ufo's

In the essay “Perspectives on evaluating evidence for the existence of unidentified flying objects” Condon presents the argument that the study of ufo’s is fruitless and should not be encouraged or be the target of public or private financing. He suggests that individuals with strong scientific backgrounds should not be discouraged from studying the subject on their own terms, but it is not a fit subject for school children or public funds. This is based on the lack of evidence on their existence at all. Hynek believes that ufo’s should be studied and that the only reason it is not more widely accepted discipline is because of the present lack of study in the field. He suggests that the first viable step toward understanding of the subject is data gathering and data processing. I feel that Hynek presents the strongest argument because to date the only real study of the subject has been on a case by case. To really study ufo’s we should study all that is known and look at it through the big picture. 

group pressure and conformity

Group pressure and conformity is a pretty powerful force and it is something that is tough to deal with. The book gives a couple of examples such as the Stanford prison experiment, where the students who are assigned as guards become abusive to the prisoner students. Another one is the standard line test, where six people are asked to tell which line is the same length as the standard one. The five control subjects intentionally give the wrong answer, while 75% of the time the test subject just goes along with what those five say say, even though it is clearly wrong. This is tough to deal with because of how important it is to be a part of the group, especially in a work environment. It is also critical to follow your bosses’ orders and work the way he wants things done. Very often I’ve found that this means doing something different than I would normally do because I see the truth differently in certain situations. 

wisdom

I was always taught that wisdom is the application of knowledge. So in order to be wise, one must have adequate knowledge, and I think that acquiring knowledge is an act of wisdom. I think in college we acquire both knowledge and wisdom. We obviously acquire knowledge because we have to learn the material. I think we also acquire wisdom when we write about the things we learn. I think the majority of students act in a way that shows they apply the knowledge they receive. I think you can see this when you look at students that act wiser and more mature in their later years of college and after they graduate. I think the information age has made us wiser because we are forced to rely less on old-wives tales and more on scientific studies and general consensus that is more accurately true. I think if we use this correctly it is certainly capable of giving us the power to live more fulfilling and rewarding lives, and possibly even become wiser.  

rhetoric

One rhetorical device I have used in the past week is a euphemism. According to the text, a euphemism “is the replacement of a negative term with a neutral or positive one to cover up or sugarcoat the truth.” The example is my a customer at worked asked me if the camera they received as  a gift was a good one. It was old, outdated and not a very generous gift. So I told them that when that camera was new, it was the top of the line, Cadillac of cameras. Even though compared to modern camera’s this one wasn’t very good, it could still take great pictures. Another rhetorical devise I used this week was a dysphemism. A dysphemism is “used to produce negative effects.” An example is when I told a friend of mine he should try my barber, right after he got a haircut. I didn’t think he had a good haircut. 

definitions

One concept that was interesting to me was all the different types of definitions that can be used for any given word. It’s pretty interesting not just that the same word can have different meanings depending on the context, but even in the same context a word can be given different definitions. I feel this is an issue that comes up a lot in philosophy and moral debates. For example, when talking about abortion and a woman’s right to choose a lot of the arguments are just about what words like “life” and “death” mean. What does it mean to say that someone is a person? Is a fetus an individual who has individual rights? These questions make the cornerstone of the debate and it is essential an issue of definition. There are also a lot of persuasive definitions in that debate. For example, you call someone who is pro-abortion “pro-choice” (or “pro-death”, if you want to push some buttons.) 

Sally Ride

In the half page bibliography of Sally Ride, it is clear that she exemplifies all the characteristics of a critical thinker. First and Foremost she shows strong analytical skills. This is clear because her friends think she is an “exemplary critical thinker”, she realizes the importance of communication skills, and she was one of 35 astronauts picked in 1978. She is also an effective communicator. This is clear because she majored in both English and Physics in college. She obviously has strong research skills, because how else would she have earned a Ph.D. from Stanford? In my opinion anyone who can accomplish the things that Sally Ride has accomplished can only be assumed is a strong critical thinker. She has also written several children’s books and has addressed the United Nations, which further shows her strong communication skills and ambition to share the knowledge of space exploration to everyone. I think it is very impressive for someone to believe in something as strongly as she does and understand the importance of sending that message to children and other nations who may have the capability to further that goal. 

The Dawkins Illusion

I don’t think evolution and God are incompatible as Dawkins claims. I think it is a fairly popular belief among Christians that God simply caused the big bang, and evolution followed. Of course there will always be the fundamentalists who stick by their literal interpretations of the bible. But I don’t think this is reason to put anyone who believes in God aside as someone who ignores the claims of science, as Dawkins might have us do. I also think it’s important to understand that on the science side of the problem there a lot of questions left unanswered. So I can certainly empathize with people who believe there simply isn’t enough information to even have the conversation. I think Aquinas would be unfazed by Dawkins derision. In Dawkins response to “The Unmoved Mover” he says of regress “The only escape is God.” And isn’t that why many people continue to believe in God as the creator of the universe? Science hasn’t found a better answer to the question. Even the Physics which claim to have theories are all based on metaphysics. Dawkins need to provide a superior alternative to God, which he fails to do. 

Discussion question 3: emotional intelligence

One part of this week’s reading I found really interesting was the part about emotional intelligence. I thought it was interesting that most many western philosophers believe in rational thought and reason as the highest ideal of intelligence, while many African and Asian philosophers believe that emotional intelligence should play a more vital role in one’s life. It is interesting to tie this in with Al Gore’s belief that there was a lack of response from American citizens in regards to torture and the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina because we have been desensitized by so much sensationalism in the media. I think this goes to show that it is important to have a close awareness of our emotional state and should regard emotional intelligence with as much respect as rational intelligence. I think that emotional intelligence is largely responsible for many of our bigger life decisions, such as who to marry, what field to have a career in, etc. 

Critical thinking

I’m very strong at analyzing inductive arguments and recognizing the difference between rhetoric and strong arguments. This can help me in any number of future career choices. I heard a talk with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet speaking to a group of students. According to both of them communication is the strongest skill any potential can have to improve their job outlook. According to one of them improving ones communication skills can increase his potential job earnings by up to fifty percent. I believe that analyzing inductive arguments and recognizing rhetoric are critical thinking skills which can contribute strongly to one’s communication skills. Being able to analyze arguments will also help one to create and present strong inductive arguments, understand what evidence is necessary to create a strong argument, and understand what evidence is missing from an argument someone is presenting to me. I think that being able to think critically to analyze argument is a skill that will strongly improve future career choices.