I was browsing through news sites today and came across this interesting article. It claims that living plants produce tremendous amounts of methane gas, which is considered one of the greenhouse gasses.
Does this make the former views of global warming invalid?
the article is at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/sc_nm/environment_methane_dc
Friday, January 13, 2006
Thursday, December 15, 2005
God?
I saw this article on drudgereport the other day and was rather shocked. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292
Apparenlty a recent Gallup pole found that 94 percent of Americans believe in god.
The sample size was not as large as it should be to be incredibly accurate but the results are still intersting.
Why is there so much anti-god sentiment in the media if an overwhelming percentage of the population believe in God?
Apparenlty a recent Gallup pole found that 94 percent of Americans believe in god.
The sample size was not as large as it should be to be incredibly accurate but the results are still intersting.
Why is there so much anti-god sentiment in the media if an overwhelming percentage of the population believe in God?
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Rule the World
Hey everybody. Does anyone still check in on this? I'm in an Ethics class this semester so I'm sure I will have plenty of new conversations to start in the coming weeks.
In school the other day, a friend showed me an interesting website. www.nationstates.com For those of you that enjoy politics, this is a game where you set up and run your own mock country. They also have interesting political message boards. After creating a country they give you different issues to deal with the way you respond determines how your country develops. I just started but it seems pretty fun so far.
In school the other day, a friend showed me an interesting website. www.nationstates.com For those of you that enjoy politics, this is a game where you set up and run your own mock country. They also have interesting political message boards. After creating a country they give you different issues to deal with the way you respond determines how your country develops. I just started but it seems pretty fun so far.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Global dimming vs Global Warming
I don't know that anyone pays attention to this anymore but I thought I would add something that caught my eye.
Check out this article. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html
Apparently, the trend of using cleaner fuels and reducing the amount of pollution in the atmosphere has worked. The skies are much cleaner than they used to be. But more sunlight reaching the earth's surface may increase the likelihood of global warming. Seems like we just can't win.
Check out this article. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html
Apparently, the trend of using cleaner fuels and reducing the amount of pollution in the atmosphere has worked. The skies are much cleaner than they used to be. But more sunlight reaching the earth's surface may increase the likelihood of global warming. Seems like we just can't win.
Global dimming vs Global Warming
I don't know that anyone pays attention to this anymore but I thought I would add something that caught my eye.
Check out this article. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html
Apparently, the trend of using cleaner fuels and reducing the amount of pollution in the atmosphere has worked. The skies are much cleaner than they used to be. But more sunlight reaching the earth's surface may increase the likelihood of global warming. Seems like we just can't win.
Check out this article. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html
Apparently, the trend of using cleaner fuels and reducing the amount of pollution in the atmosphere has worked. The skies are much cleaner than they used to be. But more sunlight reaching the earth's surface may increase the likelihood of global warming. Seems like we just can't win.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Lone nut or Conspiracy?
I have been paging through the book Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, by Jim Marrs, lately wondering if Oswald, acting alone, could pull off a stunt of that magnitude. As we all know President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed on November 22nd, 1963 with the who, the why, and how being debated ever since. Could one man have carried out the shooting without help? I was also spurred on by watching Oliver Stone’s JFK.
Many people do not believe that one man could pull off three shots in the time elapsed between the first shot and the final headshot, especially not Oswald, shooting with world class precision through a sixth story window. According to his peers in the military, Oswald was a terrible shot with a rifle. He had trouble hitting stationary targets, so how could he pull off a headshot on a person in a moving car?
There’s a ton of other information, too much to get into here, ranging from the incompetence of The Warren Commission, the rush to clean the limo before any forensic evidence could be taken, the botched autopsy, to the outright charging of U.S. government with conspiracy. The most ridiculous is the “magic bullet theory”, which states that one stray bullet could account for seven wounds in Kennedy and in Governor Connally, who was sitting in the front seat.
What do you guys think? Could Lee Harvey Oswald carry out this task on his own? Do you think the federal government secretly sanctioned the plot?
