Sunday, March 31, 2019
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
topics for review, exam 3, honors classes wolfson
click here for more information,
link to your textbook,
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.
link to your textbook,
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 19, 2019
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
slavery + reversal of social roles
1. we had a nice talk today. we started with david's point of looking at slavery from the past, in a different theater of operations. i concurred. but that's not a conversation about ethics (which is the discussion of what makes an action right, etc). rather, we're talking about anthropology/history/social evolution.
true, in first century AD 60% of the roman population was made up of slaves (not racial, rather geopolitical, i.e., whether you're a roman or not). so this is a different predicament from, say 19th century america. many plebeians offered to become domestic slaves during roman times. why? they had a better chance of surviving than just being homeless in the streets of rome.
rothschild made a nuanced point about slavery, after which i recommended reading frederick douglass's memoirs.
karl marx, for instance would argue that slavery was a necessary step in the march of history ("necessary" here means it is caused by a previous socio/economic cause).
this brings the following point in favor of social evolution: what made slavery disappear around 500 AD? not a decree from a consortium of european states. it was a social supervinient phenomenon!
here marx has a good point: the old relations of production just changed! in other words, slavery wasn't economically viable anymore. we see this happening again in the 19th century america. no doubt it's industrial capitalism that erodes the old system in the south. the civil war is not the cause of the eradication of slavery but the effect of this paradigm change.
___________
2. another interesting point concerning patriarchy, which i took from my tuesday night class is this: what if we flip the existing social hierarchy from patriarchy to matriarchy?
you ready? very little would change. the mother now has financial power, while the father takes care of the child. the mother now incarnates what man used to be, yet we feel no big overall change.
it's like commutativity in math: the order of factors doesn't change the product. we have the same moral norms: incest is wrong, adultery is wrong, breaking promises is wrong, killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, disrespecting the elders is wrong, etc. family would still be paramount since we need family cohesion for cultural flourishing. why? the paramount cultural value is survival, i.e., LIFE.
see?
so, patriarchy -as social development- is not the result of some obscure cabal of evil elders trying to exploit women into submission. that's bunk. whatever we do in our milieu is already predetermined by our culture.
true, in first century AD 60% of the roman population was made up of slaves (not racial, rather geopolitical, i.e., whether you're a roman or not). so this is a different predicament from, say 19th century america. many plebeians offered to become domestic slaves during roman times. why? they had a better chance of surviving than just being homeless in the streets of rome.
rothschild made a nuanced point about slavery, after which i recommended reading frederick douglass's memoirs.
karl marx, for instance would argue that slavery was a necessary step in the march of history ("necessary" here means it is caused by a previous socio/economic cause).
this brings the following point in favor of social evolution: what made slavery disappear around 500 AD? not a decree from a consortium of european states. it was a social supervinient phenomenon!
here marx has a good point: the old relations of production just changed! in other words, slavery wasn't economically viable anymore. we see this happening again in the 19th century america. no doubt it's industrial capitalism that erodes the old system in the south. the civil war is not the cause of the eradication of slavery but the effect of this paradigm change.
___________
2. another interesting point concerning patriarchy, which i took from my tuesday night class is this: what if we flip the existing social hierarchy from patriarchy to matriarchy?
you ready? very little would change. the mother now has financial power, while the father takes care of the child. the mother now incarnates what man used to be, yet we feel no big overall change.
it's like commutativity in math: the order of factors doesn't change the product. we have the same moral norms: incest is wrong, adultery is wrong, breaking promises is wrong, killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, disrespecting the elders is wrong, etc. family would still be paramount since we need family cohesion for cultural flourishing. why? the paramount cultural value is survival, i.e., LIFE.
see?
so, patriarchy -as social development- is not the result of some obscure cabal of evil elders trying to exploit women into submission. that's bunk. whatever we do in our milieu is already predetermined by our culture.
Sunday, March 10, 2019
meanings of "patriarchy"
yesterday, Mark made a couple of points in our 11am class about patriarchy. i asked him: "what do you mean by patriarchy?"
the reason is that there's a difference between 1. patriarchy as a social system, in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, etc. most pre-modern and modern systems exhibit a patriarchal model (though there are isolated models of matriarchy though, the amazons in greece, in germania during roman times, in tibet, etc).
and,
2. patriarchy, the ideology, which uses the model above to explain and justify this dominance attributing it to inherent natural differences between men and women.
clearly these are different things. for example, the traditionalist can support 1, and reject 2.
patriarchy in 1. is a social and cultural product, partially a result of differences between the sexes, but also as a result of conventional roles emerging in the theater of culture. patriarchy as social system is resilient in the legal, political, religious, and economic organization of many thriving cultures of today's third world.
it works. we're here.
as per patriarchy as a social system traditionalism is neutral. both patriarchy (and matriarchy as social developments) are fine as long as they prove to be beneficial in the theater of operations of the group.
3. another point touched in the class was this: can traditions change? of course they change!
but they have to change slowly and incrementally BY THEMSELVES, not by force from the top.
example: the religious orthodoxy in the USSR didn't really change with the bolshevik revolution in 1917. that was a sudden imposition from the top under communism! 70 years may seem a lot, but not in tradition/time. today, russia is more religious than it was before communism!
lesson here? traditions don't change by force or decree.
Saturday, March 9, 2019
in defense of traditionalism
1. traditionalism defends natural and social selection. it avoids the NOW and instead looks at the PAST.
the NOW can only be understood in relationship with the past.
the NOW is just TOO UNRETENTIVE to prove itself.
2. traditionalists believe that each generation inherits the experience and culture of its ancestors through convention, precedent that each individual is able to pass this knowledge down to their descendants.
3. the traditionalist motto? "the individual is foolish; the species is wise."
4. traditionalists have no agenda other than preservation of the best experience, knowledge, and understanding of human success within its milieu and pass it on to the next generation.
the NOW can only be understood in relationship with the past.
the NOW is just TOO UNRETENTIVE to prove itself.
2. traditionalists believe that each generation inherits the experience and culture of its ancestors through convention, precedent that each individual is able to pass this knowledge down to their descendants.
3. the traditionalist motto? "the individual is foolish; the species is wise."
4. traditionalists have no agenda other than preservation of the best experience, knowledge, and understanding of human success within its milieu and pass it on to the next generation.
the traditionalist view of divorce
5% were unhappy in their relationship soon after the baby was
born. just under a third of these then split up. of the majority who
stayed together, only 7% percent (of the 5 percent, so that’s 0.3 percent
of the total sample) were still unhappy by the time their child was
aged 11, whereas 68% said they were now happy (see figure above).
almost half of american families experience poverty after divorce,
long term effects of divorce on children,
from this article:
Unhappiness is, thankfully, much rarer than people imagine. It affects just one in 20 parents with newborns. Unhappiness is usually temporary. Staying unhappy is incredibly rare. Just one in every 400 parents in the entire study was unhappy at both time points, soon after their child was born and then again when their child was 11. Furthermore, we found that the small minority of married parents who suspect their relationship is on the brink have a similar breakup rate—just under 30 percent—as couples who do not think they are on the brink. That’s not the case for cohabiting parents with newborn children, who, regardless of how secure or insecure they are in their relationship, are more likely than married parents to split up during the next 10 years.what does that mean? divorce is overrated, an abnormal's new normal.
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
topics for Midterm exam, spring 19, honors (wolfson campus)
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.
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.
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!