Our society has put more emphasis on the insurance behind saying something is a fact. This is something that many people find comforting. When someone claims a statement to be a fact there is more acceptance of that statement. They almost equate facts with Truths. This is not very stable when what we believe is a fact today may not be a fact tomorrow. How than can you prove the validity of a statement?
If you can't rely on facts to make a statement true (this is truth with a lower case t) or false, then you must rely on your intuition. Your own thoughts or feelings towards something must serve as the validity for whatever that something may be. This gets messy, because every individual human on this planet has a different interpretation of things. They may have some common ground, but different backgrounds and experiences lead to different personal points of view. This can make things difficult when you are dealing with things like international relations. Countries have different cultures that sway the way they think and act. This can go deeper into the way languages play a different role for different words as well. When you don't have that social norm as a common ground to interact upon, then you can end up fighting affecting the lives of millions. The facts that get lost in translation have an effect on people around the world. Can a fact remain solid if it is passed through multiple languages? This is dependant on the languages and how much trust is instilled in the translator.
This is why we need facts. People need facts so they can feel secure about what the other person means. Facts, whether proven or theoretical, can provide the common ground for interpersonal relations. Once you have this common ground, things become clearer than they were before when interpretation was the only reasoning available. It is true that facts have changed over the course of history. Facts are looked at more and more closely in recent years as well. People are skeptical of what they hear. This is most likely a result of the amendments of information that has forever been seen as true. This change over time is not a bad thing though. It is assuring that what we view as a fact is being challenged continuously. This constant challenge results in a better understanding of things in the world around us.
This should not discount the power of intuition. Although I do believe in sound evidence, I know that there are times when a "gut feeling" can be stronger than the logical answer. Some of these gut feelings may have a logical basis that determines the reaction of an individual. These hunches are not often acted upon as quickly as the logical approach would be, but they are nevertheless there. This does not mean that someone’s initial feeling on something is right or that it will pay out in the end, but at times you just know that what you feel you should do is the best option. There are always choices to decide what is best at the time; logic or intuition. Suppose a building is on fire and there is a possibility that there are still people in the building. A fireman may look at the situation logically. He has training that alters the way he sees the situation. It is a very calculated event to someone that has gone through the same crisis before. There are steps that the fireman would take that are different than what the actions of a normal person would be. A normal person may not choose to do anything at all. This is definitely based off a logical thought that most likely they will be powerless to help even if they tried. There is also the concept of self-preservation that is very logical. But this doesn't account for the good citizen that runs in despite the odds. This is when intuition beats logical thought processes. Acting on your intuition is a risk, but the result may be positive.
Completely belief and faith in facts is probably a bad decision. With the constant change in the way society views things there is no room to fully trust the statements of the masses. But to reject every statement that is portrayed as a fact would be a waste of time in the end. Skepticism to a point is a understandable and even beneficial, but there is a line that can be crossed that makes disbelief counter productive. Conspiracy theories can only go so far until they are proven one way or another.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Kyoto
America has been seen a, if not the only, leader of the world for a long time now. We have set the standards for many changes in the world. We have directed the treaties that have had an impact on the globalization of earth. Most notably are the UN and NATO. Why then, should we be lagging behind in the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG)? There are many ways to look at the reasons of not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Whether or not President elect Barrack Obama should set this treaty towards ratification is something that many people are debating. This is ultimately not up to him though, it is up to the bipartisan Senate. The motives behind Democrats and Republicans will be different, but hopefully it will come down to what is best not what special interests desire.
George Washington delivered one of the only fairwell addresses that we care about. He said that America should stand clear of permanent foriegn alliances. A global treaty that could possibly cause negative effects for the American economy is one of these undesirable alliances. This is, however, in direct opposition to the United Nations which America basicly created. We have already entered in permanent alliances that we believed would benefit us along with the world.
America has always prided itself on the fact that we are the inovators of the world. We have an image that we are supposed to be the protectors of the less fortunate. This is the main reason that so many people believe we should be in Darfur. Genocide in one country is seen as an immediate problem that should have the attention of America. Global warming is one of these immediate issues as well. The economy may lag behind for a time but in the long run, there will be greater benefits. Signing the Kyoto Protocol doesn't have to be the way that America steps up and leads the country in acting against global warming but there is definitely a global need for action. The newly elected president should find a program that he believes will put America on top when it comes to preventing the rise of GHG. He should look past partisan politics and do what the world really needs. If that need is a global treaty to better the earth so be it.
George Washington delivered one of the only fairwell addresses that we care about. He said that America should stand clear of permanent foriegn alliances. A global treaty that could possibly cause negative effects for the American economy is one of these undesirable alliances. This is, however, in direct opposition to the United Nations which America basicly created. We have already entered in permanent alliances that we believed would benefit us along with the world.
America has always prided itself on the fact that we are the inovators of the world. We have an image that we are supposed to be the protectors of the less fortunate. This is the main reason that so many people believe we should be in Darfur. Genocide in one country is seen as an immediate problem that should have the attention of America. Global warming is one of these immediate issues as well. The economy may lag behind for a time but in the long run, there will be greater benefits. Signing the Kyoto Protocol doesn't have to be the way that America steps up and leads the country in acting against global warming but there is definitely a global need for action. The newly elected president should find a program that he believes will put America on top when it comes to preventing the rise of GHG. He should look past partisan politics and do what the world really needs. If that need is a global treaty to better the earth so be it.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Lingo
Language is the first step towards civilization. It is the core of everything that we know and understand. We really don't take the ability to speak, read, and write in consideration very often, but it is the foundation of how far human beings have come. Language has a role in everything involving the physical world. The aptitude of the human brain to develop and understand a language, or multiple languages, is a testament to the vast space in our mind that can be filled with knowledge. Reasoning is the clearest cut way to use language. Once you step into the realm of emotion and perception the lines become skewed and blurred. The way language is used in respect to these is different yet vital for comprehension.
