topics for Exam #1 (Honors classes, WOLFSON CAMPUS)

for the topics to the exam click on this link.

click here for your textbook exercises and tests. 

you should bring your own scantrons: #888-P or #882-E 

if any of you need me to take a test to ACCESS, please send me an email to remind me.  

mathematical minds are changing the world!

for more information click here, (in Spanish)

counterarguments to climate catastrophe

1. the history of climate picture: let's refer to the most recent warming period since 1830 ("modern warming," as some people call it). keep in mind that, according to IPCC,the human influence on climate is discernible only after 1950.  

the data shows about 1⁰ c warming during the "modern" period. yet, in order to understand "warming," we need to compare the "modern" period with previous periods, below:

we get the "Minoan," "Roman," and "Medieval" periods –much warmer than ours ("Minoan" was 4 ⁰c hotter than today, "Roman" by almost 2⁰ c and "Medieval" by 1⁰ c). all the peaks in the chart are within homo sapiens' presence within human history (and they lived through it).

the chart shows that the world was warmer than today for 97% of the last 10,000 years! 

another interesting conclusion:  our climate has cooled about 0.6 in the last 2,000 years! 

stop for a second, is it warmer? is it cooler? you can see it all depends where you make the cut to compare. better yet, is our present temperature dangerous? certainly not, since we've lived and flourished under a 4 degree celsius warmer temperature during minoan times!     

simply put: there's no catastrophe.

2. the "man-made" warming argument is settled partly by point 1.

climate changes with, or without humans. furthermore we're going through a brief "cooling" since 1998.

3. the temperature/C0₂ correlation.

see the graph above, inside the red square: temperature (red curve) moves down as C0₂ (black curve) moves up. the sun activity/temperature correlation (though generally underestimated) should be factored in: 

see that there is a curve/overlap between the red curve (solar activity) and blue curve (temperature). in the hydrocarbon curve , C0₂ emissions are factored in.

again, the blue curve (temperature) doesn't coincide with the blue curve, so it counters a possible causation from C0₂ emissions to global temperatures.

4.  the whether vs., climate argument:

an important point in the climate discussion is the distinction between weather and climate.

more precisely, climate (the whole) refers to an average number of weather moments (extended to about 30 years), whereas weather (the part) is a shorter variation of atmospheric moments (days-weeks, etc). whenever we measure colder weather (again: we don't feel climate since one cannot feel an average). what we feel are temperature differences in real time (humidity, pressure, temperature, wind, etc.). recording temperatures means recording particulars, not averages.

climate advocates what one may call event as average fallacy. it consists of showing examples of weather as a proof of climate, when in fact an event should not play double duty (as part and as a whole) as when the heat wave in Paris and Spain in the summer of 2019 was used as evidence of climate change.

be it a cold or a hot wave, neither can be used as a particular event and at the same time as an average.      

5. catastrophe or "impending" catastrophe?

there's a difference between "catastrophe" (a sudden widespread calamity) and "impending" catastrophe. impending "means about to occur," the qualifier deflates the "suddenness" out of "catastrophe," making it not a present, but a future event.

that explains why climate change advocates dropped "change" for "catastrophe," which only makes it even more difficult to prove. why?

there's no sudden global calamity to be found. the calamity cannot be regional (since this equivocates the part for the whole). ex: a sequence of fires in California (a particular region), or a Katrina in the Atlantic, or a cyclone in Madagascar, or a drought in Kenya and Sudan. these are all particular events that have to factor in the bigger picture.

all these are regular expected climatological events deflate the suddenness our of the "catastrophe". for example: take a look at the history of drought in Africa: the African continent is susceptible to droughts partly because of geography, but often due to poor agricultural practices.**

look at the deforestation between Dominican Republic and Haiti? only 2% of Haiti is forested.    

 
the differences cannot be explained solely by changes in climate.

6. the 97% consensus on climate catastrophe:

there's no such thing as 97% of consensus in science period.

the 97% burden of proof is a myth (catastrophists wished they had that sort of consensus)

but even then, does general consensus yield truth? the answer is no.

there are plenty of instances in the history of science where consensus has proven wrong.


