EXPOSITION OF THE TWO NOTIONS A. Understanding Doubt Doubt is generally defined as a state of mind; some would say an affliction of the mind. “It refers to a condition in which one is unable or unwilling to accept, on the face of it, a given statement as true.”1 When we say we are in doubt, what we mean is that we are not altogether certain about the correctness of a proposition, the reliability of a person or even the existence of something. Not all doubts are created equal. Doubt in its various forms exists.
Free the Orcas Orcas are majestic, beautiful creatures who do not deserve to be confined to tanks that to humans are like bathtubs. The reason orcas are called killer whales is because they are not animals to be messed with. There should be no human interaction that will cause and orca to feel stressed or threatened. Just like humans, orcas have the ability to feel pain when they are separated from their families. Throughout the years aquatic centers have used orcas as entertainment, but in reality orca captivity has taken a toll on the mental and physical health of these animals as well as endangering their human trainers.
In addition, doubt results in additional analysis, consequently leading us to new findings. The unsure feeling towards some the knowledge that there may be only one type of pancreatic growth, may have created doubts in the scientists. The scientist would first be think about the doubts that they thought about regarding the theory. After that, a new theory would be created, therefore acquiring additional data. This method of known as falsification.
What is right or wrong? The answer cannot be easily explained since according to Luke Steven in the chapter “Relativism: Cognitive and Moral”, we use cognitive relativism as well as moral relativism when we are being faced with a situation in which we must make a decision. Cognitive relativism is when we base our knowledge on what we see and how we interpret the information that is available to us during that time. Most of the time, if we as individuals are not given all the pieces of information provided to us, we have to make rational assumptions when creating an explanation as to why something is the way it is. In lecture, we used the example that some people claimed that they saw a ghost, but because it is not possible to prove that a ghost
in one of his project attempted to draw the line between science and pseudo-science. He thought there was something special on the science side of the line. Under the assumption that science has suitable methodology for avoiding false beliefs, one of the problems with pseudo-science is that it gets an unfair development by mimicking the surface appearance of science. The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. Popper believes while a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false, a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims.
Reasoning could be the most important way of knowing that is used to decide whether something is true or not certain. Logic is used to determine when a knowledge is true or inaccurate. Usually, when an authority states that something is true, people believe it unless they have some kind of knowledge in that field. Reasoning is a very important feature that helps to reach to a conclusion based on prior
In order for something to be logically valid, its negation must be contradictory. As a consequence, to doubt that one is doubting would be like to think that one is not thinking, and this would lead to a contradiction. Since the action of thinking requires a thinker, Descartes was able to deduce that he must exist. Therefore, this proves the validity of Descartes’ reasoning and makes us come to the part where Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I am” is brought into being. After applying the aforementioned method, Descartes relies on reasonable doubt as a foundation for true knowledge, keeping in mind that there is one thing that reason forbids him to doubt and that is his own activity, the activity of thinking.
I define skepticism two ways, both regarding an openness to new ideas. At first glance, one may believe that this perspective is the complete opposite of what skepticism is usually viewed as, for skepticism is normally explained as doubting concepts. Though I believe that if one is closed off to some ideas, mainly common held beliefs, then one must be open to others. For if one doubts ideas, it is because one has confidence in the fact that a contrasting idea holds truth. The second way I interpret skepticism is if one is constantly looking at these ideas that the they hold doubtingly, then it can be argued that one has to be open to them, for they are examining these ideas so closely and formulating their own opinion on
We believe certain kind of information without truly have all the facts or all the information necessary to reach a conclusion. Some people reach their conclusion based on motivated reasoning. Even with all the “correct information” present they manage to come up with reasons and arguments that support their beliefs. Sometimes they use strategies to defend their point of
Firstly, according to the questionnaire (Hofstede, 2001), some questions are too vague for participants to answer. For instance, the question, ‘most people can be trusted’, is ambiguous. There are different forms of trust, but which type of ‘trust’ in this questionnaire refers to? Hence, such kinds of questions may lead to confusion among participants. In addition, some vocabularies in this questionnaire are subjective, such as ‘good’, ‘nervous’ and ‘challenging’.
When it comes to arguementation, the audience must be aware of the context and meanings of phrases and words. If they are not aware, then you can and will have a hard time winning that argument, becuase they will be confused and will misunderstand you. Rybacki and Rybacki (2012) Rhetorical perspecitice is basically a one person speaking with no audience iteraction. Whereas, dialetctical perspecitive is when the person involves the audeince to persuade them. Being ehtical and honest is also vital in argumentation.
There are several interesting underwater animals in the earth 's oceans. Several of them have only recently been discovered. Some like the zombie worms have baffled scientists. Others like the deep sea jellyfish have just shocked scientists. Then, there are some like the yeti crabs, which have just confused scientists with how they survive in the hydrothermal vents near Antarctica.
One example of this is Barry’s use of anaphora. Barry says that “uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes one tentative if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles” (Barry 2-5). Barry’s repetition of “uncertainty” draws attention to this section of the essay, and allows him to contrast certainty and uncertainty. This characterization of uncertainty as something that creates weakness also shows the courage of scientists, and shows how scientific research can be unsettled.