Denotation is the direct dictionary definition for a word. The interesting part is that most dictionaries do not have the exact same definition for a word. Nevertheless, they are generally similar and can come to a common consensus. When you use the specific definition for a word it is assumed that those around you will have a fair amount of understanding. This is the way that language is best used in terms of reasoning. There are many words in English that have very closely related definitions. This makes it possible to describe the reasoning for something in a generally easy way. The rawest form of reasoning without any form of personal point of view can be construed to a large audience by simply speaking about it. Writing takes on different meaning even if you just use the denotation of a word. This is where grammar comes in and has an effect on meaning. For example, there are sentences that can be completely altered by a comma. "The panda eats shoots and leaves." This is a sentence describing the vegetation that a panda consumes in its diet. This is greatly changed with the placement of commas. "The panda eats, shoots, and leaves." This makes it seem as though the panda is a gunman in a restaurant even though the denotation of the words is used. This seems to defy any common sense or reasoning, because pandas do not eat in restaurants or carry weapons. This misunderstanding is a result of the fact that English, along with many other languages, has different meanings for the exact same words. This can be confusing at times and may lead to bad comprehension of what is really going on. This may seem like an obscure case, but it may have consequences when these mistakes are made in different situations, such as science reports or court transcripts. Another way language plays into reasoning is in translation. There are more than six thousand known languages in the world. Some of these are only spoken language with no writing system. In every language, there are words, phrases, and ideas that do not translate literally. This leaves the possibility for error in understanding wide open. What becomes lost in translation may never be recovered. This is hazardous in issues of international interaction. If the others' language is not completely understood by one side, than there can be catastrophic misinterpretations. The reasoning of each side may not be effective based on this.
When you enter the world of perception the meaning of words can change. Connotation is the perceived definition of a word. This generally has a social understanding of the word, but it may not always be the same from person to person. There may be a big difference between "slim" and "skinny" for one person but not so much for another. Connotation is where language gets sticky and opens the door even further for misunderstanding. This can be in spoken and written language. When you speak, there is generally a tone to what you are saying. This is a way in which spoken language alters one's perception of meaning. This can be a good or bad change in understanding, but it is nevertheless present. When you write, this tone may become harder to recognize. This is based on an individual point of view of a reading. It may vary from person to person. Once again this can be horrible in different cases. Grammar is a way in which this tone is changed. Grammar and word choice can alter the speed of what is written therefore giving it a different tone or mood. This may not always be obvious, but authors are always trying to make the message they are sending through their work more clear. A lot is put into the way something transcends from the page to the mind. This is possibly lost, once again, in translation. It takes time to understand the difference in tone through script. This is something that many spend a long time learning when you are multi-lingual. The perception you get through language in terms of writing may be more powerful than speech alone. This is something that is individual and can conform to each individual that reads it. This is seen all the time in figurative language that is in poetry. Any type of figurative language can be used to alter the way in which each individual reader understand and interprets the poem. With all this said, it is essential to understand that the key element to what guides perception is emotion.
Emotion is what guides the actions and beliefs of each of the six billion people on the planet. This is the hand behind any thing that goes on in the world. Everything that we hear, see, or do goes through an emotional filter in our brain. This is evident in the way words can cause a big emotional charge in someone. Words like genocide, rape, puppy, or even chicken can cause an emotional roller coaster even if it goes unnoticed the majority of the time. Whatever the reason behind the emotion, it is still there. This usually varies on the background relationship with the word or words. It is hard to know how someone will act based on the terms you use. Politicians look at this when they begin every speech. They play with the words that they know will bring a crowd to their side and steer away from words that they know might incite negative emotions. This is a tool that can be utilized very effectively in terms of persuasion. Language can convince someone of virtually anything. Tone really plays into the emotion of language. Oration is a strong tool in portraying what you want to get across. Hitler was the prime example of how tone can get across your emotion and embed it in others. He was a very morally unjust man, but he understood the power that words can have on people. The comprehension of words get even foggier when you start using words to describe emotion. If it is not already hard enough to predict what emotions will come out based on the words used, it is exponentially harder when you use words to represent an emotion. Emotions are presumably different from person to person, therefore the description of them is near impossible. Love means something different for anyone that feels it. Happiness is different for anyone that seeks it. How then is language reliable in the is area? The obvious answer is that it is not. People have decided that it is necessary to describe everything around them, but in the end it is a fruitless waste of time. It results in a loss of what the emotion really is when you try to put a label on it. Language does not conform neatly to the realm of emotion.
