Galileo's daughter

How was Galileo's daughter essential to his writing?

-she kept him living for a long time by helping him around the house and doing the jobs he could not finish on his own
-she took care of him and fed him and gave him medicine
-edited The Dialogue even though she never received any formal education
-made special medicine during the Black Plague for her father to keep him from getting sick
-she encouraged him, she was all he really had
-she helped him continue his writing
- she risked her life so that he could continue his passion

St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 Ways

First way: Argument from motion~An object put in motion is put in motion by another object
Second way: Causation of Existence~No object can create itself; therefore, the must have been some being that caused everything to occur with Him being uncaused.
Third way: Contingent and Necessary Objects~A necessary being must exist for all other contingent beings to exist, which is God.
Fourth way: The argument from degrees and perfection~There must be a perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured; these perfections contain God.
The argument from intelligent design~All physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer.

I'll be honest, I'm not a Christian. I don't bash on their views. But quite frankly, I don't agree with Aquinas' theories. This is mainly because I don't feel that God is the answer to all these unexplained questions. But I am not totally athiest and liberal. There IS some sort of divine force or magical/spiritual force that causes all these unexplained happenings. And for some, I do understand that by giving it a name and supporting it with everything gives them a sense of stability. (That does not imply that Christians or people in other religions NEED a sense of stability). But focusing more on Aquinas' theories. He should have realized that there would be contradictions in his theories. Such as who could have been the person who caused/moved God and all His actions? Some would say that God has been ever existant. But for me, I don't buy it.

Fallicies in Adolf Hitler

In Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf (letters he wrote in prison) there are many fallacies. The fallacy that stood out to me the most was known as "Attacking the man". This is a fallacy is pretty much a false claim in an argument that could fool an individual. In the letters, Hitler is trying to persuade his audience about a lot of different views. And of course, he does contradict himself. In the claim Hitler makes at the beginning of his letters is one that he says it too obvious that it shouldn't have to be stated but for the sake of the people he will state it. And in this case, he is saying that he is more superior because he is able to know while others are too stupid and they need him to tell them, when apparently it is quite obvious. This fallacy makes it so that the audience reading this will buy into what Hitler is saying, because "obviously" he knows everything and is so right about it all. (That was sarcastic... Just so you know.)

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

For those who follow Christian beliefs, God's creation of the universe and everything a part of it has been taught to you. And if you are a true follower of God and Jesus Christ, you are to believe this idea, without questions asked. Those who are a part of public education have been taught otherwise, evolution. That the world has evolved from common ancestors, rather than just being made one day and everything being in it. Public education is a government funded program while Christians are taught in church about God and his creation. And while the church and the state are said to be separate, those who follow Christian beliefs continue to protest or fight that intelligent design be taught in schools along with the idea of evolution. The problem here, is that both ideas contradict each other, and it also violates the church and the state being separate institutions.

First off, I'd like to address that my views do not solely revolve around the fact that I am not a Christian. I have taken under consideration that those who are Christian do have strong views and I will not neglect to mention or bash on these views. My ideas will, in fact, be based upon the main idea that the state and the church must remain separate in order for freedom of religion to continue.

Intelligent design should not be taught in school while evolution should not be the only theory or idea that is taught to children that attend public schools. Both intelligent design and evolution are theories, in which case, they are not the only ideas of how the world and everything living was created nor can it be proven. While intelligent design is related to Christian beliefs, it should not be taught in school, for the sole purpose in separating the church and the state. If intelligent design were to be taught in school, Christianity is some what being taught in school. The influence education has on children is great, and what they learn in school alter their views of the world, positively and negatively (but mostly positive). By teaching this idea to students, their ideas may be shifted towards a more Christian view. And while Christian views do teach a positive attitude, it is not fair to other religions and their idea of how the world has come to be. While adding in these ideas, we are limiting the ideas of other religions, unless we are to take the ideas of other religions and add them in to the curriculum. This would then no longer teach basic scientific ideas, but it would adin religion which is even a whole wider range of ideas. This would also go against the idea that the state and the church be separate, because it would throw a whole monkey wrench into our government system. Secondly, the idea of evolution shouldn't be taught as "the" absolute and only idea that could be an explanation for how the world came to be. By using certain terms such as 'may' or 'could be possible' is more suitable for the idea that evolution is not the only theory of how the world came to be. And thirdly, which some may find offensive but is quite a simple idea, those that believe and abide by Christian views (or any other religious views) could simply attend a private school that teaches or belongs to a certain religion. And yes, some may argue that private schools don't always fit a certain income, but this school choice could be taken into consideration. By my suggestion, it does not imply that those who do not attend a private school but follow public education and are very religious are not true followers of their beliefs, rather, it is just simply a suggestion. And if private school is not exactly suitable for a certain income or choice for education, home schooling and Sunday School (Sorry, I'm not familiar with religion school names) or any other form of religious study outside of public education may also be taken into consideration.

