How many emotions are there? Psychologists think there are six primary emotions – happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, disgust. Are these like the three primary colours in light, where all others can be made of combinations of these six? Do you agree with the idea of “primary emotions”?
I do not agree with the idea of primary emotions entirely. I think that emotions are very subtle and there are many more than just six main emotions. Although it is possible to think of very common emotions and feelings, I think that there are a lot of emotions that you cannot categorize of get from mixing together those six emotions above. Where would you put complicated emotions such as love and hate? You could say that they are a mixture of the above emotions but there is more to it than that I think. Personally, I think that emotions are one of the hardest things to categorize and it is nearly impossible to find the root feelings from each emotion, therefore it is nearly impossible to find the primary emotions. I also feel that it is unnecessary to find the root of each emotion. Emotions are not something I think SHOULD be categorized at all. The whole point of emotions is to go beyond reason and feel something without being logical in most cases, therefore what is the point of trying to turn something specifically un-logical into a logical order and category? It seems a bit hypocritical and useless to me. Emotions in my mind are something beyond reason, that can be both a good thing and a bad thing, but therefore you must just trust in them instead of analyze them as if they were something you could truly control. Emotions are not entirely controllable. You can still feel them (without the use of narcotics or brainwashing) and therefore unpredictable so STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THAT!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
End of Logic Final Essay
1) What are the different types of reasoning? In your opinion, is one type more valid or reliable? Explain why, using terms and examples.
There are several types of reasoning and they are; deductive reasoning which includes syllogisms and truth vs. validity, inductive reasoning which includes confirmation bias (a.k.a. generalization, prejudice and scientific law), and informal reasoning which includes circular reasoning, equivocating, arguing using ad ignorantiam, binary thinking, and loaded questions.
Deductive reasoning is the process of moving from one general truth to a particular subject to get a conclusion. Some of the types of deductive reasoning are syllogisms and truth vs. validity. Syllogisms are a series of statements with two premises and a conclusion which have three terms that occur twice as well as quantifiers. An example of this is: all carrots have an orange colour, my salad has carrots, and therefore my salad has an orange colour. Truth vs. Validity is the fact that although a statement can be false it can still be valid. The reason for this is because a statement that is valid has two true premises but it may not have a true conclusion. Reasoning understands this while logic would consider all valid statements to be true. An example of a valid yet untrue statement is: cats are small, lions are a type of cat, and therefore lions are small. This statement is valid as there is a truth to the logic and premises, but it is not a true conclusion as lions are not small by most standards.
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning, instead of moving from a general truth to a particular subject, it is the process of moving from a truth about a particular subject to a general conclusion. This is also an example of stereotyping. One of the types of inductive reasoning is confirmation bias, examples of which are generalization, prejudice and scientific law. Confirmation bias is the fact that we usually believe and remember what supports our beliefs and perceptions more so than those that contradict them. This is probably one of the problems that have lead to culture clashes and arguments the most as people are unwilling to accept truths that do not agree with what they already believe. Generalizations are when you come up with a general principle about something from examples of particulars. An example of this would be if I only knew birds that sung, I would then believe that all birds sing. This is probably not true as the amount of examples that I was deriving my generalization was relatively small in comparison to the actual population of the subject. The best way to validity a generalization is to come up with it from examining a large percentage of the population of the subject or culture you are generalizing. This will ensure that the generalization is more accurate. Prejudice is when you already have an idea in your head about a particular subject and that affects your thinking and perceptions on that subject. An example of this would be that if you thought all blondes were dumb, you would be much more receptive to the less intelligent statements a blonde made and not pay as much attention to the examples of intelligence she actually gives. Scientific law is the direct link between the cause and effect of a phenomenon deduced from experiments and/or observations. An example of this would be if I experimented on water and found that it contained certain amounts of chlorine, I would believe that it was pool water because pool water contains that amount of chlorine. This system could be applicable to events such as the Big Bang, which the theory of was hypothesised from the experiments done on such conditions.
Informal reasoning is reasoning where you make a quick decision given on the information you are given, which is often used against you by deliberately manipulating the way in which you will most likely respond to the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc means mistaking something following another thing to be the cause for the first thing. An example of this would be; McDonald’s sales are up this year, so is the obesity rate. Equivocating is using a word or idea in two different meanings in order to support your argument. An example of this would be; Smoking kills and criminals kill, so criminals must smoke. Circular reasoning is assuming that part of your argument is true without proving it first. An example of this would be; I am cool, because I say so, and I never lie. Arguing ad ignorantiam means believing something is true just because we cannot prove it isn’t true. An example of this is believing in ghosts because there is no way to prove there are no ghosts. Binary thinking believes in black in white sides of an argument, therefore thinking that one extreme will happen if you do/do not do something. An example of this is; I need to wear make-up or everyone will hate me. A loaded question is when you ask a question that even if you answer yes or no, will make your response mean a certain connotation. An example of this would be; Are you always ugly or is it just today?