Denotation is the direct dictionary definition for a word. The interesting part is that most dictionaries do not have the exact same definition for a word. Nevertheless, they are generally similar and can come to a common consensus. When you use the specific definition for a word it is assumed that those around you will have a fair amount of understanding. This is the way that language is best used in terms of reasoning. There are many words in English that have very closely related definitions. This makes it possible to describe the reasoning for something in a generally easy way. The rawest form of reasoning without any form of personal point of view can be construed to a large audience by simply speaking about it. Writing takes on different meaning even if you just use the denotation of a word. This is where grammar comes in and has an effect on meaning. For example, there are sentences that can be completely altered by a comma. "The panda eats shoots and leaves." This is a sentence describing the vegetation that a panda consumes in its diet. This is greatly changed with the placement of commas. "The panda eats, shoots, and leaves." This makes it seem as though the panda is a gunman in a restaurant even though the denotation of the words is used. This seems to defy any common sense or reasoning, because pandas do not eat in restaurants or carry weapons. This misunderstanding is a result of the fact that English, along with many other languages, has different meanings for the exact same words. This can be confusing at times and may lead to bad comprehension of what is really going on. This may seem like an obscure case, but it may have consequences when these mistakes are made in different situations, such as science reports or court transcripts. Another way language plays into reasoning is in translation. There are more than six thousand known languages in the world. Some of these are only spoken language with no writing system. In every language, there are words, phrases, and ideas that do not translate literally. This leaves the possibility for error in understanding wide open. What becomes lost in translation may never be recovered. This is hazardous in issues of international interaction. If the others' language is not completely understood by one side, than there can be catastrophic misinterpretations. The reasoning of each side may not be effective based on this.
When you enter the world of perception the meaning of words can change. Connotation is the perceived definition of a word. This generally has a social understanding of the word, but it may not always be the same from person to person. There may be a big difference between "slim" and "skinny" for one person but not so much for another. Connotation is where language gets sticky and opens the door even further for misunderstanding. This can be in spoken and written language. When you speak, there is generally a tone to what you are saying. This is a way in which spoken language alters one's perception of meaning. This can be a good or bad change in understanding, but it is nevertheless present. When you write, this tone may become harder to recognize. This is based on an individual point of view of a reading. It may vary from person to person. Once again this can be horrible in different cases. Grammar is a way in which this tone is changed. Grammar and word choice can alter the speed of what is written therefore giving it a different tone or mood. This may not always be obvious, but authors are always trying to make the message they are sending through their work more clear. A lot is put into the way something transcends from the page to the mind. This is possibly lost, once again, in translation. It takes time to understand the difference in tone through script. This is something that many spend a long time learning when you are multi-lingual. The perception you get through language in terms of writing may be more powerful than speech alone. This is something that is individual and can conform to each individual that reads it. This is seen all the time in figurative language that is in poetry. Any type of figurative language can be used to alter the way in which each individual reader understand and interprets the poem. With all this said, it is essential to understand that the key element to what guides perception is emotion.
Emotion is what guides the actions and beliefs of each of the six billion people on the planet. This is the hand behind any thing that goes on in the world. Everything that we hear, see, or do goes through an emotional filter in our brain. This is evident in the way words can cause a big emotional charge in someone. Words like genocide, rape, puppy, or even chicken can cause an emotional roller coaster even if it goes unnoticed the majority of the time. Whatever the reason behind the emotion, it is still there. This usually varies on the background relationship with the word or words. It is hard to know how someone will act based on the terms you use. Politicians look at this when they begin every speech. They play with the words that they know will bring a crowd to their side and steer away from words that they know might incite negative emotions. This is a tool that can be utilized very effectively in terms of persuasion. Language can convince someone of virtually anything. Tone really plays into the emotion of language. Oration is a strong tool in portraying what you want to get across. Hitler was the prime example of how tone can get across your emotion and embed it in others. He was a very morally unjust man, but he understood the power that words can have on people. The comprehension of words get even foggier when you start using words to describe emotion. If it is not already hard enough to predict what emotions will come out based on the words used, it is exponentially harder when you use words to represent an emotion. Emotions are presumably different from person to person, therefore the description of them is near impossible. Love means something different for anyone that feels it. Happiness is different for anyone that seeks it. How then is language reliable in the is area? The obvious answer is that it is not. People have decided that it is necessary to describe everything around them, but in the end it is a fruitless waste of time. It results in a loss of what the emotion really is when you try to put a label on it. Language does not conform neatly to the realm of emotion.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Worshiping at the Alter of Science
"Its a scientific fact." This is a phrase that rolls off the tongues of millions. For many this gives validity to any statement. When scientists come out with a new conclusion, the masses cling to it and take it as a fact. There is little scepticism among the majority when "they" say something is a fact. The term they is used everyday. "They say gravity is an attraction between two objects." "They say this is the best new wieghtloss program." These are both facts that have come from a type of scientist. The media puts these out as correct so people cling to them as truth. When did this absolute belief in science come about? This is something that is somewhat addressed in Embracing Mind. Although I don't agree with the majority of the book, I agree with the author's interpretation of history in respect to science and religion; for the most part.
As anyone that reads this blog can tell, I relate almost everything to history. Well, this is no different. I think there are a variety of reasons that science has taken over the everyday lives of most people today. Multiple steps have been taken to make this the "religion" for many. There was a time when people realized that they could benefit from knowing more about the natural world and its set principles. Understanding that wood will float in water ended up changing the world. Boats littered the oceans for hundreds of years. This was the first way that global commerce could get a foothold in th lives of people. Cultures were able to clash and combine. Continents were discovered. This was all a result of someone using science to better their life. Observation is a key component to the scientific method. Even the Bible sets high priority on the seeing-is-believing idea. Science is built off this principle. Observation is the key of any experiment. People have grown to rely soley on what their senses say is "real". There is speculation for anything that can not be seen or felt.
