hi bloggies! :D
haha so haven't blogged like this since i was using xanga way back when
anddd, never in my life did i think that i would blog about philosophy and yeah.. haha
well today i'm going to open up your eyes to something else i feel like telling the whole world
okay.. more like the people who come here, which is not that many because i didnt tell a lot of people about my blogger.
so today's topic: Should creationism be taught alongside of evolution?
What do i have to say to this?
Well, i say yes. shocking? not really.
here's why..
First of all, both creationism and evolution are theories because people cannot fully prove them to be 100% correct. In addition, I do not think it is possible to teach evolution by itself because it is incomplete. Contradicting as it may sound, i believe in both creationism and evolution. First of all, i believe that God created the universe and everything else. However, i do believe that after creation, it all began to evolve in whatever way it did. It seems pretty insane to believe that everything evolved out of something because that certain something would have to have been there only by creation. So, what i'm saying is that sure evolution can be taught, but it wasnt how the world began. Creation started it all and then evolution carried it out. So, one shouldn't just teach pure creation or pure evolution. It only makes sense to have both otherwise there will be many more gaps to fill and more pointless arguments, which we already seem to have. So, there you have it. Creationism should go along with evolution, becuase you cannot seem to explain one without the other.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
TITLE: Happiness is a Warm Planet?
HEY ! :)
its finally the weekend<3
wrote bunch of other things, but it got deleted, ugh like always.
so annoying but anyways,
read Happiness is a Warm Planet by Thomas Gale Moore.
let's talk about today's assignment shall we?
Topic: The government should reduce global warming even if it costs jobs.
My stand on this? Negative.
Why? Here's what I've got to say.
First of all, some background information. Global warming is happening and has been happening. Most people know that the levels of CO2 are rising and the supposed reason for global warming. Through CO2, we get the greenhouse effect, which essentially is heating up the earth as it traps the heat in our atmosphere and makes it difficult for the heat to escape. Although people blame global warming on CO2, they have only been listening to one side and not the entire story. What many people haven't heard of is the climatologist's point of view as they say that temperature is what is leading the levels of CO2, with hundreds in years in the gaps. For instance, a used statement was that during the spur of industrialization, with man-made CO2 from plants and etc, yet the weather seemed to have gotten cooler. Meaning, the reasons for CO2 causing global warming is not necessarily truth, valid maybe as an option, but not exactly true.
Anyways, many people believe that CO2 is the monster creating this heat mess, as people like Algore was promoting this idea and concept based on a lot of economic sources if I am not mistaken. There are numerous jobs with machines and plants in the US that releases CO2 into the atmosphere with the burning of fossil fuels and exhaust from cars and who knows what else. However, is it right to reduce global warming (*aherm, get rid of the excess CO2) even if it means the loss of people's jobs? Many people work in factories in such that produces such gases, and getting rid of companies that does so would completely turn the world chaotic. We are already in the midst of a depression and the more loss of jobs in an attempt to "better the planet" by lowering global warming is not the best idea, more of a tragedy. Rather than the government themself trying to reduce global warming, they should just promote ideas to the nation with simple tasks. Tasks that everybody can do to contribute in the process, tasks like changing to electric/hybrid cars (for those who can afford it), carpooling, recycling, conscious of water/energy usage and others. I do not believe that it is worth it to ruin the lives of many families by getting rid of their financial needs by closing down factories and such that emits CO2.
And there you have it you guys, my point on global warming and how the government should reduce global warming even if it costs jobs. I would love to go more in depth with this all but I prefer not talking about topics I am not too familiar with at all because I would probably confuse you and me! So, checking out and catch me later (:
its finally the weekend<3
wrote bunch of other things, but it got deleted, ugh like always.
so annoying but anyways,
read Happiness is a Warm Planet by Thomas Gale Moore.
let's talk about today's assignment shall we?
Topic: The government should reduce global warming even if it costs jobs.
My stand on this? Negative.
Why? Here's what I've got to say.
First of all, some background information. Global warming is happening and has been happening. Most people know that the levels of CO2 are rising and the supposed reason for global warming. Through CO2, we get the greenhouse effect, which essentially is heating up the earth as it traps the heat in our atmosphere and makes it difficult for the heat to escape. Although people blame global warming on CO2, they have only been listening to one side and not the entire story. What many people haven't heard of is the climatologist's point of view as they say that temperature is what is leading the levels of CO2, with hundreds in years in the gaps. For instance, a used statement was that during the spur of industrialization, with man-made CO2 from plants and etc, yet the weather seemed to have gotten cooler. Meaning, the reasons for CO2 causing global warming is not necessarily truth, valid maybe as an option, but not exactly true.