Out of all of the different types of reasoning, it seems to me that the most accurate form of reasoning is deductive reasoning because it is generally more accurate to believe that if something usually happens, then most likely the same will be true in a particular case. There are always exceptions, but an exception is the oddity to in most cases you will be correct. Therefore that seems to be the most accurate type of reasoning. Inductive reasoning is less reliable in my opinion as it moves from particular cases into a general idea, and it is usually best to avoid stereotyping and generalizing because it can lead to issues if your generalizations are untrue and can lead to offending the parties that are being stereotyped. Informal reasoning is the manipulation of reasoning to give untrue conclusions in most cases, therefore I believe it is by far the least accurate type of reasoning and often lead to untrue and misunderstood conclusions.
There are several types of reasoning and they are; deductive reasoning which includes syllogisms and truth vs. validity, inductive reasoning which includes confirmation bias (a.k.a. generalization, prejudice and scientific law), and informal reasoning which includes circular reasoning, equivocating, arguing using ad ignorantiam, binary thinking, and loaded questions.
Deductive reasoning is the process of moving from one general truth to a particular subject to get a conclusion. Some of the types of deductive reasoning are syllogisms and truth vs. validity. Syllogisms are a series of statements with two premises and a conclusion which have three terms that occur twice as well as quantifiers. An example of this is: all carrots have an orange colour, my salad has carrots, and therefore my salad has an orange colour. Truth vs. Validity is the fact that although a statement can be false it can still be valid. The reason for this is because a statement that is valid has two true premises but it may not have a true conclusion. Reasoning understands this while logic would consider all valid statements to be true. An example of a valid yet untrue statement is: cats are small, lions are a type of cat, and therefore lions are small. This statement is valid as there is a truth to the logic and premises, but it is not a true conclusion as lions are not small by most standards.
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning, instead of moving from a general truth to a particular subject, it is the process of moving from a truth about a particular subject to a general conclusion. This is also an example of stereotyping. One of the types of inductive reasoning is confirmation bias, examples of which are generalization, prejudice and scientific law. Confirmation bias is the fact that we usually believe and remember what supports our beliefs and perceptions more so than those that contradict them. This is probably one of the problems that have lead to culture clashes and arguments the most as people are unwilling to accept truths that do not agree with what they already believe. Generalizations are when you come up with a general principle about something from examples of particulars. An example of this would be if I only knew birds that sung, I would then believe that all birds sing. This is probably not true as the amount of examples that I was deriving my generalization was relatively small in comparison to the actual population of the subject. The best way to validity a generalization is to come up with it from examining a large percentage of the population of the subject or culture you are generalizing. This will ensure that the generalization is more accurate. Prejudice is when you already have an idea in your head about a particular subject and that affects your thinking and perceptions on that subject. An example of this would be that if you thought all blondes were dumb, you would be much more receptive to the less intelligent statements a blonde made and not pay as much attention to the examples of intelligence she actually gives. Scientific law is the direct link between the cause and effect of a phenomenon deduced from experiments and/or observations. An example of this would be if I experimented on water and found that it contained certain amounts of chlorine, I would believe that it was pool water because pool water contains that amount of chlorine. This system could be applicable to events such as the Big Bang, which the theory of was hypothesised from the experiments done on such conditions.
Informal reasoning is reasoning where you make a quick decision given on the information you are given, which is often used against you by deliberately manipulating the way in which you will most likely respond to the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc means mistaking something following another thing to be the cause for the first thing. An example of this would be; McDonald’s sales are up this year, so is the obesity rate. Equivocating is using a word or idea in two different meanings in order to support your argument. An example of this would be; Smoking kills and criminals kill, so criminals must smoke. Circular reasoning is assuming that part of your argument is true without proving it first. An example of this would be; I am cool, because I say so, and I never lie. Arguing ad ignorantiam means believing something is true just because we cannot prove it isn’t true. An example of this is believing in ghosts because there is no way to prove there are no ghosts. Binary thinking believes in black in white sides of an argument, therefore thinking that one extreme will happen if you do/do not do something. An example of this is; I need to wear make-up or everyone will hate me. A loaded question is when you ask a question that even if you answer yes or no, will make your response mean a certain connotation. An example of this would be; Are you always ugly or is it just today?