If it is not visible or palpible then it must not be real. This statement has validity in many respects, even to religion. Dictionary.com defines religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." This definiton is a combination of the tradition thought of religion and the new emergence of science as a religion. Most people equate religion with faith. This is the, sometimes, unjustified belief in events or facts. To the faithful, there may be plenty of justification. Most of this justification comes from the belief in a higher power that can make the seemingly impossible, possible. This belief and the testimony of others has been enough for the majority of the world to believe in different religions. The three most prominent religions in the world-Christianity, Judaism, and Islam-are all guided by the belief of a supreme creator and a book that gives the foundations of how to live. More people have died for their religious beliefs than for any other cause. This is because of a passionate and strong belief in something that can not be seen or felt. Science, on the other hand, relies on the ability to physically confirm a theory. It acts in the same way as a religion. It seeks to find the answers to the questions that are not obvious on the surface. Durnig the Enlightenment, there was a new belief that the scientific method could be used in the observations of social life. I think this is the point where science made the jump to be classified as a religion. Now it could be used in all aspects of life by anyone that choose to use it. Justification in science comes from the observation of the physical world instead of the ideas created by the affirmation of people that lived thousand of years ago. There have been no holy wars in the name of science, but science has led to the death of those whos technology was less supreme at the time. Its a sad thought, but it seems the beliefs that people around the world possess will only lead to the death of others that dont possess the same beliefs.
As anyone that reads this blog can tell, I relate almost everything to history. Well, this is no different. I think there are a variety of reasons that science has taken over the everyday lives of most people today. Multiple steps have been taken to make this the "religion" for many. There was a time when people realized that they could benefit from knowing more about the natural world and its set principles. Understanding that wood will float in water ended up changing the world. Boats littered the oceans for hundreds of years. This was the first way that global commerce could get a foothold in th lives of people. Cultures were able to clash and combine. Continents were discovered. This was all a result of someone using science to better their life. Observation is a key component to the scientific method. Even the Bible sets high priority on the seeing-is-believing idea. Science is built off this principle. Observation is the key of any experiment. People have grown to rely soley on what their senses say is "real". There is speculation for anything that can not be seen or felt.
If it is not visible or palpible then it must not be real. This statement has validity in many respects, even to religion. Dictionary.com defines religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." This definiton is a combination of the tradition thought of religion and the new emergence of science as a religion. Most people equate religion with faith. This is the, sometimes, unjustified belief in events or facts. To the faithful, there may be plenty of justification. Most of this justification comes from the belief in a higher power that can make the seemingly impossible, possible. This belief and the testimony of others has been enough for the majority of the world to believe in different religions. The three most prominent religions in the world-Christianity, Judaism, and Islam-are all guided by the belief of a supreme creator and a book that gives the foundations of how to live. More people have died for their religious beliefs than for any other cause. This is because of a passionate and strong belief in something that can not be seen or felt. Science, on the other hand, relies on the ability to physically confirm a theory. It acts in the same way as a religion. It seeks to find the answers to the questions that are not obvious on the surface. Durnig the Enlightenment, there was a new belief that the scientific method could be used in the observations of social life. I think this is the point where science made the jump to be classified as a religion. Now it could be used in all aspects of life by anyone that choose to use it. Justification in science comes from the observation of the physical world instead of the ideas created by the affirmation of people that lived thousand of years ago. There have been no holy wars in the name of science, but science has led to the death of those whos technology was less supreme at the time. Its a sad thought, but it seems the beliefs that people around the world possess will only lead to the death of others that dont possess the same beliefs.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Moral Action
"Doing the right things starts with knowing the right things." The "right things" can be defined differently for each individual. This can go further to encompass what a whole culture considers to be the "right thing". Morals vary from person to person, but there are common grounds. Virtually every culture in the world views murder as morally wrong. This comes down to an individual consensus that killing is wrong. Why then, are there murders all over the world every day? When is it ok to go against your moral judgement and take action that could be interpreted as the "wrong" thing? This does not just apply to murder. This can be any individual choice that is in opposition to that person's personal beliefs. One would tend to believe that this would require some strong reasoning. This reasoning would vary of course, but there would have to be some strong base whether it be ethical, emotional, or logical. The steps that an individual takes to create their idea of what is right and wrong can be a life long journey. The big question is what you decide to do with these morals. Morals are virtually meaningless until someone acts on them.
As an American kid, I was taught with my peers that America is the supreme power of the world. Social studies in school teach us about a glorified country that has led the world for almost a century. We are subconsciously taught to become "good Americans". Military service is advocated n almost every high school across the country. JROTC is in most public high schools. Along with that, recruiting officers can be seen traveling from school to school. Should everyone serve for their country? Many believe that this is essential to become a good American. There was a time in American history when people were prosecuted for their refusal to join their fellow Americans in arms. These were the Quakers. Their non-violent ideals made them turn the other cheek away from way they believed was morally wrong. So who was Right? Those that stood up for their country or those that held there religious beliefs close? If they both acted on what they truly believed to be morally right, than they both did the right thing. Each side will look at the other differently, but when it comes down to it the conscience of both are at ease. With this being said, its evident that doing the right thing is, among other things, simply a point of view.
