On the distinction between number and quality when talking about ourselves (for Summer A class)

Because of our discussion yesterday and some of the comments put forward just before the class ended. We talked about how a white person is not qualified to talk for a black person (and viceversa), a man for a woman (and viceversa), a heterosexual for a homosexual (and viceversa), a non-transgender for a transgender and viceversa). At first, these qualifications may seem limiting, indeed overbearing. After all (as Roberto pointed out), even amongst blacks, a black person may say (referring to another black person) "this black person is not qualified to talk for me."

discussion continues here.

Student assistants for Summer A class

Athenais Acquaviva
Emily Mader
Julio Cesar Leyva

Final Exam (written by Devorah Korf)

Review for Midterm (Athenais Aquaviva) SUMMER A

Click here for Athenais' review for the Midterm.

watson: the smartest machine ever built!

as part of our conversation about functionalism & AI (see the discussion about hypothesis and the talk about "corpus" around 4:00).

also, read this article, by ray kurzweil.

to proper understand what Watson does you should be proficient in these areas:

natural language processing, which includes

SYNTAX
morphological linguistics,
parsing, 
lexical semantics (a promising subfield of the intersection between syntax and semantics)

SEMANTICS
machine translation,
natural language understanding (this is where the name AI comes from)
sentiment analysis (I love this, where the psychology intersects para-logical processes) 
disambiguation,
discourse analysis,

Prostitution, choice and Kant's second formulation

Now that we're talking about Kant's formalism and the issue of treating people as "means to an end" the topic of prostitution came up. Jose brought up a dissenting point to Kant's formulation, well done! Here is Kant's response if he lived now. Treating yourself as a means to an end is to ignore your DIGNITY. Your body is important and transactions through it will pay a price.

As I said, even the Ethical Egoist would pause and think: "Doing that to my body may not be a good in the long run" (prudence is a plus for the ethical egoist). You know, the formalist would see the practice as wrong on reversible and universalizable grounds.

Now, the problem is more complicated. Prostitution is global phenomenon:

Cheated out of childhood in Russia.
Sex slaves in Italy.
Child sex workers in Nepal.
Child prostitution in South Africa.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on prostitution in the USA (see that there are different kinds, from brothel, to escort to child prostitution).

As I discussed in class, prostitution is not generally a "choice" but a socially determined malaise, young woman or man may exhibit certain behaviors and happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time:

* About 80% of women in prostitution have been the victim of a rape. It's hard to talk about this because... the experience of prostitution is just like rape. Prostitutes are raped, on the average, eight to ten times per year. They are the most raped class of women in the history of our planet (Susan Kay Hunter and K.C. Reed, July, 1990 "Taking the side of bought and sold rape," speech at National Coalition against Sexual Assault, Washington, D.C. ).

* Other studies report 68% to 70% of women in prostitution being raped (M Silbert, "Compounding factors in the rape of street prostitutes," in A.W. Burgess, ed., Rape and Sexual Assault II, Garland Publishing, 1988; Melissa Farley and Howard Barkan, "Prostitution, Violence, and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder," 1998, Women & Health.

* Prostitution is an act of violence against women which is intrinsically traumatizing. In a study of 475 people in prostitution (including women, men, and the transgendered) from five countries (South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, USA, and Zambia):
62% reported having been raped in prostitution.
73% reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.
72% were currently or formerly homeless.
92% stated that they wanted to escape prostitution immediately.
(Melissa Farley, Isin Baral, Merab Kiremire, Ufuk Sezgin, "Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder" (1998) Feminism & Psychology 8 (4): 405-426.

* Many of the health problems of women in prostitution are a direct result of violence. For example, several women had their ribs broken by the police in Istanbul, a woman in San Francisco broke her hips jumping out of a car when a john was attempting to kidnap her. Many women had their teeth knocked out by pimps and johns. (Melissa Farley, unpublished manuscript, 2000). A woman (in another study) said about her health: "I’ve had three broken arms, nose broken twice, [and] I’m partially deaf in one ear….I have a small fragment of a bone floating in my head that gives me migraines. I’ve had a fractured skull. My legs ain’t worth shit no more; my toes have been broken. My feet, bottom of my feet, have been burned; they've been whopped with a hot iron and clothes hanger… the hair on my pussy had been burned off at one time…I have scars. I’ve been cut with a knife, beat with guns, two by fours. There hasn’t been a place on my body that hasn’t been bruised somehow, some way, some big, some small." (Giobbe, E. (1992) Juvenile Prostitution: Profile of Recruitment in Ann W. Burgess (ed.) Child Trauma: Issues & Research.Garland Publishing Inc, New York, page 126).