Out of all of the different types of reasoning, it seems to me that the most accurate form of reasoning is deductive reasoning because it is generally more accurate to believe that if something usually happens, then most likely the same will be true in a particular case. There are always exceptions, but an exception is the oddity to in most cases you will be correct. Therefore that seems to be the most accurate type of reasoning. Inductive reasoning is less reliable in my opinion as it moves from particular cases into a general idea, and it is usually best to avoid stereotyping and generalizing because it can lead to issues if your generalizations are untrue and can lead to offending the parties that are being stereotyped. Informal reasoning is the manipulation of reasoning to give untrue conclusions in most cases, therefore I believe it is by far the least accurate type of reasoning and often lead to untrue and misunderstood conclusions.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
It's Not What You Think, It's What You Think You Think
Confirmation Bias:
Generalizations: Most actors are on drugs.
Prejudice: Actors are drug addicts.
Scientific Law: The world is round.
*These are not necessarily true, just examples of the different types of bias.*
Generalizations: Most actors are on drugs.
Prejudice: Actors are drug addicts.
Scientific Law: The world is round.
*These are not necessarily true, just examples of the different types of bias.*
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword
Do words have power? How does language enhance/facilitate knowledge?
I think that words really do have a sort of power, but only because we put power into them. You can give words power by putting meaning and importance into the communication of the words, leading to the other person believing they are powerful. I think that people will put importance into words, because they feel that their ideas are important, and will try and convey that importance and message through words. This means that those words you use, were given power. We put the power into those words because of how we perceive them as important. Messages that we feel are important, like raw feelings and emotions, like I ‘hate’ or ‘love’ you are perceived as being very powerful words, simply because the feelings we express through them are strong and we mean them to be important. Another example of powerful words are extremes like ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and usually these are only powerful when the answer is very important to the giver and receiver of the message. If someone asks something really important to another person, like ‘will you marry me’ the answer of yes or no has much more power because it is something very important to both parties of the communication. If it was a mundane question like ‘do you want fries with that?’ then the answer would be much less powerful. It is still necessary, but the words would not hold much meaning, especially to the receiver of the message.
What are some problems with language? How does language impede/prevent knowledge?
Some problems with language are the perceptions that come along with it. When you use language, you are subjecting yourself to trying to express complex ideas and emotions through a set of strict barriers in order to send a clear message to the person you are communicating with. There are so many different barriers, in order to keep the message the same for both parties and in a lot of cases, the meaning of one sentence will be different between the receiver and giver of the message. This can lead to misunderstandings and double meanings as well as a loss of communication leading to false information and knowledge. Not to mention, language is subjected to changes because sometimes when you give the message to two different audiences, you must edit the content to match the type of audience, because some receivers will understand one type of double meaning, while others will not. Not to mention the variances due to ambiguity and irony as well as sarcasm, which will greatly affect what the audience actually understands from the communicator. It is difficult to portray the same thinking of the giver to the receiver without losing information in the translation of the thoughts to words. This process also occasionally happens within the brain of the giver, as you communicate with yourself in thoughts that often are portrayed in words, meaning your brain is communicating to you too. Therefore, there will always be an impediment in the knowledge transference between two parties.
I think that words really do have a sort of power, but only because we put power into them. You can give words power by putting meaning and importance into the communication of the words, leading to the other person believing they are powerful. I think that people will put importance into words, because they feel that their ideas are important, and will try and convey that importance and message through words. This means that those words you use, were given power. We put the power into those words because of how we perceive them as important. Messages that we feel are important, like raw feelings and emotions, like I ‘hate’ or ‘love’ you are perceived as being very powerful words, simply because the feelings we express through them are strong and we mean them to be important. Another example of powerful words are extremes like ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and usually these are only powerful when the answer is very important to the giver and receiver of the message. If someone asks something really important to another person, like ‘will you marry me’ the answer of yes or no has much more power because it is something very important to both parties of the communication. If it was a mundane question like ‘do you want fries with that?’ then the answer would be much less powerful. It is still necessary, but the words would not hold much meaning, especially to the receiver of the message.
What are some problems with language? How does language impede/prevent knowledge?
Some problems with language are the perceptions that come along with it. When you use language, you are subjecting yourself to trying to express complex ideas and emotions through a set of strict barriers in order to send a clear message to the person you are communicating with. There are so many different barriers, in order to keep the message the same for both parties and in a lot of cases, the meaning of one sentence will be different between the receiver and giver of the message. This can lead to misunderstandings and double meanings as well as a loss of communication leading to false information and knowledge. Not to mention, language is subjected to changes because sometimes when you give the message to two different audiences, you must edit the content to match the type of audience, because some receivers will understand one type of double meaning, while others will not. Not to mention the variances due to ambiguity and irony as well as sarcasm, which will greatly affect what the audience actually understands from the communicator. It is difficult to portray the same thinking of the giver to the receiver without losing information in the translation of the thoughts to words. This process also occasionally happens within the brain of the giver, as you communicate with yourself in thoughts that often are portrayed in words, meaning your brain is communicating to you too. Therefore, there will always be an impediment in the knowledge transference between two parties.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Language Police !!!