I am the millennial generation. I am just one of the 95 million that echo the baby boomers. The Generation We video made me open my eyes to the huge issues that have been left behind by the generations before me. My generation is inheriting a country that is going in the wrong direction as a result of the bad choices made by those in power now. Our country is declining not because of outside influences, but because of the problems that have arose and been ignored inside. Sitting on the sidelines watching my country go into decline is morally wrong to me. The right thing is to make an effort in aiding my country's revival. Now that I've defined what the right thing is, the next step is answering the call to action that has been sent. At the moment, all I can do is wait for the first chance I have to excersize my inalienable right of voting. Voting is the best way for the majority to get out what they want to say. The millennial generation is in the best position to prove this point in a way that it has never been affirmed before. Once everyone in my generation has the power of a vote, we will be the biggest demographic of voters. We can literally determine the national elections. This is the best way for the masses to affect the direction of the country, but I'm aiming for something more. There is a limited number of people that make the laws for our country. They are the 535 men and women elected into Congress. 100 of these make up the Senate leaving 435 in the House of Representatives. To me, serving in one of these seats is the most supreme way to do good for my country. These are the elite in the American system of government. To me its not the military action that changes the world, its the legislative moves that our country takes. A seat in Congress is the "Right" thing to do for the progress of my country and generation.
As an American kid, I was taught with my peers that America is the supreme power of the world. Social studies in school teach us about a glorified country that has led the world for almost a century. We are subconsciously taught to become "good Americans". Military service is advocated n almost every high school across the country. JROTC is in most public high schools. Along with that, recruiting officers can be seen traveling from school to school. Should everyone serve for their country? Many believe that this is essential to become a good American. There was a time in American history when people were prosecuted for their refusal to join their fellow Americans in arms. These were the Quakers. Their non-violent ideals made them turn the other cheek away from way they believed was morally wrong. So who was Right? Those that stood up for their country or those that held there religious beliefs close? If they both acted on what they truly believed to be morally right, than they both did the right thing. Each side will look at the other differently, but when it comes down to it the conscience of both are at ease. With this being said, its evident that doing the right thing is, among other things, simply a point of view.
I am the millennial generation. I am just one of the 95 million that echo the baby boomers. The Generation We video made me open my eyes to the huge issues that have been left behind by the generations before me. My generation is inheriting a country that is going in the wrong direction as a result of the bad choices made by those in power now. Our country is declining not because of outside influences, but because of the problems that have arose and been ignored inside. Sitting on the sidelines watching my country go into decline is morally wrong to me. The right thing is to make an effort in aiding my country's revival. Now that I've defined what the right thing is, the next step is answering the call to action that has been sent. At the moment, all I can do is wait for the first chance I have to excersize my inalienable right of voting. Voting is the best way for the majority to get out what they want to say. The millennial generation is in the best position to prove this point in a way that it has never been affirmed before. Once everyone in my generation has the power of a vote, we will be the biggest demographic of voters. We can literally determine the national elections. This is the best way for the masses to affect the direction of the country, but I'm aiming for something more. There is a limited number of people that make the laws for our country. They are the 535 men and women elected into Congress. 100 of these make up the Senate leaving 435 in the House of Representatives. To me, serving in one of these seats is the most supreme way to do good for my country. These are the elite in the American system of government. To me its not the military action that changes the world, its the legislative moves that our country takes. A seat in Congress is the "Right" thing to do for the progress of my country and generation.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Rose Colored Glases
"In order to find out how things really are, one must understand the filters through which one perceives the world."
Do you have rose-colored glasses on? Or do you see the smog that covers the skyline? Many people choose to overlook the reality of things. They view life through a filter that hides the truth. Others have an extreme cynicism towards anything. Everything we learn has a point of view from someone else attached to it. Every subject area is seen and taught in a different way. The way knowledge is passed down through different topics is also vastly different. Everything around us is a product of someone else's perception and, therefore, someone else's filter. This makes the things we learn unreliable. The only way to really know something is by looking at as many sides as possible. The more points of view you observe the more likely you are to get the real truth. The facts are skewed by every party that deals with them. Understanding each of these is probably one of the best assets a knowledge seeker can have.
History is one of the most biased subject areas. From ancient times we only have faded, yellowing paper that is written in languages that we can't fully understand. We may have an idea of the meaning but there are connotations that may only be relevant through the times. The Bible, for instance, is the most printed book in the world. People around the globe in almost every country use this book as a guide on how to be a good person. This book is accepted as the ultimate truth for millions of people yet the original book was written in a language so complex that nobody fully understands it today. Old Hebrew is literally a dead language, not because it is no longer used but because no one on the planet knows it anymore. From Old Hebrew the Bible was translated to Greek. This document is known as the Septuagint. People rarely think about this filter through time that the Bible has gone through, but it is there never the less. This causes the entire Christian following to look through the filter of translation. History is also a product of the winner's point of view on the event. The loser rarely gets a say-so in the matter that the story is told. The Civil War is a great example of this. The South is seen as the bad guy because the Northern victory is so glorified. No one really stops to think about the rights of the southern states to break off from the Union based on the same principles used for revolution only a century earlier. As someone learning history we see the event through the eyes of the winning team. All we know of the Persian Wars is the Greek account. This is because history is seen through the artifacts left behind. When a culture took over another they'd ruin records and decimate structures. We are taught about history through the remnants of what is left. This gives us a huge filter of the facts of our ancestors.