*The commercial sex industry includes: street prostitution, massage brothels, escort services, out-call services, strip clubs, lap-dancing, phone sex, adult and child pornography, video and internet pornography, and prostitution tourism. Most women who are in prostitution for longer than a few months drift among these various permutations of the commercial sex industry. All prostitution causes harm to women. Whether it is being sold by one’s family to a brothel, or whether it is being sexually abused in one’s family, running away from home, and then being pimped by one’s boyfriend, or whether one is in college and needs to pay for next semester’s tuition and one works at a strip club behind glass where men never actually touch you – all these forms of prostitution hurt the women in it. (Melissa Farley, paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Women’s Health Issues, University of California College of Nursing, San Francisco, 2000).

So? Is Kant right or wrong?

lecture on theodicies

definition of evil: something that is the source or cause of suffering, injury or destruction.
natural evil: evil that humans suffer at the hands of nature.
moral evil: the evil that humans suffer at the hands of other humans.
necessary evil: evil that is necessary to prevent a greater evil of promote a greater good.
unnecessary evil: evil that is fortuitous (this is REAL evil).
____________________

The Ontological Defense: Goodness cannot exist without evil. So a world without evil is impossible.

Knowledge Defense: Knowledge of evil is important (even to understand goodness) and it cannot exist unless there’s evil in the world.
 
C/A: Suppose this is true, then how can one explain the excess of evil? Unnecessary evil is not justified by the knowledge defense.
 
Free will defense: Evil is necessary for free will. We choose and sometimes we choose evil over good. Defended by: St. Agustin and Alvin Plantinga.

C/A: 1- A being with free will who always chooses good is logically possible. God is such a being. 2- There’s still much more evil in the world that is necessary. Why is unnecessary evil chosen so often? The theist needs to answer this question.

Ideal Humanity Defense: Evil evolves us humans into an ideal humanity.

C/A: There is little evidence that the struggle for survival has improved the human race. One could argue that the advancements we've made in science are not the result of natural evil.Finally, the ideal humanity defense seems to contradict the Christian principle that each human is of infinite value.
 
Character (or soul) building defense: According to philosopher/theologian John Hicks, evil is not wrong for our own sake.

C/A: It works both ways, suffering can also debase us. If this is true, then fighting evil becomes wrong (you shouldn’t alleviate a person’s suffering because it’s good for her character)

Topics for Exam #1 FALL 2018

Chapter 1
 
1- Necessary and sufficient conditions (think of some examples as we did in the Homeworks):

"X" is nec. for "Y", iff Y cannot exist w/o "X," or if "X" is not present, "Y" will not occur.
"X" is suf. for "Y", iff "X" cannot exist w/o "Y," or if "X" is present then "Y" will happen.

2- Logical impossibility, i.e. if it violates a law of noncontradiction (something cannot both be and not be at the same time), causal impossibility (i.e. if it violates a law of nature).
Example: Levitating is logically possible, but causally impossible. QUESTION: If something is logically impossible, can it be causally possible?

3- Argument A set of premises and a conclusion.

4- Deductive arguments: valid (if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises); sound (a valid argument with true premises).
REMEMBER: There are valid arguments which are unsound.

5- Inductive arguments: strong (an argument that would establish its conclusion with a high degree of probability if the premises were true), cogent: a strong argument with true premises.

6- IBE (or Inference to the Best Explanation) also known as Hypothetical Induction: Hypothesis, which if true, would provide the BEST EXPLANATION for the evidence.7- Criteria of adequacy: Simplicity, consistency, fruitfulness, conservatism and scope.

8- Thought experiment, counterexample, test implication

9- The difference between conceivability and possibility

10- Fallacies. These are the fallacies I want you to know: Begging the question, Appeal to the person (Ad Hominem), Appeal to Ignorance, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to the Masses, Hasty Generalization, False Dilemma.

Chapter 7

1- All boxes in 537, 539, 541.

Belief: A mental state of acceptance (a belief could be false).
Justification: The reasons why one holds a belief (there are good and bad justifications).
Truth: Truth is a fact.
Suspension of belief. Neither accept nor reject a belief.
Theories of truth: 
Correspondence Theory: Truth is a fact (example: "Snow is white.") 
Pragmatic Theory: Truth is what best does the job at hand (example: "Dom Perignon is a good champagne.")
Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is what best coheres with the rest of my knowledge (example: "The theory of evolution is true because it best coheres with the rest of our natural sciences").

When we don't have all the evidence, or when we're dealing with complicated problems, we may use the pragmatic criteria: With history, forensics, matters of opinion and taste we are more likely to deal with truth as pragmatic than as correspondence. 

Guess which theories are expressed by these propositions:
a- "2+3 =5", 
b- "all triangles have three sides," 
c- "H₂O is water,"  
d- "Democracy is better than tyranny." 
e- "Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon by Picasso is a masterpiece of Cubism."

