” The answer to the question was that I believe what is in those words. And while science can prove many of my beliefs wrong, the nature of my belief in God will continue on. Critical Thinking Films:
Kanye West said, “Racism is still alive they’re just concealing it.” After watching this video this was the only line that came to mind. Racism is still alive, stereotyping is still alive, and hate for someone who is not like you is still alive. The video begins with a man having his picture on the front of the newspaper. Immediately I thought a) he was murdered, b) he had done something beneficial to the world. I later found out that I was correct. The man was killed for researching on the Muslim community.
The Muslim community has been a target for many people since 9-11 because as Americans we have hate and fear in our heart. Hate is the strongest emotion a person can have and this is what is in our hearts. It is unfortunate that we can judge a group of people solely on their appearance. It’s a shame that we can kill the ones who are just looking for understanding. Why did this happen? What did they believe? Instead of assuming they were nothing than killers why not try to find the answers to your questions? Oh yeah but that would require work, that would require you putting aside your ego and hate, that would require you talking to these people. That is something most people are not willing to do. But if we ever want to get past an unfortunate event such as 9-11 we must seek understanding. The man in the article was seeking understanding, its unfortunate that most people could not see that.
WEEK 3
Expert Lecture:
I found this interview to be lively but rather hard to follow. Dyson discussed various topics and sometimes seemed confused on whether he truly believed what he was saying at times. He does not say anything in confidence or definitely which I like because I believe that it allows him room for error. Especially when dealing with philosophy and science, there is a border in which one does not want to cross. However, I think that there needs to be some sort of confidence when presenting your ideas. A teacher once told me, “if you say anything in confidence, someone will believe you.” Now is that to say that high level thinkers will not see through bullshit? No. It is just saying that confidence and belief in yourself is needed in order to have others believe you. I mean would you believe someone who said “maybe..I don’t know…this could happen?” I wouldn’t.
A part of his interview in which I really enjoyed was his piece on religion and science. He compares science and religion as two separate windows that one can look through to view the world. The most important part of this is his reference to two separate windows. Science and religion cannot be used to explain the world together. They are too distinct, two different, they convey two different meanings. What we can come to believe religiously most likely is not supported scientifically. Yet we need both of these fields in order to gain a complete understanding. Dyson says that religion is needed because it gives purpose and something to believe in. It is able to explain that which science is not able to.
Assigned Readings:
PRETEXT/ TEXT/ CONTEXT by David Lane
David Lane completely blew me away in this reading. In the beginning I initially picked up on the fact that instead of being written by David Lane it said “as imagined by David Lane.” I already knew that the text that followed was going to be strong, powerful, and emotional as he would express what he believed. The whole idea of pretext, text, and context was wonderful and how he broke it down so that an understanding and comparison to normal occurrences was made. For example, when he showed how the pretext was like the letters, the text like the sentences, and the context the meaning. I never had really sat down and though about that. I completely agree with him on his idea of over reducing and how reducing too much can make something that once had meaning meaningless. This reading was by far my favorite reading yet and I loved how he ended it by saying we will have to wait for PART 2. Go head Mr. Lane!
PRETEXT PART 2 by David Lane After reading part 1 I had to see what else David Lane had to say. What I encountered was a reading that furthered the importance of pretext/ text/ context and attempted to explain the idea of soul and materialism and how they fit into this idea. Lane proposed that in order to have context there must be pretext and that because of this pretext is the most important. It is like building blocks, in order to have a tall strong building one must first have a strong foundation. The idea of soul and materialism first lost be but I came to understand what he meant and that we cannot possibly ever define it because it is pre-context. That in order to define soul there need be a sense of faith and well faith is not for sure so there is no definite definition. I really liked the quote by Einstein when he said, “the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible....” That basically sums everything up. Critical Thinking Films: The Secrets of Faqir was an interesting video because it showed that we are products of our ears and eyes. What I mean by that is that the ears and eyes are the portals to our soul. What we experience and expose them to is who we are. I think this film was important because it gave distinction to people. We are all human beings but we are all unique because of our experiences. Faqir Chand shows that even though we may be set in our ideologies we need to be open to different perspectives. It is through opening your mind to the ways of others that you are able to strengthen your own beliefs or even conform some of the ideas you were wrong about. “The unattainable is attained by its unattainment.” I stopped the video. I love quotes and this quote spoke to me in ways that I cannot even express. When breaking it down I come with the idea that that which is deemed unattainable is attained because it is perceived as unattainable. Those things that are easy are not often sought but the thing that is going to make you work is always desired. This is above deep to me. Week 4 Expert lecture: This by far was one of the better expert lectures I have heard and it actually made me think a lot about the War and religious purposes. I have often heard that the war was “God’s war” but I never really thought deeper into it. I think that this was because my view on the war was one of disgust anyways. I do not feel that we should be at war right now but I will le ave my own views out for the time being. He paralleled religion and war together very well and showed how by making the war religious people were willing to stand up and fight no matter the cost. I found it very interesting to hear that America was propping up Saddam Hussein and supporting him. We used Hussein for our own plans and while we told him that we would support him, our plans went to undermine him and his country. Am I saying that America was trying to instill their beliefs on Islam? No. I am saying that we used a man and did not give him anything in return. No wonder Islam hates America. If most people knew about this I do not think that they would feel as bad for America as they do. I mean granted it is our country and 9-11 was a horrible event. But we sided with the Taliban, we used them to control Iraq for our pleasure and in return we did not allow them to run the country the way they wanted to. It sounds like double crossing to me. Good job Bush. Required reading: EDGAR CAYCE AND THE SKEPTIC reviewed by David Lane In order to understand the reading I researched who Edgar Cayce was and found out he was an American who claimed to possess psychic abilities. I like the mention of Occam’s Razor and how Lane tries to get rid of all the unnecessary facts and just focus on the event that occurred. I believe that many times this extra ‘fluff’ in fact conceals the truth. He explains how he cannot use Occam’s Razor too much because over reduction will leave no explanation at all. I agree with Lane when he says that he does not believe in the “gifts” of Edgar Cayce but does not believe that he is trying to trick his audience. He genuinely believes in his gifts but just does not know how to explain them. I think the most important point in this reading is that Cayce impacted people. When I was doing my research I found that there are tens of thousands of Cayce students today. The fact that he impacted so many people is amazing to me. As far as the skeptic, they are always going to challenge his claims, but they cannot doubt that he has become some what of a religious figure and that well there’s something about Edgar Cayce.
