Midterm

1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when you
are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other
authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be
tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.

3. The test is due NO LATER than

4. What is your real name?
Young, Nakita

5. What is your "user" name?
Mskb08

6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
mzflynflashy@aim.com or mskb08@yahoo.com

7. Name and address for your website.
2 B Or Not 2 B neuralsurfing.blogspot.com

8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
Yes

9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes

10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them)

Cargo Cult Science Wk1 Post5
Richard Feynman shows a vast understanding with his article "Cargo Cult Science". Its a relevant topic that most people might ignore for fear of leaving their comfort zone. More so the ones who have PhD's and wear lab coats. Society at large are made to think that scientists and all the other authorities that control major aspects of the social network have all the answers. That their methods are unquestionable because us as laymen trust in their diligence and scrutiny. They execute their ideas and since they go unquestioned, its tough for us to realize what mistakes they have done, after all, we are not the experts, they are. Its uneasy thought.

Is modern day science represented by Witch Doctor's with degrees? No, I don't think so. What is lacking is true scientific integrity as Mr. Feynman says in his article. That extra push to explain something in detail, so that there will be less "Why's" and "How's", less confusion. I also understand being in the times that we are now, everything is better fast stronger. We as a human race are advancing at an alarming rate, or so it seems. Most people don't want to bother with the details, they just want answers. Results. Its what we're used too nowadays. I believe it goes in all aspects of our lives, not just the scientific. To conduct experiments using scientific integrity means more work, more complex notes and slower results. Will that be acceptable in the eyes of the titans that run our civilization? Who knows. But it would be nice to have complete and accurate results from the people we regard as professionals and experts in our view. In my opinion, Cargo Cult Science will be around for a long time.

Cold Reading Article WK1 Post 4
Its not a wonder that us as human beings need to be nurtured and reminded that
we do play a role in this vast world that we live in. Reading this article about
the art of these "readers" put more of this concept in perspective. I am a
skeptic of their psychic abilities and thought of them as frauds. I too didn't
like the fact that they would try to deceive people with their phony acts, but I
thought worst of the people who actually bought into it. After reading this
article, my thoughts against the reader and the clients are less harsh. It seems
more like a therapy session now, instead of an act of trickery by the reader and
gullible reactions of the client.

When its put in that way, I think that it just might be necessary to have them
around. I mean, I understand that some people might be hesitant to go talk to a
therapist, a complete stranger who wants to hear all your intimate details.
Going to a "reader" will quell that feeling of uneasiness. Its more mystical,
the client is not the one telling them their lives (or so they think) but the
"reader" is. The "reader" as well as a "spiritual" force is digging within them
and fetching their lives details and answers. The whole thing is just a surreal
therapy session. Sigmund Freud with a dash of gypsy magic. If thats what people
need to feel better, then I'm all for it. All of us seek different remedies to
cope with existing problems, if wagons and drapes with beads do it for you, then
so be it. Who are we to judge?

Karma Film Essay Wk1 Post 3
Karma has always been a thought-provoking concept for me. To actually receive the same level of malevolence or righteousness or more, that you have done to some one else prior. This film portrays that in an interesting way. As the young man walks around and he passes a few individuals, he can visualize what will happen to them. He can sense what kind of karma they have coming their way. Some are good, some bad. The way is depicted in the film is accurate for the most part, because every individual has different actions and not everybody is good
or bad, but its safe to say, as the film portrayed, you'd probably find more bad than good.

I like the fact that the protagonist in the film looks troubled. As he's passing all these individuals, he can see the upcoming events in their lives, you would think its a good thing, but is it really? I mean, do you tell someone that you know they're going to rob somebody? Or that they're gonna be shot if they slap their girlfriend? And even if you do wanted to tell them, do you think they
would believe you? I can imagine it being an uncomfortable situation, faced with a moral decision like that. Asking yourself if silence is the right way to go about things. The film was true to reality and it said a lot, without saying nothing.


Reaction To Expert Lecture by J.F. MacDonald Wk1 Post2
I agree with J.F. MacDonald, clear thinking is what today's society is missing the most. I think you can say that about every generation actually. When a group of people conjure up a philosophy, it can be used to rationalize Racism, Classism, Prejudice,and Sexism, etc. Justifying its practices. With clear thinking, you can assess the situation for what it is. Just reality and present actions without being bias or judgmental because all that you are thinking about is the facts. Many problems could be avoided and even prevented with this form of thinking.