Section 7.1 & Section 7.2 are summarized here.

Topics for Exam #1 (Summer A)

Chapter 1
 
1- Necessary and sufficient conditions (think of some examples as we did in the Homeworks):

"X" is nec. for "Y", iff Y cannot exist w/o "X," or if "X" is not present, "Y" will not occur.
"X" is suf. for "Y", iff "X" cannot exist w/o "Y," or if "X" is present then "Y" will happen.

2- Logical impossibility, i.e. if it violates a law of noncontradiction (something cannot both be and not be at the same time), causal impossibility (i.e. if it violates a law of nature).
Example: Levitating is logically possible, but causally impossible. QUESTION: If something is logically impossible, can it be causally possible?

3- Argument A set of premises and a conclusion.

4- Deductive arguments: valid (if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises); sound (a valid argument with true premises).
REMEMBER: There are valid arguments which are unsound.

5- Inductive arguments: strong (an argument that would establish its conclusion with a high degree of probability if the premises were true), cogent: a strong argument with true premises.

6- IBE (or Inference to the Best Explanation) also known as Hypothetical Induction: Hypothesis, which if true, would provide the BEST EXPLANATION for the evidence.7- Criteria of adequacy: Simplicity, consistency, fruitfulness, conservatism and scope.

8- Thought experiment, counterexample, test implication

9- The difference between conceivability and possibility

10- Fallacies. These are the fallacies I want you to know: Begging the question, Appeal to the person (Ad Hominem), Appeal to Ignorance, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to the Masses, Hasty Generalization, False Dilemma.

Chapter 7

1- All boxes in 537, 539, 541.

Belief: A mental state of acceptance (a belief could be false).
Justification: The reasons why one holds a belief (there are good and bad justifications).
Truth: Truth is a fact.
Suspension of belief. Neither accept nor reject a belief.
Theories of truth: 
Correspondence Theory: Truth is a fact (example: "Snow is white.") 
Pragmatic Theory: Truth is what best does the job at hand (example: "Dom Perignon is a good champagne.")
Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is what best coheres with the rest of my knowledge (example: "The theory of evolution is true because it best coheres with the rest of our natural sciences").

When we don't have all the evidence, or when we're dealing with complicated problems, we may use the pragmatic criteria: With history, forensics, matters of opinion and taste we are more likely to deal with truth as pragmatic than as correspondence. 

Guess which theories are expressed by these propositions:
a- "2+3 =5", 
b- "all triangles have three sides," 
c- "H₂O is water,"  
d- "Democracy is better than tyranny." 
e- "Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon by Picasso is a masterpiece of Cubism."
 

Section 7.1 & Section 7.2 are summarized here.

Section 7.3


1- Standard Account of Knowledge: K= JTB / Counterexample: Gettier's Guy in Barcelona.
2- Defeasibility Theory: K = UJTB /Counterexample: Lehrer's demented Mrs. Grabbit.
3- Causal Theory: K = SCTB / Counterexample: Goldman's Fake Barns.
4- Reliability Theory: K = RPTB / Counterexample: Lehrer's Human Thermometer.    

5- Virtue Perspectivism: K = AB (apt belief). Also K= AK (animal knowledge) + RK (reflective knowledge

According to Sousa, knowledge is a kind of performance, because it has a goal: true belief. So, knowledge needs aptness = accuracy +adroitness  
accuracy ---> goal seeking
adroitness--> exhibiting skill 

Sosa believes there are two kinds of knowledge: Animal and Reflective. Animal Knowledge is externalist in nature. The animal is not aware of its knowledge. It relies exclusively on its sense (what I call "antennas"). 

On the other hand, Reflective Knowledge (RK) is internal in nature: It's a second-order knowledge that is acquired by reflecting on the principles and processes that underlie Animal Knowledge (AK, a first order of knowledge). 

This is the picture. If you have AK you can know without being aware you know. If you have RK you basically know that you know.   

6- This is how Sousa's theory (Virtue Perspectivism) solves each of the preceding counterexamples:  

1. in the case of Gettier's Guy in Barcelona, Smith doesn't have AK, nor does he have RK that "Jones owns a Ford" or "Brown is in Barcelona."    
2. In the Mrs. Grabbit thought experiment, the librarian has both AK and RK that Tom Grabbit stole the book. 
3. In Goldman's Fake Barns thought experiment, Henry has AK that he sees real barns, but he doesn't have RK that he doesn't see fake ones. So, in a sense he doesn't know he knows. 
4. In Lehrer's Human Thermometer thought experiment, Mr. Truetemp has AK of the temperature (he has a thermometer attached to his skull), but he doesn't have RK (he doesn't know why he knows). 

These answers prove that Virtue Perspectivism is a better theory than the previous ones. It can tell us what the issue is, and what needs to get fixed.