Howard Zinn: On The Stupidity Of War. Douglas Mallette on overcoming cultural differences by education. War. First published Fri Feb 4, 2000; substantive revision Thu Jul 28, 2005 War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight, nor does a feud on the order of the Hatfields versus the McCoys.
War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war). Classical war is international war, a war between different states, like the two World Wars. What's statehood? All these distinctions will come in handy as we proceed. The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. Let us here cite, by way of support, the views of the one and only (so-called) “philosopher of war,” Carl von Clausewitz. War is a brutal and ugly enterprise. 1. 2. 2.1 Jus ad bellum 1. Chomsky proves Pat Condell's hypocrisy. Pat Condell's hypocrisy vis a vis Islam. Noam Chomsky feels that Afghan war is "Immoral" BBC Video.
Examined Life by Astra Taylor. Americans Chained by Illusion | Brainwash Update. Matrix.
The Emergent and Symbiotic Aspects of Natural Law. Don't believe in anyone else's BS (Belief System) Believe Nothing (but understand as much as you can) BBC interview with Feynman (uncertainty) Coherentism VS Foundationalism | fictionnonfictioneng. Coherentism VS Foundationalism Coherentism is a perspective about the structure of justification or knowledge (Kvanvig). The coherentists theory is generally formulated in contradiction to the foundationalist theory. The foundationalist theory has been the historically dominant position (BonJour).
Coherentism can be viewed as a more recently developed theory. Kvanvig explains that “coherentism thus claims, minimally, that not all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief” (Kvanvig). Foundationalism, however, is a study of arguments that can be reduced to a set of ‘basic-beliefs’ which are so entrenched that justification is not needed. Once a belief is labeled as true, it is fair question it in order to ascertain proof as to whether or not the primary belief is true. It is fair to assert beliefs with questioning, as it is not just to determine that a belief is true if it has been ingrained. Works Cited Bellis, Mary. Jacque Fresco - Are we civilized yet? Waking Life - Free will. Neuroscience and Free Will. Neuroscience and Free Will - Libet's Experiment. Scientific evidence that you probably don’t have free will. I might note that you're citing experiments, which while not entirely debunked are in many circles considered to be highly flawed.
For example, the "when did you decide to move your finger," experiment. This experiment is considered flawed because moving your finger is purely a motor response, and an incredibly simplistic one at that. The motion of our hands is one of the things we have the least control over, we're constantly twitching, scratching itches, or simply stretching our fingers out without realizing it. Simply put, moving your fingers is such a small and inconsequential decision that it largely falls under the unconscious decision category. This however, is entirely different from decisions that by necessity require a great deal of forethought.
These decisions have been shown to be far more conscious than decisions that purely involve motor responses. Actually, I read up on this subject a little about a week ago, and found a fairly decent article on the subject. Jacque Fresco - The Illusion of Free Will. Are we Conditioned or do we have Free Will? Sam Harris on "Free Will".
Free Will with Sam Harris. Why Philosophy Will Always Own Science's Ass. Michael Shermer's Baloney Detection Kit. Critical Thinking. The Postmodernist Deceit. Postmodernism is a philosophical movement born after World War II, brought about by a disillusionment with the objectivist stance on reality boosted by The Enlightenment. To be honest, a renaissance of human knowledge never truly took off during the time we know of as "The Renaissance" -humanity had to wait until the 19th Century for the Enlightenment ideals to actually take hold of society and governments.
This truly was the age of Rationalism and Science. This age also taught us a sad reality: despite all this sophistication, we could still act as Barbarians on our own land. After two World Wars, people sought a new way of thinking. Even back then it must have been obvious -things were changing. Thousands of new religions sprung up after the War, many of them inspired by Eastern religions of old. The American Hippie culture popped seemingly out of nowhere just after the phoniness of the Idyllic Fifties. This kind of societal quicksand is vital to all paradigm shifts. The Danger of Opinions. Terence McKenna - Science, Education and Relativism. Chomsky on Science and Postmodernism. Terence Mckenna denounces Relativism. Michael Shermer: Why people believe strange things.
Occam's Razor. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. The Ad Hominem Fallacy. Argument from ignorance. Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.
Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, truefalseunknown between true or falsebeing unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Overview[edit] Basic argument[edit] Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. Null result[edit] The burden of proof. The "Straw Man" Fallacy. Open-mindedness. Open mind. An open mind is a mind that is receptive to new ideas and information. It is often compared to a closed mind which will reject ideas without any consideration.
While there is some philosophical validity to the distinction between open and closed minds, particularly in the case of empiricism, when used in an argument on the internet it's almost always a form of whining. Being told to be "open minded" about something — like being made to listen to Michelle Malkin for example — is usually a code for "you're not going to like this, but I want to subject you to it anyway". Conversely, being told that you are "closed-minded" is generally a means of asserting that "I don't like the fact that you're proving me wrong, so I will pretend that your failure to agree with my argument is a philosophical deficiency".
Being told you are "close minded" simply shows that the one writing is confused about the difference between "open" and "fair" (or is simply lazy in their writing). [edit] In science [edit] The Fine Art of Baloney Detection. It makes your head spin. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"[1] is an essay by Carl Sagan in his seminal work against pseudoscience, The Demon-Haunted World. In this essay, he gives advice for devising conclusions, as well as advice for avoiding logical and rhetorical fallacies. Together, the set of warning signs for common fallacies constitutes what Sagan calls a "Baloney Detection Kit. " Sagan categorizes the logical and rhetorical fallacies as below.
Here is given the type of fallacy, a definition of each, and an example from the current internet. [edit] What to look out for [edit] The Bullshit Detection Kit Apart from pointing out these common fallacies, Sagan makes a few suggestions about the "tools" a skeptic should keep ready in their Baloney Detection Kit. Seek independent confirmation of alleged facts. [edit] See also [edit] External links Why People Believe Weird Things and 8 Ways to Change Their Minds [edit] James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. Superstition. The Randi Show - Cold Fusion and Carl Sagan. Zeitgeist Day 2013: Matt Berkowitz | "Logical Fallacies & Cultural Baggage" [Part 3 of 11] Matt Berkowitz talks with Abby Martin about "Logical Fallacies", The Zeitgeist Movement Oct 3rd 2013. InFact: Logical Fallacies 1. InFact: Logical Fallacies 2. Dunning–Kruger effect. Cognitive bias about one's own skill The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
Some researchers also include the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task. The Dunning–Kruger effect is usually measured by comparing self-assessment with objective performance. For example, participants may take a quiz and estimate their performance afterward, which is then compared to their actual results.
The initial study was published by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. It focused on logical reasoning, grammar, and social skills. There are disagreements about what causes the Dunning–Kruger effect. Definition[edit] David Dunning Explanations[edit] Illusion of superiority. The 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational.
Politics Wrecks Your Brain | Fascinating Study. The Most Depressing Discovery About the Brain, Ever. Yale law school professor Dan Kahan’s new research paper is called “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government,” but for me a better title is the headline on science writer Chris Mooney’s piece about it in Grist: “Science Confirms: Politics Wrecks Your Ability to Do Math.” Kahan conducted some ingenious experiments about the impact of political passion on people’s ability to think clearly.
His conclusion, in Mooney’s words: partisanship “can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills…. [People] who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.” In other words, say goodnight to the dream that education, journalism, scientific evidence, media literacy or reason can provide the tools and information that people need in order to make good decisions.
It turns out that in the public realm, a lack of information isn’t the real problem. The Psychology of Belief - Bias and the Brain.