Anyways, many people believe that CO2 is the monster creating this heat mess, as people like Algore was promoting this idea and concept based on a lot of economic sources if I am not mistaken. There are numerous jobs with machines and plants in the US that releases CO2 into the atmosphere with the burning of fossil fuels and exhaust from cars and who knows what else. However, is it right to reduce global warming (*aherm, get rid of the excess CO2) even if it means the loss of people's jobs? Many people work in factories in such that produces such gases, and getting rid of companies that does so would completely turn the world chaotic. We are already in the midst of a depression and the more loss of jobs in an attempt to "better the planet" by lowering global warming is not the best idea, more of a tragedy. Rather than the government themself trying to reduce global warming, they should just promote ideas to the nation with simple tasks. Tasks that everybody can do to contribute in the process, tasks like changing to electric/hybrid cars (for those who can afford it), carpooling, recycling, conscious of water/energy usage and others. I do not believe that it is worth it to ruin the lives of many families by getting rid of their financial needs by closing down factories and such that emits CO2.
And there you have it you guys, my point on global warming and how the government should reduce global warming even if it costs jobs. I would love to go more in depth with this all but I prefer not talking about topics I am not too familiar with at all because I would probably confuse you and me! So, checking out and catch me later (:
Thursday, March 12, 2009
TITLE: In Class Debate
Hi there(:
So today was pretty okay besides for the fact that my wrists had been pretty f--ked up for over a week now. Hrmmm, I've been pretty busy too these days and not getting my necessary amount of sleep! Butt, it's all good tomorrow's a friday and that means the weekend is seconds away<3 Ugh,, so like everytime i save this thing it keeps on deleting parts of my blog which is starting to annoy me like crazy. but whatever, let's go on with what i've got to say. So in class we argued, debate actually on two topics as seen below.
Topic One: Was George W. Bush the Worst President of All Time?
[Sara: Affirmative vs. Tamara: Negative]
Pretty much Sara was saying that George W. Bush was the worst president of all time. Some things she pointed out were how the economy is in a horrible state as we are in debt of about 3 billion dollars, still in war, the education is dying and also that he was simply an inefficient president. For instance, as we lose money, school budgets are getting cut off and so the education is falling, meaning that the future is dying out slowly. Also for Hurricane Katrina, he did not help until 2 weeks later when people were nearly dead and helpless as the hurricane had gotten the best out of them. On the opposing side we had Tamara trying to get to the point that George W. Bush was not the worst president of all time. To get her point made she was mentioning numerous, previous presidents that had done far worse than him. Some presidents she had talked about were Kennedy, Clinton, Nixon, and even Harrison. Tamara talked about how bad of an example they all were and the flaws to each one of them as a president. Then, after the two spoke, each a minute each, the audience began to ask questions. One statement from the audience being: "Why blame it on Bush? Economy started going down with Clinton and the banks." There were other various questions made by the audience that really made both the affirmative and the negative think very hard. Then, during the rebuttal, both opponents summarized their argument and explained why they won. To me, I think they both did a good job on debating at such short notice of preparing.
Topic Two: Legalization of Marijuana and Tax it to Get Money for the Recession?
[Kelechi: Affirmative vs. Jennifer: Negative]
I have to say that this particular debate was interesting, but only the affirmative was fierce, to the point and was the better debater and thus it was not that great as a whole. Anyways, Kelechi was basically saying that we're in a lot of shit already and a lot of people are doing pot and stuff anyways, so just tax it. Honestly, I myself somewhat agree with her. There are tonsss of people who does marijuana and we might as well legalize for a bit and tax it to get some money, i mean come on, our economy right now is in a terrible state. Yet, I do not particalarly full on support this idea because i know that there are better ways to get money for the recession, but on the whole, its not too shabby of an idea. So, pretty much that was Kelechi's argument. Jennifer on the other hand did not have much to say for i feel as she too was convinced with what Kelechi had said and she was just not well prepared enough to have led on a full on debate to go against Kelechi's views. Thus, Jennifer was talking about all the shit people will cause when they are high and how it will screw up one's education. She also says that businesses should make thigns cheapter so that people will start buying into the economy. Honestly, I have to say that she had really weak arguments and did not follow with her that easily. A question that arised from the audeice was "Marijuana is more healthier, natureal and does not distort your mind as much as alcohol and cigarettes and such, but how come those are legal and marijuana is not?" I totally have the same question and it's true.