Many people do not believe that one man could pull off three shots in the time elapsed between the first shot and the final headshot, especially not Oswald, shooting with world class precision through a sixth story window. According to his peers in the military, Oswald was a terrible shot with a rifle. He had trouble hitting stationary targets, so how could he pull off a headshot on a person in a moving car?
There’s a ton of other information, too much to get into here, ranging from the incompetence of The Warren Commission, the rush to clean the limo before any forensic evidence could be taken, the botched autopsy, to the outright charging of U.S. government with conspiracy. The most ridiculous is the “magic bullet theory”, which states that one stray bullet could account for seven wounds in Kennedy and in Governor Connally, who was sitting in the front seat.
What do you guys think? Could Lee Harvey Oswald carry out this task on his own? Do you think the federal government secretly sanctioned the plot?
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
The Ethics of Belief
This topic has been discussed somewhat in other postings so let's just address it directly. The philosopher William Clifford addressed this matter fairly well. Some of his views are as follows:
There was once an island in which some of the inhabitants professed a religion teaching neither the doctrine of original sin nor that of eternal punishment. A suspicion got abroad that the professors of this religion had made use of unfair means to get their doctrines taught to children. They were accused of wresting the laws of their country in such a way as to remove children from the care of their natural and legal guardians; and even of stealing them away and keeping them concealed from their friends and relations. A certain number of men formed themselves into a society for the purpose of agitating the public about this matter. They published grave accusations against against individual citizens of the highest position and character, and did all in their power to injure these citizens in their exercise of their professions. So great was the noise they made, that a Commission was appointed to investigate the facts; but after the Commission had carefully inquired into all the evidence that could be got, it appeared that the accused were innocent. Not only had they been accused of insufficient evidence, but the evidence of their innocence was such as the agitators might easily have obtained, if they had attempted a fair inquiry. After these disclosures the inhabitants of that country looked upon the members of the agitating society, not only as persons whose judgment was to be distrusted, but also as no longer to be counted honorable men. For although they had sincerely and conscientiously believed in the charges they had made, yet they had no right to believe on such evidence as was before them. Their sincere convictions, instead of being honestly earned by patient inquiring, were stolen by listening to the voice of prejudice and passion.
Let us vary this case also, and suppose, other things remaining as before, that a still more accurate investigation proved the accused to have been really guilty. Would this make any difference in the guilt of the accusers? Clearly not; the question is not whether their belief was true or false, but whether they entertained it on wrong grounds. They would no doubt say, "Now you see that we were right after all; next time perhaps you will believe us." And they might be believed, but they would not thereby become honorable men. They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out. Every one of them, if he chose to examine himself in foro conscientiae, would know that he had acquired and nourished a belief, when he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him; and therein he would know that he had done a wrong thing.
Is it okay to hold a belief without any sort of evidence?
Most people confuse evidence as something concrete, but it does not have to be. Gravity, for instance, is not 100% true. If I threw a ball up in the air can I be certain it will come down? The answer is that by using information I have learned, I know it has a very high probability of coming back down, but I can never know this with any certainty.
At the end of his essay Clifford notes:
If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it--the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.
There was once an island in which some of the inhabitants professed a religion teaching neither the doctrine of original sin nor that of eternal punishment. A suspicion got abroad that the professors of this religion had made use of unfair means to get their doctrines taught to children. They were accused of wresting the laws of their country in such a way as to remove children from the care of their natural and legal guardians; and even of stealing them away and keeping them concealed from their friends and relations. A certain number of men formed themselves into a society for the purpose of agitating the public about this matter. They published grave accusations against against individual citizens of the highest position and character, and did all in their power to injure these citizens in their exercise of their professions. So great was the noise they made, that a Commission was appointed to investigate the facts; but after the Commission had carefully inquired into all the evidence that could be got, it appeared that the accused were innocent. Not only had they been accused of insufficient evidence, but the evidence of their innocence was such as the agitators might easily have obtained, if they had attempted a fair inquiry. After these disclosures the inhabitants of that country looked upon the members of the agitating society, not only as persons whose judgment was to be distrusted, but also as no longer to be counted honorable men. For although they had sincerely and conscientiously believed in the charges they had made, yet they had no right to believe on such evidence as was before them. Their sincere convictions, instead of being honestly earned by patient inquiring, were stolen by listening to the voice of prejudice and passion.