Imagine a man who grew up in a racist environment. Growing up listening and learning that every other race besides his own is inferior. Adults telling him that they are at the top of the pedestal, with "relevant facts" to back it up. He may encounter another man one day who is of a different race in another place. Suppose the man just helped him out, the man who grew up in the racist environment might feel resentful that someone inferior to him has helped him. But if he were to use Clear Thinking, then he would be grateful and thankful for that man's help. Because regardless of race, religion or creed, he is a man just like him, and that's all that he sees, another man who helped him out. Clear thinking is definitely something that today's world needs the most.


Reaction to expert lecture by Richard Feynman -- Wk1 Post 1
The expert lecture by Richard Feynman was an interesting piece. I agree to the theme of the whole lecture, which seems to be that intelligence is not knowing the name of a thing or action

but to understand what it is and how it operates. As Mr. Feynman said about what his father told him, you can see a bird and know the name of it in a multiple languages, but that doesn't mean you know what the bird is and its function and habits as a creature. If we all took that approach of seeing things more in depth and understanding how it operates we would see a lot of things differently. This way of looking at things can also be used in looking at human nature. For example, when Mr. Feynman's father was asking him why all those people were bowing down in front of the pope. The uniform and credentials made other people honor him, although he is just a human, just like you and me.




I also found it interesting when he was asked was the Nobel prize worth it. He didn't care about the honors and the praise. The satisfaction comes from the actual discovery of knowing what you didn't know before. People in the intellectual groups that he came across were pompous and arrogant in their intelligence and achievements. They spent a lot of time assessing who was good enough to be among them, instead of discussing and taking in the pleasure of finding things out, as he says. I think when you appreciate the knowledge that you gain from things, the more desire you would have to keep finding things out on a more personal level, for an inner satisfaction. If most of the world would grasp this concept, I think we'd have more advancement in a good way.


Eleven Film Essay Wk2 Post 5
This was a powerful film. Honest in depicting what happens when people in their ignorance feel like they are doing the right thing, act in the most horrid of ways. Blinded by rage, "Patriotism" justifies their immoral wickedness. 9/11 brought many criticism to the people of the middle east, stereotypes heightened. Many innocent people were persecuted, fear and anger took control of a few who expressed it in "righteous" violence. Some people dared to stand in the way and defended the ones who were treated unjustly. Joshua Williams should be remembered for trying to expose this story, because its only when people understand in depth of these actions is when they realize how malicious and wrong it is to act in such a fervor clouded by ignorance and fueled with hate. This is a compelling film.


A Field Guide To Critical Thinking Wk2 Post 4
"FiLCHeRS" is the way that all human beings should approach things. With this way of going about different topics and theories, there wouldn't be any chance given for mediocre claims or theories to reach popularity and be treated as fact. I think most people involved in the paranormal, U.F.O's, etc., don't apply this method because their beliefs would surely be shattered when it comes to a meticulous form of thinking and finding the evidence to support the theories presented. In all honesty, I believe most skeptics use a less tenacious form of "FiLCHeRS" because, skeptics like myself, are not ready to just believe something without having at a minimum one pertinent piece of evidence. People are intrigued by the unexplained and amazed by the mystery behind things and want to believe, proven or not, that there's something more to the world they live in. As James Lett writes "Skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants"


The Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations Wk2 Post 3
David G. Willey has the right idea in my opinion. Anything is easier to learn if that particular person finds the topic interesting or fun. Especially in a subject such as Physics. It takes a keen understanding and imagination to truly enjoy this technical subject. Its very interesting, but it could become a little confusing and dull if its all just words on paper and mundane diagrams. By not only presenting the concepts of Physics in real time out of the text books, but also getting himself involved in these demonstrations, he is capturing 100% of the students attention and igniting their interest to another level. These demonstrations are dangerous, but are able to be pulled off by a person who is knowledgeable in Physics. By proving these amazing performances are able to be done by the very concepts that these students learn every time they are in class, it is most likely to keep them involved and see physics in a whole new light. It becomes real because its not just tons of words in a text. With this style of learning, it is tangible and evident that the subject is truly astounding.


Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied To Religion Wk 1 Post 2
I understand why a lot of people in society, especially those in religious positions, would not want scientific inquiry to be involved in Religion. There is a large mass of people who rely on religion as a way of life. Religion is their whole basis for living. Imagine if there was a breakthrough, where inquiry disproofs a major aspect in a certain religion. It would change their whole outlook in life,not necessarily for the better. Some might not be able to handle it. There would be an uproar in many communities. Its like telling a small 4yr old child that Santa Clause doesn't exist...of course on a larger scale of society in a metaphorical sense. For those faint of heart, I am in no way comparing God to Santa Clause, I'm just trying to convey the shock of truth if it were to happen.

If I can be frank also, many religious institutions rely on their millions upon millions of followers from all walks of life to stay the powerhouse that they are now. Followers include people from the poorest slums to the highest position of influence. If religion was compromised in any way, then its only natural that the power of the church will dwindle. Who would want that? Its not a coincidence, just as the author says, that Scientific inquiry could investigate the paranormal, ufo's, psychics and other areas of occult topics without any backlash. It is because those areas don't play an instrumental role in society and, lets be honest, doesn't make the kind of money that the mainstream religions do. Its not just moral and social aspects that the religion advocates are trying to protect, they're also protecting their assets. It just seems to make more sense to me, Paul Kurtz made it clear why it makes sense to do so. Of course not recklessly, but to do it correctly. In my opinion, It should definitely be done and it makes sense to do so. If scientists and the religious both are interested in the beginning of our species and our natural world, what would trying to get the facts and evidence of theories hurt?


Reaction To Expert Lecture Ken Miller Wk2 P1
I could not believe that Georgia schools would actually put warning signs on Biology text books, that really made me snicker in disgust. As Ken Miller pointed out, that warning sticker is wholly misleading to a young student who's reading it. I like how he pointed out that Theory's and Facts are not opposites, that in fact Theory's are on a higher plane because they explain facts. For example, when Mr. Miller made a mock warning sticker for "Gravity" how it is just a theory and not facts because its something that none of us has never seen it physically. Obviously we never seen gravity, but we do know it exists because its how we are able to stay on the ground as well as any other object, its proven. He makes excellent points.

I must say though, I don't completely reject "Intelligent Design". I definitely believe in Evolution and Natural Selection, the evidence is there. But I think "Intelligent Design" is more suitable for the universe itself, the "Big picture" so to speak. I believe here, on Earth, evolution is the key, but I think its due to what has happened in the universe that has made evolution capable on Earth. All in all the lecture was very interesting and to see arguments on both sides of the "Intelligent Design" subject. These are all sensitive subjects and should be taken with an open mind.


Critical Thinking Film Faqir Wk3 P5
What Faqir Chand states in this film, makes much sense to me. When I think about his claims that nobody manifests themselves to help you in your personal matters, that it is actually yourself, I start thinking about people who create alter egos. People often create alter egos of themselves to portray how they really want to be, in making this alter ego, they live vicariously through them. Envisioning the alter ego as somebody else when in reality it is them. I think the same can be applied to religious figures who are said to appear or provide help to a individual with a lot of faith. I can imagine that many people would disagree, but what's harder than to convince yourself otherwise when its your own mind thats playing tricks on you?...Interesting concept.
When you think about it, the importance of significant figures in religion have been created by people themselves. Whether they're characters from the bible or whether an "enlightened" person was proclaimed as a higher being, these are things that people themselves have created as a source of help. Their faith and their own knowledge makes the power of these symbols more powerful, therefore making the symbols represent their own thought process. They get so used to depending on these symbols that they forget that they are the ones who are actually helping themselves, sometimes not even forget, they never know and give the credit to the deity's or representatives. I wonder how many people would accept this.


Pretext #2 Wk3 P4
It is very difficult to explain the origin of what makes us beings. In this article, David does a good job of explaining how basic we can go to explain ourselves, but we can only go so far. I do agree that every level of is connected to the prior and to the next level. There's no doubt about that, you take one level away and like David's example using "The Great Gatsby", the whole structure would collapse. I don't think we would ever know what's under the "spirit".

