click here for more information.
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.
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Monday, March 4, 2019
some general recommendations about our second assignment.
it's all good, but,
1- many of you simply took the already submitted proposal and added a point to it. but that creates a problem. while in the proposal you could be as general as you wanted, this second assignment required specificity. so, be mindful that if you simply added one point to your already submitted proposal to save time, your thesis argument is going to suffer in terms of cogency. of course this could be solved as we plow ahead.
2- I'm detecting the following pattern, your second point sort of begs the question on the first. take social media, point 1 says social media "helps people connect," while point 2 states that social media "is a great way to communicate." both these points say the same thing. so, WATCH FOR HIDDEN REDUNDANCIES.
3- counters look a bit sloppy, quickly rendered, poorly researched and argued. and this is factoring that you have not started researching yet.
4- regarding counters, it's a NO-NO to interject your thesis view in the counter's paragraph, or belittle, misrepresent or use ad hominem against the counter in your theses paragraphs. THIS IS NOT HOW YOU WIN ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY. please, use the best possible counterarguments you can find. research your counters!
5- pay attention to your title, the title is a useful hook for the reader. here is a good advice.
6- you want to keep a 65/35% ratio of argument vs. citation. I NEED YOUR VOICE IN THIS PAPER. and here comes the issue of plagiarism. this is my advice: if you like a paragraph from the internet, what you need to do is to READ IT AND DIGEST IT, write it down several times until the paragraph is rendered IN YOUR OWN VOICE. only then you can present it to a reader.
1- many of you simply took the already submitted proposal and added a point to it. but that creates a problem. while in the proposal you could be as general as you wanted, this second assignment required specificity. so, be mindful that if you simply added one point to your already submitted proposal to save time, your thesis argument is going to suffer in terms of cogency. of course this could be solved as we plow ahead.
2- I'm detecting the following pattern, your second point sort of begs the question on the first. take social media, point 1 says social media "helps people connect," while point 2 states that social media "is a great way to communicate." both these points say the same thing. so, WATCH FOR HIDDEN REDUNDANCIES.
3- counters look a bit sloppy, quickly rendered, poorly researched and argued. and this is factoring that you have not started researching yet.
4- regarding counters, it's a NO-NO to interject your thesis view in the counter's paragraph, or belittle, misrepresent or use ad hominem against the counter in your theses paragraphs. THIS IS NOT HOW YOU WIN ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY. please, use the best possible counterarguments you can find. research your counters!
5- pay attention to your title, the title is a useful hook for the reader. here is a good advice.
6- you want to keep a 65/35% ratio of argument vs. citation. I NEED YOUR VOICE IN THIS PAPER. and here comes the issue of plagiarism. this is my advice: if you like a paragraph from the internet, what you need to do is to READ IT AND DIGEST IT, write it down several times until the paragraph is rendered IN YOUR OWN VOICE. only then you can present it to a reader.
Thursday, February 21, 2019
same sex marriage counterarguments
10 traditionalist arguments against same-sex marriage,
support for same-sex marriage isn't unanimous (538 polls),
Argument: Same-sex marriage critics believe marriage has a purpose, i.e., the procreation and the formation of the nuclear family.
Marriage in the traditional perspective becomes:
1. a framework for raising children, and
2. a legal order to constitute the family unit of parents and children.
3. the nuclear family is the ideal family unit and bedrock of society,
because 1-3
4. the State has a vested interest in the stability of heterosexual relationships for the sake of their children, while having no such interest in the stability of same-sex partnerships.
support for same-sex marriage isn't unanimous (538 polls),
Argument: Same-sex marriage critics believe marriage has a purpose, i.e., the procreation and the formation of the nuclear family.
Marriage in the traditional perspective becomes:
1. a framework for raising children, and
2. a legal order to constitute the family unit of parents and children.
3. the nuclear family is the ideal family unit and bedrock of society,
because 1-3
4. the State has a vested interest in the stability of heterosexual relationships for the sake of their children, while having no such interest in the stability of same-sex partnerships.