I continue to stand by my opinion that intelligent design must not be taught in schools, based on my belief that the state and the church should remain separate, while I also believe that evolution should not be taught as the only or most possible theory for how the world came to be in public schools, there are many other explanations and not all children should be forced or limited to only believing that evolution is the only other idea than intelligent design. Intelligent design and evolution are are far ends of the spectrum for idea of how the world came to be.

Affirmative Action Debate

Now that Obama is president, should there still be a need for affirmative action? Why or why not? My interpretation of affirmative action is that it gives all races the oppurtunity to go to college. Although equality in races, gender, etc. have seemed like the best policy in many cases. Affirmative action is still flawed. I have not decided what my stand is on this argument, and rather than forcing myself to pick a side and argue for it, I have decided to look at both positive and negative aspects of each stand.

I believe that some form of affirmative action should take place. My reasons are:

• It is true that in most cases, certain races, for instance, black Americans or latinos, living in poor communities, are not given the oppurtunity to extend their education to its fullest. Poor communities tend to have more crime, which would take away from education. Crimes done in school, such as graffiti or any sort of vandalism, would take money away from education to replace items that are damaged and are a necessity, such as school books, desks, and other learning utilities. Because the money must be used for anything other than education in itself, there is not enough to pay enough teachers or provide those students that want to learn with the tools they need to succeed.
• Secondly, those that do live in poorer communities carry out other responsibilities in order to survive, such as helping babysit while their parents work, getting a job of their own, etc. Their living conditions require this and it does take away from their education, whether it takes away from time to study, time for extracurricular activities, focus on school work, etc. Those that do have a good sum of money are able to do these things because they are well off and do not need to get an extra job or take care of the home for their families.
• Overall, the idea of equality through races is something that only the past few decades would consider a step forward for humanity. This is because only a few decades ago, segregation did take place and racism was at large. The idea itself make a learning community more diverse. And because different races do come from different areas and living conditions, the diversity in races contributes to the diversity of knowledge. For instance, a hard-working lower class citizen that is less fortunate understands hardships and the struggling side of America while an upper class, extremely wealthy person is able to understand the life styles and attitudes that the wealthy do live. And when these two types of people are able to learn each other, knowledge does expand. A famous person who I really can't remember the name of once something along the lines of, "I am limited by the languages I speak." With that being said, language refers to culture. When we stick to the status quo and do not expand our knowledge from what we are familiar with, it is somewhat ignorant in the sense that we are limited to our own views. The main point being made is equal oppurtunity for certain minorities to go to college to expand their knowledge. When all races are given this oppurtunity, the learning environment does benefit because of the diversity in a classroom and the different perspectives it would bring.

However, equality in races could take away from other types of equality.

• When colleges allow equal oppurtunity for different minorities to get a good education, they limit the amount of certain people of a race. For instance, in order to have equal amount of people of each race, a college is only allowed to accept 50 students from every type of race you can think of. Well in that case, without offending anyone of any race, gender, etc., say a college were to allow only 50 blue people into their school and 50 green people. Of course, equality in the color of the people is fair. Well what if the 50 blue people that applied for the school and got in had a grade point average of 2.9 while 100 green people that applied for the school and only 50 got it had grade point averages ranging from 3.5 to 4.6? Where is the equality in that, that because of someone's race they WERE able to get into college, regardless of their ability to get high GPAs, while someone who worked extremely hard was unable to go to college? This is similar to segregation, but vice versa. While whites had more rights than blacks to go to college just decades ago, now blacks are given the chance, even if they have a lower GPA than someone who had a higher grade point average, but there were too many of their minority. The argument could be made, once again, that a certain minority had better living conditions, therefore, of course they would have high grade point averages, however, the issue remains that equality over race does take away from equal opportunities in other ways.
• I think the point being made is a strong point in itself. And there isn't always the absolute correct solution. As Mr. Posito says, "Stuck between a rock and a hard place"... or was that Homer Simpson?

Both explanations would introduce more questions such as what kind of equality is fair? Or is it fair to allow one type of equality to over rule another? And of course, the argument can also be made that not everyone is suited to go to college. If all we given the oppurtunity, we would not have a lower working class. The basis of country would be gone. And don't take it personally, but the people that do the dirty work would be gone if everyone went to college. Of course, there is no right answer to this issue. That is why we are debating upon it, silly goose.

Who was that one guy who said it in that one show or that one movie that it's stupid to go into a debate when you have already chosen a side? I think it was Chris Rock. Haha, who knows? Whatever the case, I do believe that it is fair to listen to both arguments and to not take matters personally, otherwise it is rather ignorant.