To know if there's an actual astral plane or not, in my opinion, the only way to find that out is actually death. But there's no coming back from that is there? Its just one of those things that will always debated. Especially between the spiritual and the scientist. The makings of a soul and the transcending past the brain and body will always be debatable topics. One could talk about these subjects for hours and at the end of the day it would all just be educated guesses, like David said "We can't even explain--in terms of physiology--how we grow hair on our arms...".


Reaction To Expert Lecture By Freeyman Dyson Wk 3 P3
I can't even imagine the complex knowledge that Freemason Dyson possesses. A person with that much technical knowledge, is not a surprise to me that he is not all the way religious, that is, there are some things in religion that does not believe in. He says he describes himself as a "Christian without the theology". Religion is a way of life and not a matter of belief in his opinion. I would have to agree with that, it was very well put. Mr. Dyson does a good job in separating his religious belief with his scientific knowledge. He basically keeps all the morals of the religion and blends it with the factual information of his career. A well balanced approach.


It is an interesting concept the "Three models of mind". The human mind, the molecular mind and the universal mind. I asked myself when I heard this, if the universe could have a "mind", would that point more to "Intelligent Design"? He says that it may not be true, but plausible, I wonder what his position would be on "Intelligent Design". He calls "God" as the "Mind" of the universe, but not the "God" of religious conviction. Also, he says that Science has a sort of restriction, that it cannot explain the universe. That also seems to point to "Intelligent Design" to me. This was a very engaging interview.


Pretext #1 Wk3 P2
David's article was very informative. I never thought of reading in terms of "pretext, text and context". It put a different perspective to literature for me. I think you can see this kind of process when people try to learn another language. Before they can speak the words of the language, they must first learn what each alphabetic unit represents phonetically. After they do, they can move on to texts and say words and understand their meaning. Once that is done, they can put the words together, creating context in sentences, then to phrases till finally they can speak the language in a conversation. Its a necessary process if you want to be successful.

Its interesting how you can apply this process to our own being. I also agree strongly that every discipline should look to the basis of their own domain in order to maximize their understanding of whatever field they're in. If they stray to other forms then it will not work. "Sociobiology" sounds like an interesting concept, I wonder if they'll implement that one day. I'd like to read more into this topic.


Why I am Not A Christian - Bertrand Russell Wk1 P1
As soon as Bertrand Russell said that you have to believe in God and immortality to be a Christian, I agreed. Those are two very important concepts in Christianity, without that how can you be a Christian? I too remember thinking about the concept of the First Cause Argument and almost unhinged my mind asking who made the universe, if God, then who made God. It just goes too deep to even imagine the beginning of a beginning of a beginning and so on. It is also true that the role of God does change with the times, due to advances in modern science and intellectual enlightenment, therefore changing the impression of "Natural Law". When these concepts are put under more scrutiny, they seem to be more fallacious.


Bertrand Russell has unmistakably gone in depth in most aspects of Christian arguments and came up with reasons to dispute those arguments. Of course if you believe in something and there's a reason to dispute that, then those beliefs don't seem as strong anymore. Once you start to question your beliefs then its the beginning of losing the position you once held as your perspective changes. He does this without attacking Christianity, instead he's just writing the reasons he is not a reason and I can't say that I blame him. All of the points that he has mentioned are valid. He is definitely not a Christian.



11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a "virus" of the
mind? Do you agree or disagree?
Substantiate your view.

Richard Dawkins compares human minds to that of a sophisticated computer. Which is basically what the human mind is. He states that the human brain is as susceptible to "mind viruses" as computers are susceptible to viruses. I would have to agree with Richard Dawkins on this. When we are young, we are shaping our own identity and thought processes and in order to do this, we depend on adults to tell us whats what till we are old enough to do this on our own. At this stage our minds are sponges of information. There are no filters and we are not ready to distinguish what a "Mental Virus" is or not, so we may get "infected" with certain ideas. Since our source of information are the adults, they can stream any information they seem fit to us, such as religion. The adults are "infected" with the "virus" and replicate that "Virus" through us. It becomes part of us, we become a host of religion. As we get older, we start to try to "infect" other people around us, try to make them a host of our religion so that the "virus" could spread. Once we have children, we'll replicate the "virus" through them and they will repeat the same process. Religion spreads just like a virus would. Some might take offense to this comparison, but the similarities between the two are undeniable. Its not the negative connotations that make this comparison within reason, but its the nature of the concept of how they grow that makes it a feasible correlation.