Do you have rose-colored glasses on? Or do you see the smog that covers the skyline? Many people choose to overlook the reality of things. They view life through a filter that hides the truth. Others have an extreme cynicism towards anything. Everything we learn has a point of view from someone else attached to it. Every subject area is seen and taught in a different way. The way knowledge is passed down through different topics is also vastly different. Everything around us is a product of someone else's perception and, therefore, someone else's filter. This makes the things we learn unreliable. The only way to really know something is by looking at as many sides as possible. The more points of view you observe the more likely you are to get the real truth. The facts are skewed by every party that deals with them. Understanding each of these is probably one of the best assets a knowledge seeker can have.
History is one of the most biased subject areas. From ancient times we only have faded, yellowing paper that is written in languages that we can't fully understand. We may have an idea of the meaning but there are connotations that may only be relevant through the times. The Bible, for instance, is the most printed book in the world. People around the globe in almost every country use this book as a guide on how to be a good person. This book is accepted as the ultimate truth for millions of people yet the original book was written in a language so complex that nobody fully understands it today. Old Hebrew is literally a dead language, not because it is no longer used but because no one on the planet knows it anymore. From Old Hebrew the Bible was translated to Greek. This document is known as the Septuagint. People rarely think about this filter through time that the Bible has gone through, but it is there never the less. This causes the entire Christian following to look through the filter of translation. History is also a product of the winner's point of view on the event. The loser rarely gets a say-so in the matter that the story is told. The Civil War is a great example of this. The South is seen as the bad guy because the Northern victory is so glorified. No one really stops to think about the rights of the southern states to break off from the Union based on the same principles used for revolution only a century earlier. As someone learning history we see the event through the eyes of the winning team. All we know of the Persian Wars is the Greek account. This is because history is seen through the artifacts left behind. When a culture took over another they'd ruin records and decimate structures. We are taught about history through the remnants of what is left. This gives us a huge filter of the facts of our ancestors.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Universal Truth
Every culture develops what they believe to be true. Americans believe that everyone should have freedom of speech. Christians believe that you should follow the message of Jesus Christ. Muslims believe women are children and should be treated like property. The English believe that you have the right to rule the country based on your parents. At one point Germans believed themselves to be the superior race. The Aztecs believed sacrificing a human would make their gods happy. All of these beliefs, at one point, were or still are seen as truths. These are just a few examples, but in reality every culture holds They took an idea and decided it was absolute and therefore fought to protect it. How can all these be truths though if they are not seen as the truth by everyone?
I think labelling an ideal a cultural truth is misleading. Instead I think these are strong beliefs that become a fact to a majority of people. I don't think it is very likely that anything can be an ultimate truth to everyone on the planet. This is especially true in the respect of ideas that aren't solid. The idea of one omnicient being, although widely accepted by a majority of the world, has proven time and time again that everyone in the world does not have the same views. Even through physical force this idea could not be changed from a belief to a truth. This leads me to raise questions about the ideas behind the Truman and Bush doctorines. These both state that democracy should be pushed far and wide. The Truman doctorine goes farther and states that Communism should be completely obliterated. Two presidents in what is considered to be the most powerful country in the world have written what they believe to be truths. These documents can be used to destabilize numerous governments and potentioally kill hundreds of people. Democracy is purely a political belief, but in America this has become a political truth. This is the perfect example of how cultural truths can become lethal.
When people believe an idea to be an absolute truth, they become blinded by it. Cultures close their minds off to the possibility that their truth could be a lie; an illusion fabricated to make meaning or re-enforce dominance. The idea of a "cultural truth" has rarely been a good thing throughout history. Many people have been pursecuted because of the beliefs of others that had been made into "truths". When people are hurt because of a truth, that should be a sign that it is not a truth. So are there any "cultural truths"? I think when it all comes down to it, there are strong beliefs that people have. They may become facts to some individuals, but when they are put on a large scale they have the potential to hurt others. Any sort of "manifest destiny" of any idea may have devastating results. Cultural truth is a myth that has been wrongly titled and the attempt to spread it has only been regressive.
I think labelling an ideal a cultural truth is misleading. Instead I think these are strong beliefs that become a fact to a majority of people. I don't think it is very likely that anything can be an ultimate truth to everyone on the planet. This is especially true in the respect of ideas that aren't solid. The idea of one omnicient being, although widely accepted by a majority of the world, has proven time and time again that everyone in the world does not have the same views. Even through physical force this idea could not be changed from a belief to a truth. This leads me to raise questions about the ideas behind the Truman and Bush doctorines. These both state that democracy should be pushed far and wide. The Truman doctorine goes farther and states that Communism should be completely obliterated. Two presidents in what is considered to be the most powerful country in the world have written what they believe to be truths. These documents can be used to destabilize numerous governments and potentioally kill hundreds of people. Democracy is purely a political belief, but in America this has become a political truth. This is the perfect example of how cultural truths can become lethal.
When people believe an idea to be an absolute truth, they become blinded by it. Cultures close their minds off to the possibility that their truth could be a lie; an illusion fabricated to make meaning or re-enforce dominance. The idea of a "cultural truth" has rarely been a good thing throughout history. Many people have been pursecuted because of the beliefs of others that had been made into "truths". When people are hurt because of a truth, that should be a sign that it is not a truth. So are there any "cultural truths"? I think when it all comes down to it, there are strong beliefs that people have. They may become facts to some individuals, but when they are put on a large scale they have the potential to hurt others. Any sort of "manifest destiny" of any idea may have devastating results. Cultural truth is a myth that has been wrongly titled and the attempt to spread it has only been regressive.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Thalidomide
The drug thalidomide had terrible effects on thousands of people around the world before it was banned. Who's to blame for this tragedy?