Let us vary this case also, and suppose, other things remaining as before, that a still more accurate investigation proved the accused to have been really guilty. Would this make any difference in the guilt of the accusers? Clearly not; the question is not whether their belief was true or false, but whether they entertained it on wrong grounds. They would no doubt say, "Now you see that we were right after all; next time perhaps you will believe us." And they might be believed, but they would not thereby become honorable men. They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out. Every one of them, if he chose to examine himself in foro conscientiae, would know that he had acquired and nourished a belief, when he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him; and therein he would know that he had done a wrong thing.
Is it okay to hold a belief without any sort of evidence?
Most people confuse evidence as something concrete, but it does not have to be. Gravity, for instance, is not 100% true. If I threw a ball up in the air can I be certain it will come down? The answer is that by using information I have learned, I know it has a very high probability of coming back down, but I can never know this with any certainty.
At the end of his essay Clifford notes:
If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it--the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Free Will Vs. Determinism
A major philosophical debate of Free Will Vs. Determinism is one that fascinates me. The part I like most is hearing other peoples take on the topic. I'll introduce the two before stating what I think.
The theory asserting universal causation and total predictibility traditionally has been called determinism. This means all actions, by living creatures or otherwise, are predetermined. This is where the notion of cause and effect comes from. One can see that cause and effect happens every day. There are many varieties of determinism though they all revolve around this standard.
A more extreme variation of determinism is called fatalism. This is more commonly known as fate. That everything is already determined and that people have no control over their actions. If something is to happen it is unavoidable and no alternative exists.
For the determinist, human actions are events as predictable as any other type of event. Just as the behavior of water heated to 212 degrees Fahrenheit can be predicted, so, in principle, can the behavior of a person given a million dollars. The determinist would admit that, at the moment the latter sort of prediction cannot be made reliably because we lack the necessary exact laws of human behavior. Someday, however, the social sciences may find such laws, and correct predictions will become possible.
In contrast to determinism are those that believe in Free Will. Free will means that nothing is predetermined and that all actions are products of choices that people can make.
The belief in Free Will is also commonly known as libertarianism (nothing to do with the political movement). Of the many arguements the libertarians claim the most notorious is that if determinism is true, it absolves people of moral responsibility. For if it is not avoidable, how can a person be held accountable for their actions. That means the bank robber robbing a bank today can be traced back from a series of causes before his birth, yet our justice system punishes this man. Therefore he must have had the free will to decide to rob the bank.
What do you think is true or the most probabble?
The theory asserting universal causation and total predictibility traditionally has been called determinism. This means all actions, by living creatures or otherwise, are predetermined. This is where the notion of cause and effect comes from. One can see that cause and effect happens every day. There are many varieties of determinism though they all revolve around this standard.
A more extreme variation of determinism is called fatalism. This is more commonly known as fate. That everything is already determined and that people have no control over their actions. If something is to happen it is unavoidable and no alternative exists.
For the determinist, human actions are events as predictable as any other type of event. Just as the behavior of water heated to 212 degrees Fahrenheit can be predicted, so, in principle, can the behavior of a person given a million dollars. The determinist would admit that, at the moment the latter sort of prediction cannot be made reliably because we lack the necessary exact laws of human behavior. Someday, however, the social sciences may find such laws, and correct predictions will become possible.
In contrast to determinism are those that believe in Free Will. Free will means that nothing is predetermined and that all actions are products of choices that people can make.
The belief in Free Will is also commonly known as libertarianism (nothing to do with the political movement). Of the many arguements the libertarians claim the most notorious is that if determinism is true, it absolves people of moral responsibility. For if it is not avoidable, how can a person be held accountable for their actions. That means the bank robber robbing a bank today can be traced back from a series of causes before his birth, yet our justice system punishes this man. Therefore he must have had the free will to decide to rob the bank.
What do you think is true or the most probabble?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)