The Difference between Syllogisms, Modus Ponens, and Modus Tollens

The concept of Syllogisms, Modus Ponens, and Modus Tollens are quite alike in that they are forms of deductive logic. Deductive logic is a process by which an argument flows from a general to a more specific or particular stand. It is an argument or claim that is made by a series of ideas that build on each other. Deductive logic uses knowledge that is already known in order to make connections. Let's begin with the concept of syllogisms.
Syllogisms are the linking of two statements in order to draw a conclusion. Because it uses deduction, a general idea will be the major premise or first statement. The following statement will be a particular idea. This will be known as the minor premise. Following both of these arguments is the conclusion. The conclusion will be drawn based on the information provided in the first two statements. For instance:

(Major Premise) All dogs eat dog food.

(Minor Premise) Barker is a dog.

From these two statements, what is apparently true to us is that dogs eat dog food and Barker is a dog. Based on these two arguments, we can come to the conclusion that:

(Conclusion) Barker eats dog food.
Next we must decide whether the argument made is true. Can we trust that these statements are true? "Truth refers to content, substance, and accuracy of the statement..." Based on what we know, it is safe to agree that content of the subject matter is accurate. All dogs eat dog food and Barker is a dog. Because both statements are deemed the truth, then the conclusion must be valid. Validity refers to procedure, to form, and to the way the statements are linked together. First, the first statement made is a generalized statement, "All dogs eat dog food." We do not know specifically what kind of dog, who the dog is, where the dog comes from, etc. It is a general statement that all dogs eat dog food, regardless of these other aspects because we are primarily speaking about dogs in general. Next, the second statement, or the minor premise, is a specific dog. The issue of dogs is no longer generalized, rather, we know a specific dog. Because both these statements were already deemed true, the conclusion drawn from these two arguments may be deemed valid. The conclusion is drawn from a general statement to a particular statement. Even when the first two statements are deemed untrue, if the conclusion is accurately based upon the two statements made, it may be deemed valid. Categorical syllogisms, specifically, follow a certain form that may be recognized in all true and/or valid syllogisms. Terms are used to determine this. In the major premise, we must find the major term. Referring back to the argument about dogs, the major term would be the dogs that eat dog food. This is because our focus is mainly about the dogs that eat dog food. The major term will be seen in the major premise, and then again in the conclusion. The middle term, then, would be all dogs. This term will appear in both premises, for it is the middle term that will link or connect the statements to one another. The connection made will become the conclusion. The minor term is found in the minor premise. In this case, Barker is the minor premise. The minor term will be seen in the minor premise and the conclusion. When these terms are found in the correct format, we are able to conclude that the statements made in relevance to the conclusion are valid. This can be expressed as a mathematical equation:

A = major term

B = middle term

C = minor term

(Major Premise) A=B

(Minor Premise) B=C

(Conclusion) therefore, A=C

The major term appears in the major premise and once again in the conclusion. This is because the conclusion is the connection between the major premise and the minor premise. In which case, when the conclusion is drawn, the major term will reappear in the conclusion along with the minor term. If we were to take the mathematical proof as statements being made to reach a conclusion, we understand that A is equal to B. This is the generalized statement. A particular statement would be that B is equal to C. In this case, we are able to conclude that A is equal to C.

Modus Ponens are rules of logic. They are unlike syllogisms because there is only one statement being made. In addition, the statement made is the cause and effect. A conclusion is made as a result of the effect. Because the statement is the cause and effect within itself, there will be a use of the terms if and then. For instance:

If I eat the sandwich, it will be gone.

I ate the sandwich.

... therefore, it is gone.

The cause is me eating the sandwich. The effect is that the sandwich will be gone. As a result of me eating the sandwich, the sandwich is gone. The conclusion is the result of the cause happening.

The difference between syllogisms and modus ponens are that syllogisms are drawing a new conclusion from the general statement to particular statement being made, while modus ponens already determine the outcome as a result of the a prior cause.

Modus Tollens are different from modus ponens because they are the reciprocal of it. The statement made is like modus ponens, the cause and the effect are stated. "If this happens, then that will happen." However, the result is negative though. Because that did not happen, this did not happen. Because the effect did not take place, then the cause did not take place in order to cause the effect. (Haha, get it?) For instance:

If I eat that rotten banana, then I will get a stomach ache.

I did not get a stomach ache.

... therefore, I did not eat the rotten banana.

The statement made is still a cause and effect. However, modus tollens are the negatice reciprocal. The cause is eating a banana and the effect is a stomach ache. And because I did not get a stomach ache, I did not eat the rotten banana.

These methods of deduction are used everyday in order to draw conclusions and make logical decisions.