7. C0₂, warming, and the inductive problem:

philosophy treats causation a bit differently than science; not that science doesn't get it, only that philosophy raises the bar of causation. take C0₂ and global warming.

*is warming a necessary cause for C0₂? only if C0₂ cannot exist without warming, which is not true, according to NASA, C0₂ is actually a cooling gas! 

*is warming a sufficient condition for C0₂? only if warming guarantees C0₂, which is not true, since cold planets such as Mars has 94% C0₂ and –60 ⁰c surface temperature.   

8. the intractable problem of failed predictions:

Paul Elrich, noted biologist, author of The Population P, fpredicted a global famine by 1975. "It's too late," he said. FALSE.

Elrich again, this time the topic is pollution. "Everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue team in 20 years." FALSE.

In 1970, James P. Lodge Jr., director of the NCAR, predicted a "new ice age" by 2000. FALSE.

James Hensen head of Goddard Institute for Space Studies, from NASA, predicted "long summers" for 1990s". His second predictions, by 2028 we should have 1-6 feet sea level rise (8years away?). FALSE, NOT LIKELY. 
  

In 1988 Dr. Hussein Shibab, Environmental Affairs Director, prescribed: "The Maldives would be completely covered by water in 30 years. FALSE.

The Pentagon assumes a report from The Observer, announcing a "Siberian" drop in climate for Great Britain by 2020. FALSE. 

Prince Charles, no scientist, in 2009: "we have 96 months left." FALSE.

Professor Peter Wadhams, forecasts "ice free Arctic in two years." FALSE.

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic "as early as 2016." FALSE.  

Al Gore, in 2009, predicts polar "ice cap may disappear by summer 2014." FALSE

French foreign minister Laurent Fabius in 2014 gives "500 days" notice to avoid climate chaos. FALSE.

the list goes on and on,

9. a theory is reliable ONLY if its models are predictable!

if prediction repeatedly fails, we have reasons to believe that the predictive models don't work (unless there's a non-scientific agenda behind the constant appeal to fear).

chapter 6: epistemology

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 your philosophy paper

here are some of the most talked about topics right now. each entry is linked to a WIKIPEDIA article. look at the table on the left hand side of the WIKIPEDIA entry and find the different angles "FOR" and "AGAINST" any given topic. if you don't find the arguments "against" the topic in the entry, you have to do your own research (and I'll help you). 

NEVER CITE WIKIPEDIA IN YOUR PAPER, INSTEAD LOOK AT THE WIKIPEDIA CITATIONS AND CITE THAT. 


abortion or pro life?

(after the recent ruling by the supreme court striking Roe vs. Wade, still a very important topic and very much a political issue, the topic concerns moral and religious and psychological views) 

factory farms and/or animal welfare

(generally little appreciated, this topic takes an ecological and human/animal dimension: the link between animal-processed foods, ecological degradation, vegetarianism, all tied to the still obscure field of animal ethics).

same-sex marriage vs. traditional marriage

(a topic at the intersection of personal vs. religious freedom, traditional marriage, secularism, legislation, homosexuality, human rights, cultural consensus, etc).

gun control vs. second ammendment

(a problem intersecting Second Amendment rights, civil rights, policy, government interference, mental health, terrorism,).

social media & culture 

(privacy issues, information overload, cyber bullying, fake news, social isolation, net addiction, etc).

climate change 

(global warming is very much at the forefront today's scientific and sociopolitical discourse; many issues here worth being discussed: what's nature? generational responsibility, presentism, economic growth, etc)

socialism or capitalism?

(the topic of socialism & capitalism have resurfaced as of late, yet in many discussions the topics become either too simplistic or irreconcilable).

WE HAVE A PHILOSOPHY CLUB!

Luis Almaraz, president,
Navila González, vice president,
 Marvelys Perez, treasurer 
Diego Torres, secretary,

Phi 2010 Syllabus (Tuesday 5:40pm class)

for more information click this link,

Phi 2010 syllabus content (for InterAmerican Honors class)

click here for more information,

Triff's office hours (room 3604-28)

M,W,F, 8-9:50am
T,R, 8-11am
T, 4:00-5:30pm (let me know via email you're coming for this slot)
W, 4-5:30pm (let me know via email if you're coming for this slot)

We should have a PHILOSOPHY CLUB ASAP JOIN!!!