ECKANKAR: A Former Member Revisits the Movement by Dodie Bellamy
Wow! I am some what of a religion guru and love to know and learn about new religions. Quite frankly, I just like to try to understand what others believe and sometimes I laugh at how ridiculous they sound. I have never heard of Eckankar and I really did not know what it was about. So I hit google as usual to find some answers to this religion. It really interested me because of the whole idea of soul travel but I was not able to fully comprehend the religion just the basics. Dodie’s interview with David Lane was by far one of the most interesting things I’ve ever read. No offense to Mr. Lane, but I really did not know his background as a cult-buster. I was impressed by this and his ability to research and come out with the real facts. I commend Mr. Lane to exposing religions such as Eckankar who are nothing more than copies of other religions entwined together. I found it funny how Twitchell combined names from Indian works with Chinese works to create Eckist Masters. The sad thing is that many people would still be following this religion if David Lane had not published his findings. This just goes to show that religion is a subject where there can be a lot of untruths.
Critical Thinking Films:
The Guru Files just sounded interesting from the start. The first thing I read was “films exposing the hidden side of ‘perfect’ masters.” I started to laugh. Perfect masters? I highly doubt it. As I clicked on the films under Thakar Singh what I was to find was far from perfect. I began by finding out that Thakar Singh was the leader of the Science of the Soul, an uprising cult based in India. They are more than 100 thousand followers now and the cult is closely related with sexual and child abuse to its members.
Examples of abuse were seen in the first two videos as children were blind folded for God. What does blindfolding children have to do with believing in God? Well according to Singh, children should be blindfolded until the age of five so they can establish a spiritual connection with God. Other reports show that Thakar actually sexually abused some of the children by having them perform sexual favors for him. Other children were beat and physically abused because of their “entities” This is disturbing not only because the children are beat but other female members as well. Woman were beaten daily by Singh in India. Honestly I think these women are stupid. Who would allow a man even a man of God to abuse or sexually abuse you? I’m infuriated.
Week 5
Expert Lecture:
John Polkinghorne definitely had the resume of a man who knew what he was talking about and when he spoke I found that he was very intelligent and a reverend! This is quite ironic since he was a physicist and most people have issues between science and religion. I was interested by natural theology which is “an attempt to find in the natural world not proof of God’s existence but evidence of divinity in some sense.” This makes sense because if God is the creator of the world then would there not be things that God has left for us to have evidence of his divinity?
Polkinghorne explains how he believes that rational beauty of the universe and the anthropic principle are two evidences of this divinity. There is just a beauty that the world has that makes one believe that God must have created it for our pleasure. A new idea to me was the anthropic principle which is “various dissimilar attempts to explain the structure of the universe by way of coincidentally balanced features that are necessary and relevant to the existence of carbon-based life, or possibly even more specifically, human beings.”(wikipedia.com). I never really thought about how the universe needed to be a certain way for life to survive. I mean I know that earth is the only planet that has evidence of life but I really never connected the universe being this way so that we can live in accordance to God’s plan. Very interesting.
Required Readings:
Nietzsche has always been one of my favorite philosophers because of his use of aphorisms in his writings. Beyond Good and Evil is no different and 296 aphorisms ranging from a few words to full on paragraphs are used to express his ideas. Although the work is hard to read I find it best to cut it down into sentences. Because of his use of aphorisms, his sentences do not flow like normal literature but instead are kind of short and cut. Almost like chopped and screwed on a beat.