12. Give an example of a "cargo cult" belief and critically analyze
it from a scientific perspective? Hint:
think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelming
evidence to support it.

I think a good example of a "Cargo Cult" belief would be that of Nutritional Science. Throughout the years people have changed their eating habits and diet plans based on what these scientists have branded as good or bad consumption. This field of science has cause a few cascades in the past. It gets to point the cascades reach a kind of critical mass and these erroneous beliefs spread throughout the fields of science, becoming self perpetuating as it reaches the politicians and the public. Once this happens it is almost impossible to correct the falsehood. The researchers in this field publicly present results that have came to be by sloppy experiments and premature evidence. They don't operate like the other higher sciences in terms of experimentation, with rigorous research and looking closely at the facts. Yet whatever they present is what most people believe with no question. One month milk is good for you, 2 months later milk isn't healthy enough. The people will listen and follow with these "scientists" unchallenged. "Cargo Cult" at its finest.

13. How does one do "science" according to Richard Feynman. Why is
this form of science so important to
human beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one's
appreciation for beauty? Be sure to give
YOUR own example of Feynman's point (no "flowers" allowed).

Doing "science" according to Richard Feynman is when you see things past its superficial value and question its being and functions. When you pry deeper than what you see with the naked eye and see what the object is made of, why it does what it does, you gain a deeper understanding of it. With that deeper understanding, you gain more insight and more appreciation of your seeing. You see the object in a different light, more holistically. You can do this with almost everything in your waking life.

I think this kind of "Scientific" approach to life is essential to human beings. Us as humans encounter so many different things everyday. If we were to go about this way, we would hold things in a higher esteem than we normally would. As a result of this higher regard, we would be more fascinated and proficient in our habits and everything else we are involved in, whether it be our careers or our social lives. Life would improve as such.

An example of how we already practice this form in our social life is this: Imagine a man who encounters a beautiful woman. He stares at her and is captivated by her beauty. She is just gorgeous, pretty face, long flowing hair, great skin and curves to top it off. He is sexually attracted and does appreciate her beauty. A conversation begins between the two. The man starts asking her questions, where she's from, her interests, and other things. He finds out where she's from. She's smart...articulate...funny, is responsible. She goes to the gym, hence the great body. As he finds out all these qualities about her, the man becomes ecstatic. Now she's not only beautiful on the surface, but she's now also interesting. He knows how she came to be, what she's interested in and other things that are to his liking. She's beautiful under the surface as well. Which only makes her that much more beautiful. The man now appreciates this woman more, passed just sexual attraction, now he's thinking a relationship. Imagine if every aspect of our lives were practiced with this logic.

14. Give your interpretation of the movie "Karma."

My interpretation of the movie "Karma" was the moral dilemma the protagonist faces everyday as he walks and senses upcoming events in people's lives. Some are good and some are bad. He seems to feel compelled to do something about it but at the same time senses that there is nothing you can do. After all, he is a stranger to them, they most likely won't believe him anyway and disregard his warning or advice. It was a good display of human nature and the inner struggles of someone who recognizes how dark it can be.

15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John Maynard
Smith's contribution is important in
thinking differently about survival of the fittest.

Darwin believed that all life is related and were descendants from a common ancestor. That creatures evolve from simple forms of prior versions similar to themselves in order to aid their survival, which is natural selection. Each creature obtains a beneficial advancement (mutation) that is passed to the new breed, and from there the creature will continue to advance. After so many beneficial advances the result is an entirely different creature. John Maynard felt like Darwin was onto something, but a lot of things were missing. There were a lot of missing pieces. I think Maynard felt Darwin had a point, but that there are some aspects that are not explained. Maynard simply needed more explanation from evolution. Maynard’s contribution was important because he provided a more detailed alternative explanation. He took the survival of the fittest idea and applied it to human behavior. He explains how one person’s actions can affect another. He took a deep look into Darwin’s Theory, and applied it to explaining the increase and complexity in evolution.