The government clearly felt some blame for this because they had it banned. The government regulation of medication given to the public should have definitely went through some adjustments. The government should definitely be taking an active role in the administrating of prescription drugs. No government should allow a drug to disable thousands of people before it realizes something is wrong with it. The government should have more strict laws to ensure this.
The drug company that researched this chemical and had it cleared for general use should definitely take some responsibility as well. They clearly did not have enough research on the drug before it was prescribed. This led to a tragedy that effected thousands. That should set off a red flag that there need to be more adequate research techniques before administering a drug.
Doctors and patients on an individual level have no where near the amount of responsibility that the drug company and government have. When it comes to a drug that is supposed to help morning sickness, nobody should feel weary about side effects that extreme. It is not up to the doctors and patients to research every prescribed drug. Although this may be helpful this is work that should already be done for the individuals.
The government clearly felt some blame for this because they had it banned. The government regulation of medication given to the public should have definitely went through some adjustments. The government should definitely be taking an active role in the administrating of prescription drugs. No government should allow a drug to disable thousands of people before it realizes something is wrong with it. The government should have more strict laws to ensure this.
The drug company that researched this chemical and had it cleared for general use should definitely take some responsibility as well. They clearly did not have enough research on the drug before it was prescribed. This led to a tragedy that effected thousands. That should set off a red flag that there need to be more adequate research techniques before administering a drug.
Doctors and patients on an individual level have no where near the amount of responsibility that the drug company and government have. When it comes to a drug that is supposed to help morning sickness, nobody should feel weary about side effects that extreme. It is not up to the doctors and patients to research every prescribed drug. Although this may be helpful this is work that should already be done for the individuals.
Disembodied Learning
Does emotion play a role in knowledge? If it does have a role, is it positive or negative? A strong passion for anything will undoubtedly influence what you put into the knowledge. These passions can be negative or positive, but both have an effect. Humanity has a natural mental block against doing things they don't want to do. The real test of character is how well you get over this block. Making the best out of a class or any type of required knowledge is something that can become essential in life.
Emotion can definitely bias you towards a subject. Religion is an obvious example of this. Religion puts strong emotion in the minds of millions around the world. Many people wont give a moment towards the thought of stem cell research or evolution because of their religion. In cases like this, emotion is hindering the acquisition of knowledge. This is a negative side effect of emotion that can leave an individual blind to countless topics. The evolution of scientific knowledge was stunted for hundreds of years because religious law did not allow anything that could possibly disprove any canonical text. Things like this have held back knowledge since the birth of religion. In school, dislike of a teacher or subject may lead a student to not try their hardest. I've seen kids completely disregard a class because of this. This type of close-minded thinking is a shame. In cases like these, emotions are preventing the attainment of knowledge.
There is another side to this though. When an individual is passionate about a subject, they are more likely to put more time and effort into learning more about that subject. I am a self proclaimed history nerd. I have taken every social studies class that the school offers a year ahead of graduation. Along with that, I watch the History Channel almost every day. I plan to major in history when i go to college. Although history really has nothing to do with my career choice I enjoy learning about it so much that I am willing to put a great deal of time and money into it. Positive emotions towards an area of knowledge spurs the learner into putting more into that learning. Even just a love for knowledge in general can cause this. There are plenty of people that have an internal desire to learn more each day.
After required learning is over, how many people continue with the quest for knowledge? This is when you really understand what you truly enjoy learning about. Choosing to continue acquiring knowledge when it is not expected of you is the rawest way to show that you have a passion for something. This desire to learn has to have an emotional base which, in the long run, makes emotion a positive part of the learning process.
Emotion can definitely bias you towards a subject. Religion is an obvious example of this. Religion puts strong emotion in the minds of millions around the world. Many people wont give a moment towards the thought of stem cell research or evolution because of their religion. In cases like this, emotion is hindering the acquisition of knowledge. This is a negative side effect of emotion that can leave an individual blind to countless topics. The evolution of scientific knowledge was stunted for hundreds of years because religious law did not allow anything that could possibly disprove any canonical text. Things like this have held back knowledge since the birth of religion. In school, dislike of a teacher or subject may lead a student to not try their hardest. I've seen kids completely disregard a class because of this. This type of close-minded thinking is a shame. In cases like these, emotions are preventing the attainment of knowledge.
There is another side to this though. When an individual is passionate about a subject, they are more likely to put more time and effort into learning more about that subject. I am a self proclaimed history nerd. I have taken every social studies class that the school offers a year ahead of graduation. Along with that, I watch the History Channel almost every day. I plan to major in history when i go to college. Although history really has nothing to do with my career choice I enjoy learning about it so much that I am willing to put a great deal of time and money into it. Positive emotions towards an area of knowledge spurs the learner into putting more into that learning. Even just a love for knowledge in general can cause this. There are plenty of people that have an internal desire to learn more each day.
After required learning is over, how many people continue with the quest for knowledge? This is when you really understand what you truly enjoy learning about. Choosing to continue acquiring knowledge when it is not expected of you is the rawest way to show that you have a passion for something. This desire to learn has to have an emotional base which, in the long run, makes emotion a positive part of the learning process.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Ethical Learning
Who decides what we learn? While we are in school, that decision is made by teachers, school boards, all the way up to The Department of Education. Many trained professionals are invested in deciding what the children of America are going to learn. This is at least true through high school where you don't have much freedom in deciding what you learn. In college it may be a little more free, but you are still required to know certain things. After this it is all up to you to individually control your learning unless you have a job that requires extra training.