The preface begins with Nietzsche stating, “Supposing truth is a woman—what then?” This was an interesting statement to me because my first thought was that he was speaking about how men cannot win women because women won’t allow them to. While this does hold true, this is not what Nietzsche is referring to, instead he is talking about how philosophers had a hard time winning women during this time. Thus begins the chapter, “The prejudices of philosophers.” There are reasons that philosophers have prejudices because well most of them we need to be suspicious of. I question their interests mostly and I wonder if they are really disinterested or are they unconsciously driven by their own interests. Nietzsche says, "every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author." This holds immense truth in philosophy.
Critical thinking Films:
The Myth of Eternal Occurrence was one of the most interesting videos I have watched this year; maybe because I’m slightly biased towards Nietzche’s worksJ. I have always wondered if I was to die and come back would I live the same life over again. I think it would be the ultimate case of déjà vu to know what is going to happen because you have been there before. But then I ask myself if I want to live my life over again? Do I want to live the hard life that I’ve had or settle for something much easier? I honestly think that I would say that I want to live my life over again but I don’t think that I could handle it forever reoccurring. I would want to have the experiences I had because as Nietzsche said, “That which doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.” I believe that I am a strong individual because of this.
“And then if it turns out you just are stuff, that your brain is just meat, then wanting it to be different isn’t going to change it.”- Patricia Churchland. This quote is completely contradictory to everything I have learned. I was taught that our brain is what makes us who we are and gives us distinction among the other species, but could it be that our brain is no more than a piece of meat? Our awareness is distinct from our bodily apparatus so we think we are in control. In actuality we are able to do little. When the video goes of on the tangent about what “I” can do I was simply blown away. We always think ourselves superior but it is not even us who control ourselves. When he says, “I do not even no if I originate thoughts or only direct them. The ‘I’ does very little indeed except believe itself to be more then what it actually is.” I was completely shaken by this statement. It increased my heartbeat as I thought about the truth this video was speaking. I am nothing. I am because I believe I am. And well frankly that is scary.
Week 6
Expert Lecture:
James D. Watson with Francis Crick discovered the double helix in 1962 which revolutionized the field of molecular biology. This formation was fundamental in being able to further research into DNA. He begins his speech by explaining how Crick and him discovered the double helix because well that is a common question he is asked. Inspired by Shrodinger who said, “The essence of life was information. It had to be stable information so it had to be a molecule.” Watson went on to study DNA but little was taught because the structure was not figured out yet. He then accredits Wilkins with the first x-ray of DNA. However, I have to object right here because Watson fails to credit Roslyn Franklin who was the women who x-rayed the DNA. But well that just shows females role in science, continuing on. Through the photograph, Watson figured out that DNA was a 3-dimensional shape and at Cambridge with Crick he was able to construct the model.
Required Readings:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS by Richard Dawkins
This series of frequently asked questions bored me as it seemed like a review in 10th grade evolution. The question regarding giraffe necks was covered in my biology class in high school and I was told then as Dawkins explained to the writer that it was Darwinian natural selection that caused the neck to grow. What that means is that there was some change in the environment that required an adaptation to be made so that the fitness level of the giraffe would be high. This adaptation was the growing of the neck most likely due to a shortage of ground level food. The whole idea of the “gay gene” on the X chromosome is preposterous as proven that there are too many homosexual men in order for it to be a mutation. Furthermore, although science does have an explanation for homosexuality I do not believe that it is an answer. Homosexuality is a choice that someone chooses to be. The rest of the questions were rather text book and I did not find anything of great enlightenment.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Richard Dawkins said, “To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it.” WOW! This is quite a statement to make but I understand where Dawkins is coming from. It is hard for many to just believe that we were designed by God, I mean even the most religious figures have to sometimes wonder how or why? But Intelligent Design? I mean yes there are people such as John Polkinghorne who we learned about earlier who were able to be religious and scientific but well frankly most are not. I do not feel that intelligent design should ever be taught in classrooms because it is nothing more than a belief conjured up to satisfy religion and science. I do not agree in beliefs that aim to please two parties but rather would choose a side.
Critical Thinking Films:
The truth is that truth lies… The final words said at the end of the film make utmost sense. Darwinism leaves room so that we are able to see how things do evolve around us. For example, the way that viruses are able to adapt to our medicines and some how survive is because of Darwinism. However, a point that the film made the greatly caught my attention was the idea that our brains did not evolve to understand the universe but instead to survive the ecosystem. He then says that we do not know the truth but rather just know what it takes to live skillfully enough not to die at a young age. This blew me away! I mean it makes sense.
Most of us do not know the truth let alone tell the truth. They continued to say, “Nonsense evolved as an adaptive function of an enlarged brain because believing in nonsense makes more sense.” I mean well if anyone can invent a religion these days NONSENSE is a common commodity in today’s society. However, I have never heard anyone say nonsense adapts because it makes more sense! It makes more sense to believe nonsense then have to actually prove truth. Voltaire who was always anti-Christianity said, “Man would have to invent God even if he did not exist.” To an extent I believe this is true. We need someone or something to believe in that we cannot explain but we FEEL is there. It is that sense of higher being that gives us comfort and purpose. And while truth may not be the easiest thing to grip, we may always look to the nonsense for comfort. After all as Jack Nicholson said, “We cannot handle the truth.”