16. What are Freeman Dyson's views on the "design" of the universe
or the purpose of humankind?

He believes that the Universe does not behave the way normal concepts behave. That life does not make sense unless you believe in some sort of purpose that applies to the community as well as the individual. He believes that the universe is friendly to life, and it goes out of its way to contribute. All the processes that happen in the universe seems to be a highly calculated "choice" that benefits life. Thats why he refers to the universe as a "design". One way he supported this was when he spoke of the rock that landed on Earth from Mars that was studied by scientist. They maintained that the rock stayed cool throughout its whole journey and that if it was carrying life, it would've been able to sustain it. The world is full of mysteries that leave us in awe and fill us with wonder as well. Water is beautiful, and so are all other properties in everything. Dyson believes that the universe is designed to be hospitable to life in general. He loves the amazing diversity that exists between twenty million species. He believes that the Universe is spontaneous, and everything had the freedom to change. Everything from a microscopic to human level in the universe is a collective whole.


17. What IS the "secret" that Faqir Chand discovered about religion
and its founders?

The secret is that when help is provided thru religion in the form of any deity pertaining to their specific religion it is actually self-manifestation of their doing. That it is actually themselves helping their own, but the beliefs are so great instead of recognizing they are helping themselves, it appears that religion and important figures are the ones helping them.


18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it?
In other words, what is the underlying message that the
director is trying to convey?

My interpretation of the movie "Karma" was the moral dilemma the protagonist faces everyday as he walks and senses upcoming events in people's lives. Some are good and some are bad. He seems to feel compelled to do something about it but at the same time senses that there is nothing you can do. After all, he is a stranger to them, they most likely won't believe him anyway and disregard his warning or advice. It was a good display of human nature and the inner struggles of someone who recognizes how dark it can be.


19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important?
Use the Da Free John article as your context.

People often forget that sometimes the message and the person giving the message are two separate entities. When the author discusses Da Free John, he speaks of how much his work is commended. His writings have a pretty big following and many read his work. That is not true of Da Free John as a person apparently, who is often criticized as a person. But does him being criticized as a person nullify his message? It would be like you and a convict are both against abortion. If both of you were to speak to a large crowd of people, you would get 2 very different reactions. Your words would be more readily accepted and of course the convict would not and his words would be invalid. Yet both of you are saying the same thing. Your messages are identical, but since the convict is not what you would call an upright citizen, his position would not matter as much as yours. If people would distinguish between the medium and the message, they would be able to listen more and pay more attention to the words than to the mouth that speaks them.

20. What are Bertrand Russell's reasons for NOT being a Christian?
Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONAL
ARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con).

Bertrand Russell was not a Christian because he was unsure about God’s entire existence. He believed that religion is false. That teaching religion clouds your thinking. I believe that he also hinting that Religion is the root of many problems, including War as a result of religious disputes. Which has proven to be true, it is evident with the conflicts in the Middle East. Russell said that a Christian initially has to be defined. He clearly stated that he does not believe that Christ is the best, nor was he the wisest of men. I am a Christian, and I must admit that Russell does have valid points. I do not disagree with his arguments about God’s existence. Once or twice I have wondered what if what we believe to be the spoken word was just a fictitious mass of stories written from someone that was found and assumed to be sacred. It’s possible. We will never know, until we are gone. I am a Christian because I was taught to be Christian. Have I had been raised in Belize where my father originates, I would have been Catholic. Proving Russell’s point. Religion whether it is Christian or not is simply something you choose to believe or you don’t. God’s total existence is probability. In his essay Russell said “ Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear…”  I can honestly say that I am a believer because I do fear dying and living in eternal hell. How long is Forever? I was taught that if you believe you go to Heaven. If my mother ever read this she might have a heart attack, but I am pro to Russell’s agreements. They made sense, however I will keep my faith.


21. Give a summary of Jim Lett's field guide to critcal thinking (in
your own "300" words, no more). Don't use quotes but write it like a
letter to a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett's
numerous points.