There you have it, two in class debates we had in class today,
Stay tuned for some other philosophy-d1 bloggers !
So today was pretty okay besides for the fact that my wrists had been pretty f--ked up for over a week now. Hrmmm, I've been pretty busy too these days and not getting my necessary amount of sleep! Butt, it's all good tomorrow's a friday and that means the weekend is seconds away<3 Ugh,, so like everytime i save this thing it keeps on deleting parts of my blog which is starting to annoy me like crazy. but whatever, let's go on with what i've got to say. So in class we argued, debate actually on two topics as seen below.
Topic One: Was George W. Bush the Worst President of All Time?
[Sara: Affirmative vs. Tamara: Negative]
Pretty much Sara was saying that George W. Bush was the worst president of all time. Some things she pointed out were how the economy is in a horrible state as we are in debt of about 3 billion dollars, still in war, the education is dying and also that he was simply an inefficient president. For instance, as we lose money, school budgets are getting cut off and so the education is falling, meaning that the future is dying out slowly. Also for Hurricane Katrina, he did not help until 2 weeks later when people were nearly dead and helpless as the hurricane had gotten the best out of them. On the opposing side we had Tamara trying to get to the point that George W. Bush was not the worst president of all time. To get her point made she was mentioning numerous, previous presidents that had done far worse than him. Some presidents she had talked about were Kennedy, Clinton, Nixon, and even Harrison. Tamara talked about how bad of an example they all were and the flaws to each one of them as a president. Then, after the two spoke, each a minute each, the audience began to ask questions. One statement from the audience being: "Why blame it on Bush? Economy started going down with Clinton and the banks." There were other various questions made by the audience that really made both the affirmative and the negative think very hard. Then, during the rebuttal, both opponents summarized their argument and explained why they won. To me, I think they both did a good job on debating at such short notice of preparing.
Topic Two: Legalization of Marijuana and Tax it to Get Money for the Recession?
[Kelechi: Affirmative vs. Jennifer: Negative]
I have to say that this particular debate was interesting, but only the affirmative was fierce, to the point and was the better debater and thus it was not that great as a whole. Anyways, Kelechi was basically saying that we're in a lot of shit already and a lot of people are doing pot and stuff anyways, so just tax it. Honestly, I myself somewhat agree with her. There are tonsss of people who does marijuana and we might as well legalize for a bit and tax it to get some money, i mean come on, our economy right now is in a terrible state. Yet, I do not particalarly full on support this idea because i know that there are better ways to get money for the recession, but on the whole, its not too shabby of an idea. So, pretty much that was Kelechi's argument. Jennifer on the other hand did not have much to say for i feel as she too was convinced with what Kelechi had said and she was just not well prepared enough to have led on a full on debate to go against Kelechi's views. Thus, Jennifer was talking about all the shit people will cause when they are high and how it will screw up one's education. She also says that businesses should make thigns cheapter so that people will start buying into the economy. Honestly, I have to say that she had really weak arguments and did not follow with her that easily. A question that arised from the audeice was "Marijuana is more healthier, natureal and does not distort your mind as much as alcohol and cigarettes and such, but how come those are legal and marijuana is not?" I totally have the same question and it's true.
There you have it, two in class debates we had in class today,
Stay tuned for some other philosophy-d1 bloggers !
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
TITLE: Deductive Reasoning
Good Eveninggg!
So today was pretty dang tiring.
Probably because I didn't get a lot of sleep last night, but then again I haven't been this entire school year, which is pretty bad.
Anyways.. I'll get straight to the point of today's blog: Deductive Reasoning. I'm sure you guys are all excited huh? (; Well, just to let you know, today's lecture was pretty confusing at first but i get it now! :D That's all that matters. So, here's what I got to say:
Deductive Reasoning
There are many different kinds of deductive reasoning, however I'll only talk about the three we discussed in class today: Syllogism, Modus Ponen, and Modus Tollens.
1. Syllogism
Syllogism, first invented by Aristotle, contains a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. For the most part, syllogisms goes from a general idea to a specific one. We can relate syllogism with an Algebra I concept, the "Transitive Formula".
Transitive Formula:
If A = B [Major Premise]
And B = C [Minor Premise]
Then A = C. [Conclusion]
In order for a syllogism to be valid, it must have all three statements with two terms and a distribution. If we look back at the transitive formula, it is also necessary that B is repeated both in the major premise and minor premise, otherwise there would be one too many terms and it would no longer be a valid syllogism.
My Example:
Major Premise - All sorts of food are delicious.