General education is the goal of schooling for 12 years of your life. This is the amount of time the country has decided will give you a grasp of a variety of things. What then is ethical to teach in these years? This is something that can be very hard to decide in a free society. Anything taught can't sway personal beliefs. The Scopes Monkey Trial in the mid 20th century decided that we would stop teaching the creation story in public schools. Students would instead be taught the evolution theory based on Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and the common ancestor. In a time when most people were very Christian, this was a huge controversy. Now it is seen by many as logical. The changing times made this seem like the more ethical choice; to rely more on science than religion. Where is the line drawn that determines the ethics of general education? This is not a solid line, but instead a changing blur that will always change with the changing times. Political correctness has pushed altered this line in recent years. Is it ethical for a teacher to talk about hot button issues such as abortion? I think censorship in the classroom is only handicapping the minds of students. This is why college is such an important prospect to me; the opportunity to hear opinions expressed freely.
College professors have a huge amount of freedom compared to secondary teachers. They are not guiding the minds of children, but instead the minds of legal adults. This raises the bar for what can be taught. Although colleges have a curriculum for a class that must be followed, they have more leeway for a discussion to go in a sticky area so to speak. At this point you are choosing what you learn because you are paying for the class instead of fulfilling a requirement. does this fact change the ethics behind what a professor chooses to teach and what a college board approves? I think it makes an immense difference. If you dislike the topic of study in a class you don't have to take it. The fact that college is a time to go deeper into study of a field that you are passionate about makes it more reasonable that what you are learning may push buttons of some people and go beyond the ethical line.
After your formal education, learning can go beyond this because there are no ethical lines unless you set them yourself. This is why life after schooling may be where knowledge really begins. (532)
General education is the goal of schooling for 12 years of your life. This is the amount of time the country has decided will give you a grasp of a variety of things. What then is ethical to teach in these years? This is something that can be very hard to decide in a free society. Anything taught can't sway personal beliefs. The Scopes Monkey Trial in the mid 20th century decided that we would stop teaching the creation story in public schools. Students would instead be taught the evolution theory based on Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and the common ancestor. In a time when most people were very Christian, this was a huge controversy. Now it is seen by many as logical. The changing times made this seem like the more ethical choice; to rely more on science than religion. Where is the line drawn that determines the ethics of general education? This is not a solid line, but instead a changing blur that will always change with the changing times. Political correctness has pushed altered this line in recent years. Is it ethical for a teacher to talk about hot button issues such as abortion? I think censorship in the classroom is only handicapping the minds of students. This is why college is such an important prospect to me; the opportunity to hear opinions expressed freely.
College professors have a huge amount of freedom compared to secondary teachers. They are not guiding the minds of children, but instead the minds of legal adults. This raises the bar for what can be taught. Although colleges have a curriculum for a class that must be followed, they have more leeway for a discussion to go in a sticky area so to speak. At this point you are choosing what you learn because you are paying for the class instead of fulfilling a requirement. does this fact change the ethics behind what a professor chooses to teach and what a college board approves? I think it makes an immense difference. If you dislike the topic of study in a class you don't have to take it. The fact that college is a time to go deeper into study of a field that you are passionate about makes it more reasonable that what you are learning may push buttons of some people and go beyond the ethical line.
After your formal education, learning can go beyond this because there are no ethical lines unless you set them yourself. This is why life after schooling may be where knowledge really begins. (532)
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Point of View Part Two
If you think that personal point of view affects your learning than what does it say about teaching? Does your point of view effect how you teach a subject? Every textbook is written through the eyes of the writer and his point of view on the subject. With a science text book an author may stress the importance of one topic. Different math books may vary the order in which they discuss the material. The most biased of them all, and my personal favorite would have to be a history text book. When a subject is open to interpretation it greatly increases the way it is taught to others. A historian may write his opinion into the book subconsciously, but that can be true for any writing. Not only writers do this, but teachers as well. I've seen it all throughout my schooling. Teachers explain what they know in a way that gives you their view. For example, I took AP Calculus last year as a Junior. The teacher had very strong views about the textbook that the school had. He disliked the book so much that he had new ones ordered. When I began my senior year I got in Calculus again. The new teacher had no problems with the book and intended on using it. To me it made no sense to go in the order that this book went. This is because my teaching from the previous year gave me a bias against the book. It gets more evident that teachers have a bias while teaching when you look at these teachers' backgrounds. The teacher that disliked the book went to college in a different country. His professor would give the history of the area of study and continue with the lesson. In the new textbooks, there was a section about the mathematicians that developed the particular area of study. This is familiar and therefore easier to teach. The teacher that liked the book went to Adams City and probably used the same textbooks. Both of these teachers developed a separate point of view about teaching the same subject. This leads them to bias their teaching.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Point of View Part One
The quest for knowledge can be stalled or accelerated because of many factors. These factors are based on each individual and can vary for different reasons. The main question is will your person point of view be an asset or obstacle in the acquisition of knowledge. I don't think it has to be an obstacle all the time. Situations are different for each person, but if you allow yourself to have an open-mind to what you are learning then it shouldn't play any negative role. Looking at what you are learning positively can shape your perspective and give you the best outcome. There is always the chance that someone could have a bias against learning something. In this case, your point of view definitely becomes an obstacle. This is something that can be overcome if you choose to not let it be crippling in your quest for knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)