Kellz,
Since you are so gullible, I am going to teach you how to use Critical Thinking. You can’t believe everything you hear or read on the internet. Most of the minimal stuff we do know, is what someone wanted us to believe. From now on we will use “FiLCHeRS” made by James Lett. This is said to be able to be used on things that are not only paranormal, but normal things as well. Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Repliciability, and Sufficiency. You cannot make a judgment initially. If a claim is true, it cannot be proven false. Claims that can’t be falsified are meaningless. Logic- You must investigate the claim to make sure its valid, it must be sound. If a claim isn’t logical it isn’t sound or valid. Example: All dogs have fleas, Xavier has fleas, Xavier is a dog. This isn’t logical because it is proven different animals have fleas. Comprehensiveness- All of the evidence in the claim must be considered. You can’t just disreguard something because it may make your hypothesis false. Honesty- You must be honest with yourself regardless to the results. If your evidence proves truth, then it’s true. If it proves false, accept that its false. Repliciability- If the evidence is based on an experimental result. You must be able to prove your evidence more than once. You must be able to rule out coincidence. Suffiency- 1. Just because you cannot prove you claim false, don’t assume that it’s true. 2. If you make an extraordinary claim you must have evidence to prove it. 3. Evidence based on testimony/ authority is always inadequate regardless to someone’s status. Anyone can tell a lie. If you apply this, you should be able. Remember to always search for reasoning, and we can avoid error or fraud.



22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied to
religion? Do you agree or disagree?

Kurtz believed there should be skepticism in Religion to gain facts. Scientific research has been thru every aspect except Religion itself. Religion has tons of stories of origin and landmarks, and specific events stating that they in fact happened in history. Therefore scientific research and skepticism should be able to be allowed to study these things to confirm these events that have been claimed. I agree because I would simply like to know if what I consider to be my faith is valid.

23. Why is pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a book
or an argument. Provide your own example.

Its important to uses those processes in order to understand the subject fully. For example of you are learning a new language you would have to learn the pretext first which would be the alphabetic units. Once you learn each alphabetic unit and what each sound makes, you can understand the text which comes with formulating words and understand what each words mean. Once you understand the text you can formulates sentences and phrases which means you now understand the context.


24. What is a "transformative" UFO encounter and does the author of
the Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuine
extraterrestrials?

A transformative UFO encounter is a hallucination. I do not think that the author believes in UFO’s, although he doesn’t refute their existence because it has not been proven that they do nor that they don't exist. He's keeping an open mind to the whole subject matter. In my opinion it seemed like to be one of those it will happen if you believe it type ordeals. If you are interested in seeing one, or want to see one, then you will have higher chances of indeed seeing one. It depends on your individual mind state. It relies on your perception or views and beliefs of paranormal things. For example on the show Ghost Hunters, each episode is spent with them going to different homes all over the country to find ghosts. The tenant calls them because they have saw or heard something, and believe there is a spirit in their home. Obviously they believe. Never once have I saw an episode where the conclusion was that the home wasn’t haunted. Instead they take and analyze each and every sound or occurrence and use it towards proving the ghost is there. Why can’t they just say that’s a creak in the floor because the wood is damaged? The more these people believe in extraterrestrial sightings, the more they have the opportunity to experience one. I find this particular article interesting because as a child I was terrified at the show Sightings. Yet I remained a faithful viewer. In return every time I was outside at night, I would stare in the sky. I would see moving blinking lights, and swear it was a UFO. Now I know, years later they are planes traveling at night. I guess this Transformative encounter can be applied with shooting stars. No wonder my wishes never came true.

25. How does one think more critically when using online sources?
(hint: think of one of the required articles). Substantiate your
views.

One can think more critically online by applying FiLCHeRs. By not just accepting something they read online. You would go thru all the steps to make sure it can’t be proven false. Research the topic yourself. You would have to test the hypothesis yourself. The article that you are reading may have been copied a million times, which does not make it valid or sound.