Minor Premise - Chocolate covered strawberries is a sort of food.
Conclusion - Chocolate covered strawberries are delicious. <3
2. Modus Ponen
Helpful Hint: To remember what kind of logic Modus Ponens is, refer to the "Po" like "positive" because this particular type of deductive logic works with the usage of both positive statements and conclusions.
The Formula:
If P, then Q
P is true
Therefore Q.
Simplification for those who still don't get it.
If what is said in P and Q is true, and P happened, then Q must also happen.
My Example:
[P Q]
If Joanna goes to the beach, then Jessica will go with her.
[P is true]
Joanna went to the beach.
[So Q is also true]
Jessica will go with her.
** I seriously want to go to the beach sooo bad!! Somebody take me(: **
3. Modus Tollens
Helpful Hint: To remember Modus Tollens, refer to the "T" with the word "not" because in this deductive logic, the conclusion negates the initial statement.
The Formula:
If P, then Q
Not Q
Therefore, not P.
Simplified to: If P is true, then Q is true. But, Q is false, therefore P must be false. So, pretty much, if one is true, then the other statement is true; if it is false, then clearly the other half is false too.
My Example:
[P Q]
If I go outside, then I will see stars in the sky.
[Not Q]
I will not see stars in the sky.
[So, not P too]
Therefore, I did not go outside.
Well, that's that! I just talked about and hopefully made it easier to understand a small sect of Deductive Reasoning. WOOHOO ! (:
I'm gonna bounce.
Catch you guys laterr.
So today was pretty dang tiring.
Probably because I didn't get a lot of sleep last night, but then again I haven't been this entire school year, which is pretty bad.
Anyways.. I'll get straight to the point of today's blog: Deductive Reasoning. I'm sure you guys are all excited huh? (; Well, just to let you know, today's lecture was pretty confusing at first but i get it now! :D That's all that matters. So, here's what I got to say:
Deductive Reasoning
There are many different kinds of deductive reasoning, however I'll only talk about the three we discussed in class today: Syllogism, Modus Ponen, and Modus Tollens.
1. Syllogism
Syllogism, first invented by Aristotle, contains a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. For the most part, syllogisms goes from a general idea to a specific one. We can relate syllogism with an Algebra I concept, the "Transitive Formula".
Transitive Formula:
If A = B [Major Premise]
And B = C [Minor Premise]
Then A = C. [Conclusion]
In order for a syllogism to be valid, it must have all three statements with two terms and a distribution. If we look back at the transitive formula, it is also necessary that B is repeated both in the major premise and minor premise, otherwise there would be one too many terms and it would no longer be a valid syllogism.
My Example:
Major Premise - All sorts of food are delicious.
Minor Premise - Chocolate covered strawberries is a sort of food.
Conclusion - Chocolate covered strawberries are delicious. <3
2. Modus Ponen
Helpful Hint: To remember what kind of logic Modus Ponens is, refer to the "Po" like "positive" because this particular type of deductive logic works with the usage of both positive statements and conclusions.
The Formula:
If P, then Q
P is true
Therefore Q.
Simplification for those who still don't get it.
If what is said in P and Q is true, and P happened, then Q must also happen.
My Example:
[P Q]
If Joanna goes to the beach, then Jessica will go with her.
[P is true]
Joanna went to the beach.
[So Q is also true]
Jessica will go with her.
** I seriously want to go to the beach sooo bad!! Somebody take me(: **
3. Modus Tollens
Helpful Hint: To remember Modus Tollens, refer to the "T" with the word "not" because in this deductive logic, the conclusion negates the initial statement.
The Formula:
If P, then Q
Not Q
Therefore, not P.
Simplified to: If P is true, then Q is true. But, Q is false, therefore P must be false. So, pretty much, if one is true, then the other statement is true; if it is false, then clearly the other half is false too.
My Example:
[P Q]
If I go outside, then I will see stars in the sky.
[Not Q]
I will not see stars in the sky.
[So, not P too]
Therefore, I did not go outside.
Well, that's that! I just talked about and hopefully made it easier to understand a small sect of Deductive Reasoning. WOOHOO ! (:
I'm gonna bounce.
Catch you guys laterr.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
TITLE: Trial Run!
Hi guys--
So I'm here sitting in class while everyone is still figuring out how to make a blogger or being nerds doing their sudoku puzzles. Haha
Checking outtt..
BYEEE (:
So I'm here sitting in class while everyone is still figuring out how to make a blogger or being nerds doing their sudoku puzzles. Haha
Checking outtt..
BYEEE (:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