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
revolutions in science
1543 – The transition in cosmology from a Ptolemaic to Copernican cosmology.
1543 – The acceptance of the work of Andreas Vesalius, whose work De humani corporis fabrica corrected the numerous errors in the previously-held system created by Galen.
1687 – The transition in mechanics from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics.
1783 – The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of
phlogiston theory, known as the chemical revolution.
1790s – The transition in optics from geometrical optics to physical optics with Augustin-Jean Fresnel's wave theory.
1826 – The discovery of hyperbolic geometry by Nikolai Lobachevsky.
1859 – The revolution in evolution from transmutation theory to goal-directed change to Charles Darwin's natural selection.
1880 - The germ theory of disease began overtaking Galen's miasma theory.
1905 – The development of quantum mechanics, which replaced classical mechanics at microscopic scales.
1887 to 1905 – The transition from the luminiferous aether present in space to electromagnetic radiation in space/time.
1919 – The transition between the worldview of Newtonian gravity and general relativity.
1964 - The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation leads to the big bang theory being accepted over the steady state theory in cosmology.
1965 - The acceptance of plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.
1974 - The November Revolution, with the discovery of the J/psi meson, and the acceptance of the existence of quarks and the Standard Model of particle physics.
1543 – The acceptance of the work of Andreas Vesalius, whose work De humani corporis fabrica corrected the numerous errors in the previously-held system created by Galen.
1687 – The transition in mechanics from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics.
1783 – The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of
phlogiston theory, known as the chemical revolution.
1790s – The transition in optics from geometrical optics to physical optics with Augustin-Jean Fresnel's wave theory.
1826 – The discovery of hyperbolic geometry by Nikolai Lobachevsky.
1859 – The revolution in evolution from transmutation theory to goal-directed change to Charles Darwin's natural selection.
1880 - The germ theory of disease began overtaking Galen's miasma theory.
1905 – The development of quantum mechanics, which replaced classical mechanics at microscopic scales.
1887 to 1905 – The transition from the luminiferous aether present in space to electromagnetic radiation in space/time.
1919 – The transition between the worldview of Newtonian gravity and general relativity.
1964 - The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation leads to the big bang theory being accepted over the steady state theory in cosmology.
1965 - The acceptance of plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.
1974 - The November Revolution, with the discovery of the J/psi meson, and the acceptance of the existence of quarks and the Standard Model of particle physics.
behavioral dispositions and pre determinism
watch this video by B. F. Skinner,
watch this video by Sam Harris,
think of the following dispositions towards & against...
a. foods (veggies vs. non-veggies), carnivorous, pescatarian, vegan, paleo),
b. football, soccer, basketball, swimming, baseball, tennis, chess, etc
c. given personality traits, extrovert, introvert,aggressive, agreeable, fun, exotic, etc,
d. painting, animation, sculpture, performance, etc
e. ballet, modern dance, folk,
f. movies: horror, war, thrillers, drama, comedy,
g. music: rock, metal, country, hip-hop, rap, classical,
h. favorite subjects: math, science, poetry, languages, psychology, medicine, veterinary sciences, etc.
WHY ONE NOT THE OTHER, WHY BOTH? THINK.
watch this video by Sam Harris,
think of the following dispositions towards & against...
a. foods (veggies vs. non-veggies), carnivorous, pescatarian, vegan, paleo),
b. football, soccer, basketball, swimming, baseball, tennis, chess, etc
c. given personality traits, extrovert, introvert,aggressive, agreeable, fun, exotic, etc,
d. painting, animation, sculpture, performance, etc
e. ballet, modern dance, folk,
f. movies: horror, war, thrillers, drama, comedy,
g. music: rock, metal, country, hip-hop, rap, classical,
h. favorite subjects: math, science, poetry, languages, psychology, medicine, veterinary sciences, etc.
WHY ONE NOT THE OTHER, WHY BOTH? THINK.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Monday, February 4, 2019
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Monday, January 21, 2019
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:
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.
In 1970, James P. Lodge Jr., director of the NCAR, predicted a "new ice age" by 2000. 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
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.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
WE HAVE A PHILOSOPHY CLUB!