Who wants to be president, vice, secretary, treasurer? You have to want to do it and it's all yours.

Send me an email and let's take it from there.  

Click here for Philosopy Club Constitution.

our ideas about the world need to be informed by FACTS about the world

in this class, we look for facts. why? facts are the closes to reality, and REALITY RULES.

REALITY RULES BECAUSE IT HAPPENS, AND IT CANNOT HAPPEN ANY OTHER WAY.   

click here for more information,

concerning homeworks

Dear class: I don't grade homeworks. I simply don't have the time to go over each one. Yet, home-works are very important because they build course skills. They help you keep with the different topics we address in class.

Knowing this, if you want me to have your homework you are welcome to give it to me every Friday after class! 

welcome! pHI 2010 syllabus, fall 2018 (all classes)

alfredo triff, phd (math buff, academic adviser, quasi-shrink, parodist, cook/gourmand, music lover, history of design lecturer, cigar smoker, cat lover, part-time hedonist)     

room 3604-28 (Building #3)
tel. 305.237.7554
email: atriff@mdc.edu
office hours: posted
text: Doing Philosophy: An Introduction through Thought Experiments, by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn (Fifth Edition).

goals
* become familiar with contemporary trends in philosophy. *learning how to problematize issues. basically philosophy seeks truth and honesty. the issues are pursued regardless of PC assumptions. * stimulate the philosophical spirit, * ethics of dialogue, which is the art of conveying your point & finally, * philosophy for life, which is Sophia's advice to the neophyte.

(keep reading here)

are there facts in a chicken soup?

chicken broth = chicken + water

and in the long evolution of the production of the stock (we call it CULINARY SCIENCE) we get the right method. it's right because it tastes better, it tastes better because of the facts of the matter of the preparation. YES, SLOW IS MUCH BETTER. 

why? MORE COLLAGEN EXTRACTED FROM THE BONES. this is a chemical property, which translates into TASTE. this is a CULINARY FACT.
 
here is a diagram about the construction of consensus about these facts.

see that the info is negotiated via cause/effect inter-subjectively from the outside into consensus and from consensus into best consensus. best consensus' main property is that it's more reliable, more resistant to to and fro from the outside

take picasso's GUERNICA below. 

we examine the painting's formal qualities, the new style it represents (Cubism & Surrealism), as well as the painting's reception (Spanish pavillion 1937 and all the people that have written about the painting) and its influence in subsequent 20th & 21st century art (the intersubjectivity explain the consensus, which takes time to build: best consensus cannot be produced overnight).

the best consensus provides the best explanation for these "notes." this slow layer-upon-layer of reasons through the centuries become a n important value accumulation. the term "masterpiece" simply describes the process.    

this is when i made a distinction between saying:

1. I hate Guernica and 2. Guernica is a mediocre painting. 

there are ostensible differences here to note:

1. is a personal opinion, which one is entitled to; 2. is a statement of "fact" going against the best consensus.

 2. is actually insurmountable. to prove 2. one would have to produce an argument to defeat 81 years of consensus; not impossible, but unlikely.

from 1. to 2. there is an enormous value/gap, which the counter would have to defeat.

Guernica is a masterpiece because of the "facts" pertaining Guernica, which is why it is in the CANON not the other way around.

consensus is NEVER static. it's a dynamic process where each Guernica reviewed and written about, discussed, is different than the previous one. numerically speaking there is only one Guernica, qualitatively there are many.

this is how the work becomes canonical (or part of the canon of a civilization).

consensus lends itself to best consensus. best consensus is just the best of the previous consensus. "best" is important because it is more reliable. less subject to negotiation with plain info.

best consensus is not what makes Guernica a masterpiece. Guernica is a masterpice because of "facts" in Guernica. what the best consensus does is flesh out these "facts".