Positive Correlation

One thing I wanted to talk about this week was positive correlation. A positive correlation occurs when one event occurs, a second, predictable event occurs as well. So the two things are related, but the one doesn’t necessarily cause the other. It’s important that correlation does not prove causation, only that the two things are related. An example of positive correlation is that when I stick to my diet and don’t cheat and eat things I’m not supposed to, I lose weight. Another example is going to the gym. When I go to the gym often, and put more effort into my workouts, I see greater fitness gains. I also feel better and have more energy. I think it’s tough to differentiate between causation and correlation because most of the things I do I have very little knowledge of how they actually work. For example, in the diet and fitness examples, I have no idea about the science behind any of that, I just do what I’ve found to work through trial and error, but because for me working out and eating well go hand in hand, I’m really not sure if one is more effective than the other. 

Joe Camel

Dr. Novello used cause and effect style reasoning to find a solution to the problem of children and teens smoking. She saw a correlation between an increase in teen smoking with the release of the Joe Camel ad campaign.  She reasoned that because these ads seemed to target a younger audience, this was one of the causes of the increase in teen smoking. To combat this she did two things. First she placed a ban on ads that target to kids, including the Joe Camel ads. Second, she started to educate children in school about the dangers of smoking. This way even teens already effected by the ads or from peer pressure would be able to make informed decisions about whether or not to smoke. 

T Mobile v ATT

An inductive argument I used last week was about what cell phone and what cell phone carrier I should buy. I decided on a Windows Phone because the reviews are really good and it’s supposed to be really easy to use. I was torn between buying an unlocked HTC Radar for $300 and buying the T Mobile monthly prepaid plan. The other option was buying the Nokia Lumia 900 on contract with ATT for $100 and being stuck on a two year contract. I reasoned that I should get the HTC because over two years I will save about $400 vs ATT, plus I will not be on contract so I can cancel and change my plan anytime. The T Mobile plan also gives me unlimited data while ATT does not, so I feel like I am getting more for less with T Mobile. This is an inductive argument because even though the premises are true it does not necessarily follow that T Mobile will be the better value. T Mobile might have spotty coverage and I might need to switch to another carrier before two years, likely making the cost greater over a two year period. 

Week two discussion question three

The ethics involved in group decision making is very interesting to me. The book told the story about the O-ring engineers warning their superiors about the problems that may arise if the Challenger shuttle launched in cold weather. Their warnings went unheard and they did not challenge their supervisors on the decision.

The decision to challenge authority is a very hard one to make and often comes at great personal cost. The engineers may have lost their jobs if they went to the press or over their managers heads to be sure they were heard. If they had done this it is possible the challenger shuttle could have been saved. The engineers were obviously afraid of negative repercussions if they challenged authority.

In a perfect world ethical decision making would be based on ones intention to always do the right thing.  Sometimes the difference between the “right” thing and the thing that benefits one the most is so close it hardly makes a difference. Other times the cost may be huge but the benefit minimal. 

Death Penalty

This passage from the bible does not mean that Jesus’ teachings maintain abolishing the death penalty. The assumption here is that the death penalty is an act of hate and evil but this is not the case. In fact because the judicial system removes the sentencing of the criminals from the prejudice of those acted upon, any act of punishment carried out is for the purpose of justice, not hate, evil or revenge. If we follow the logic of Sister Helen Prejean the problem arises of what forms of punishment are acceptable. In her view is life imprisonment any less hateful or evil than the death penalty? I believe this passage suggests that motives play a role in the sentencing of a crime. I believe the application of this passage is that one not kill another in an act of vengeance or passion, which would be an act carried out of hate and evil. If, rather, a criminal is tried and sentenced by an impartial jury, with the only motive being justice, then hate and evil play no role in justice. 

The death penalty is just
Anything that is just cannot be hateful or evil
The death penalty is not hateful or evil

Sherlock Holmes and Pants Problems

I think what Sherlock Holmes means is that people tend to take things at face value when there are often more things to consider than there appears to be. I think it’s easy to mistake an explanation or an assumption for a factual account of what happened.  One of the foundations of using logic and reason is having a grasp of the basic facts of a case. For example, my favorite pair of jeans is Levis 514. So when I decided to buy some corduroys I bought Levis 514 corduroys because I assumed they would be cut the same. What I didn’t know is that the “514” label only denotes a very general “fit”, as in, they have a straight leg. But the corduroy style is really different from the denim version. They use different measurements for the different materials and they fit really differently. I assumed that the two materials having the same name would be exactly the same, but I didn’t even consider that corduroy is almost always way looser than denim. I don’t really know why this is, but it seems to be an industry standard. So having a basic knowledge of the industry I would have been able to know that pants with the same name but made with different materials will fit differently. 

discussion question 3 - On Rhetoric

All people use rhetoric to endorse their positions on issues. This is often a very effective form of communication. It is well known that people respond best to persuasion when one appeals to their emotions, which is the essence of rhetoric. This is sometimes preferred when an in-depth analysis of an issue (such as which TV I should buy) is not necessary. However, I also think it is true that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Many social and moral issues are based on the deepest principles of one’s life. To persuade someone on an important moral issue through the use of rhetoric and emotional appeal robs that person of an opportunity to examine his life and put his principles to the test. Therefore, however strongly one may feel about an issue, I think it is necessary to allow others to come to their own conclusions through reason and by examining their lives.

discussion question 1 - President Obama on same-sex marriage

                I believe President Obama’s stance on the legalization of same-sex marriage is in opposition with his belief that all people deserve equal rights and opportunities under the law. The end goal of marriage is to establish a family, which can be confined to two people with or without children, and acts as a relationship which fulfills each partner’s emotional and physical needs, which necessarily includes sex. Therefore, same-sex marriage is not a gateway to the inclusion of any human relationship being regarded as a potential marriage relationship, as Robert Sokolowski suggests. If two people love each other, provide for each other’s needs and want to get married, then marriage is an essential right which cannot be denied them if they are truly receiving equal rights and opportunities under the law.

The reason same-sex marriage is illegal is because over half the country is evangelical Christian who oppose same-sex marriage on a religious basis. Obviously this is a major issue which will effect voting decisions in the next election. But there is also merit to the fact that a politician’s job is to represent the beliefs of the people he represents. Even if his decision is morally wrong, is there justification for him to represent the will of the people he represents?