26. What are Steven Weinberg's views on religion? Do you agree or
disagree?

Steven Weinberg is not too fond of religion. He feels like it is unnecessary. He seems to really dislike all that religion stands for especially the beliefs pertaining to religion and behavior. He believes that you act based on how you want to whether it may be negative or positive regardless of your religious domination. Religions seem to set standards for its followers, do’s and don’t’s. When you follow these guidelines they produce values. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree 100% with any of it. I agree because he does have a point some people chose not to believe in a higher power, but that doesn’t mean they are any inferior to a person who believes in some type of God. Everyone has the choice to do right or wrong regadless. I can honestly say I hold back from doing certain things because of things I have learned at church. People who believe in God still do bad things. The same stuff that goes on outside goes on inside the church as well. They are still affected by cheating, gossiping, lying, and stealing etc. My mom goes to church literally six days a week, and she faces the same struggles as anyone else I know. She often tries to persuade me to attend more, but I think it has turned into a fashion show, or who can contribute the most financially. How can someone preach to me about not having sex until marriage, when their own seed that they raised has an illegitimate child?


27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argue
against his views? If so, how?

Sam Harris is an atheist because religion lacks evidence. I think everyone whether they admit it or not has wondered whether it is real. I wouldn’t argue against his reasons because I wouldn’t have a valid argument against his views. To each his own. I don’t have proof that God existed, which is basically the point at the end. His existence is based on Faith, believing in him with the lack of evidence. He on the other hand does not have proof that he did not exist. I wouldn’t look at him as any less of a person, condemn him to eternal damnation or anything. He's a skeptic and he has a right to be. Between the Religious and the Skeptics, there will always be debate and discussion. My mother always said two things you don’t discuss with people are religion and politics.

28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speaker
did you find most persuasive? Explain why.

Session 1 Speaker 2 was who I found to be most persuasive. I believe his name was either Larry or Aaron, it was hard to distinguish. His powerpoint presentation kept me engrossed in the subject. He talked about the conflict between science and religion. His used examples consisted of modern events, which made his presentation more distinct i.e When he spoke of Columbine and Afghanistan. He wanted to change the teaching of science itself. He wanted to provide a connection, not to disprove religion but to better understand it and increase its value as a more substantial practice. He allowed the audience to make their own assumptions because his testimony was neutral. He wants to move beyond the faith, and use science in a positive way. He said in order to teach someone you must understand where they are coming from. He used important historical and modern figures, and facts to support his position.

29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe's notion of irreducible
complexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is he
right? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not.

Ken Miller based his disagreements on opinions and ideas, not necessarily facts. Being that his argument was not a solid one to me, I am going to say that he is not right. He seemed unsure. He gave more of an alternative explanation, I felt more like he was saying "what if?". I wasn’t persuaded, Michael Behe seemed more logical.


30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find to
be the weakest in terms of substance? Explain.
I really did not understand what she was trying to convey. She seemed nervous, and unprepared. She kept referring back to the books she wrote. Her presentation seemed scattered, jumping from one topic to another without any proper transition. I never got exactly what it was about, or the concept. When the video panned to the audience, they seemed even more confused. She told stories, and assumed that the audience knew what she was talking about. I think she needed to provide some background as to what she was discussing. The only thing I got from it was that she believed in religion, which is why I felt she failed making her argument even more. I should have been able to understand or relate to at least one thing she was saying.

31. What constitutes a scientific education according to Huxley?

Knowledge. If you know what you are dealing with, you have a better understanding. The more you know, the more readily you would use and apply the correct steps to better provide you with what you need to obtain your result.

32. Why is the book BELIEVER-SKEPTIC so critical of Ken Wilber and this thinking? Be specific in your answers

Because Ken Wilber embellishes his assertions. The author lets the readers know that Ken Wilber is naïve when it comes to Da Free John. I took it as a warning to be skeptical of Wilber. In his reviews of Da Free John he should have acknowledged any faults Da Free John had, which to me would have made it more thorough, making it more believable as a result. I would have accepted Ken Wilber sticking to his views despite the negative points. Have he had done this, then it would have let me know that he fully understands his position, has thoroughly thought about it. That would have made him more credible . Wilber duped readers in my opinion. Later, he was asked to write an autobiography of Da Free John, and he declined.

33. Give a review and an reaction to the three magazines that you read listed above.

Extra Credit: List any books you read from the list for extra credit. Provide cogent summaries of each.
Make your own 3 minute movie on how to be an effective critical
thinker (be creative).

DOUBLE EXTRA CREDIT:Give a 200 word interpretation of the required movie, Nicholas of
Cusa. What do you think it actually means?