Luis Almaraz, president,
Navila González, vice president,
Marvelys Perez, treasurer
Diego Torres, secretary,
Navila González, vice president,
Marvelys Perez, treasurer
Diego Torres, secretary,
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
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)
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.
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
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!
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".
Thursday, December 20, 2018
FOLLOW THESE 10 POINTS BEFORE YOU SUMBIT YOUR FINAL DRAFTS TO ME
take a moment to look at your draft and see if you are missing any of these points. if so, FIX IT ASAP!
1. look at the first two thesis and counter paragraphs. make sure you have at least four sentences. two declarative sentences for point 1 and point 2 and two explanatory sentences following each point. if you don't have that FIX IT. make sure the explanatory sentences are not begging the question on the first sentences.
2. check that thesis paragraphs 3rd and 5th open up with the exactly what you're saying in points 1 and 2, VERBATIM! the same goes for the counter 4th and 6th paragraphs.
3. check that the ratio of argument/quote is 70%/30%. I fail a paragraph that has more quote than argument. PARAPHRASE THE QUOTE IN YOUR WORDS!
4. go over the draft, if you find ANY FACTOID in your draft NOT SOURCED with an in-text citation, FIX IT. all factoids must be properly outsourced!
5. make sure you have a dedicated bibliography with at least four different sources. if internet source, please provide last day of revision in parenthesis.
6. CHECK PARAGRAPH 7. DID IT WIN THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE COUNTER'S LAST POINT ON PARAGRAPH 6? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT SINCE IT WINS THE PAPER FOR THE THESIS.
7. observe all the proper formal requirements. STAPLED DRAFTS, I take points if you don't. New Roman p. 12, name, class up, left hand side. title bold.
8. look at the counter paragraphs, are they thinner than your thesis paragraphs. GO FIX IT! ADD MORE MEANINGFUL MATERIAL SO BOTH THESIS AND COUNTER PARAGRAPHS ARE COMPARABLE.
9. COLLOQUIALISMS, SLANG, FLORID SENTENCES, ARE ALL SIGNS OF POOR RESEARCH! BE CLEAR!
9. CHECK FOR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR DRAFT TO ME.
10. read the draft OUTLOUD TO YOUR FRIENDS!
GOOD LUCK!
1. look at the first two thesis and counter paragraphs. make sure you have at least four sentences. two declarative sentences for point 1 and point 2 and two explanatory sentences following each point. if you don't have that FIX IT. make sure the explanatory sentences are not begging the question on the first sentences.
2. check that thesis paragraphs 3rd and 5th open up with the exactly what you're saying in points 1 and 2, VERBATIM! the same goes for the counter 4th and 6th paragraphs.
3. check that the ratio of argument/quote is 70%/30%. I fail a paragraph that has more quote than argument. PARAPHRASE THE QUOTE IN YOUR WORDS!
4. go over the draft, if you find ANY FACTOID in your draft NOT SOURCED with an in-text citation, FIX IT. all factoids must be properly outsourced!
5. make sure you have a dedicated bibliography with at least four different sources. if internet source, please provide last day of revision in parenthesis.
6. CHECK PARAGRAPH 7. DID IT WIN THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE COUNTER'S LAST POINT ON PARAGRAPH 6? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT SINCE IT WINS THE PAPER FOR THE THESIS.
7. observe all the proper formal requirements. STAPLED DRAFTS, I take points if you don't. New Roman p. 12, name, class up, left hand side. title bold.
8. look at the counter paragraphs, are they thinner than your thesis paragraphs. GO FIX IT! ADD MORE MEANINGFUL MATERIAL SO BOTH THESIS AND COUNTER PARAGRAPHS ARE COMPARABLE.
9. COLLOQUIALISMS, SLANG, FLORID SENTENCES, ARE ALL SIGNS OF POOR RESEARCH! BE CLEAR!
9. CHECK FOR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR DRAFT TO ME.
10. read the draft OUTLOUD TO YOUR FRIENDS!
GOOD LUCK!