"Language has rules, but we break them all the time"
I agree with one part of this phrase and disagree with another (like always, sigh) but I must be honest; I think that we constantly push the boundaries of language in order to express our creativity and show our feelings and emotions beyond what the formal language can express. It gives us new ways to express ourselves and communicate with the people around us. But I disagree with the idea that we are "breaking" rules, I truly think that language has no real rules, because it is constantly changing, evolving and it is more just a standardized means of communication in order to simplify the way we perceive language, but I think that there are no real rules. It is more of a possible way of formatting our thoughts in order to ensure that our opinions are properly understood (with exceptions of course) but if we wanted to suddenly change our language, as long as we were somehow able to inform the other person what it was that we were trying to say, it is still a language of sorts, and communication still works.
I agree with one part of this phrase and disagree with another (like always, sigh) but I must be honest; I think that we constantly push the boundaries of language in order to express our creativity and show our feelings and emotions beyond what the formal language can express. It gives us new ways to express ourselves and communicate with the people around us. But I disagree with the idea that we are "breaking" rules, I truly think that language has no real rules, because it is constantly changing, evolving and it is more just a standardized means of communication in order to simplify the way we perceive language, but I think that there are no real rules. It is more of a possible way of formatting our thoughts in order to ensure that our opinions are properly understood (with exceptions of course) but if we wanted to suddenly change our language, as long as we were somehow able to inform the other person what it was that we were trying to say, it is still a language of sorts, and communication still works.
Politically Correct?! Please!
"Should we avoid all words that might offend a certain group?"
Personally, I can understand what the merits are of being politically correct, it is just a way of ensuring that no one gets offended from the language someone uses, unintentionally. But I also have to say that I believe that everyone has the right to say what they want. Sometimes I feel that people are overly sensitive to 'sexism' and 'racism'. Of course, sometimes I feel that people are completely out of line, like the popular phrase to women "b****, go make me a sandwich", which is just rude. But I think that if someone really did not intentionally say something sexist or racist, like saying the phrase whiter than white, what is the harm. Sometimes it is not even a racist slur, it is simply a phrase about the colour. That is when I think that political correctness can go out of control. Although I internally wince if I hear the phrases that put normal accomplishments as 'male' actions, I really think that we shouldn't really take that too badly. Of course, language was originally made in a culture where men were considered higher than women, and white was considered better than black. Nowadays, I am happy to say, it is not as much an issue, but I think that these phrases needed to be accepted as how they are, perhaps outdated, but still simply ways of expressing opinions and ideas, that was originally created in a time where it was common practice to be racist or sexist. I still am not sure on my complete view on this, but I do believe that certain phrases take it too far, especially when they are said with malicious intent, but harmless idioms, I think, can be accepted, at least, I accept them as part of the way things are, and not the person's true perspective.
Personally, I can understand what the merits are of being politically correct, it is just a way of ensuring that no one gets offended from the language someone uses, unintentionally. But I also have to say that I believe that everyone has the right to say what they want. Sometimes I feel that people are overly sensitive to 'sexism' and 'racism'. Of course, sometimes I feel that people are completely out of line, like the popular phrase to women "b****, go make me a sandwich", which is just rude. But I think that if someone really did not intentionally say something sexist or racist, like saying the phrase whiter than white, what is the harm. Sometimes it is not even a racist slur, it is simply a phrase about the colour. That is when I think that political correctness can go out of control. Although I internally wince if I hear the phrases that put normal accomplishments as 'male' actions, I really think that we shouldn't really take that too badly. Of course, language was originally made in a culture where men were considered higher than women, and white was considered better than black. Nowadays, I am happy to say, it is not as much an issue, but I think that these phrases needed to be accepted as how they are, perhaps outdated, but still simply ways of expressing opinions and ideas, that was originally created in a time where it was common practice to be racist or sexist. I still am not sure on my complete view on this, but I do believe that certain phrases take it too far, especially when they are said with malicious intent, but harmless idioms, I think, can be accepted, at least, I accept them as part of the way things are, and not the person's true perspective.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Speak Your Mind, Or Mind Your Speak
Does LANGUAGE say ideas or does it create ideas?
I am often conflicted when faced with the idea of whether or not language creates your speech and opinions, or whether your opinions are translated into language. I have always believed that language, be it any dialect, changes how what we say is communicated to others. I also believe that our thoughts are changed to fit the descriptions and restrictions that words and grammar provide. It is always difficult to find the perfect word that describes exactly what you are thinking. Not to mention, words have different meanings when translated. In some cultures, certain words have more emphasis in the native language than in others, as well as some words have double meanings. But sometimes words are just used to express the original idea you have, and if it you think of the process of turning your thinking into words as translating it into language, it just means that although some of the words may not fully express the idea you are trying to stress or communicate, it does keep the original message you had. And it is more effective on changing your ideas when communicating with others, as you can easily create meanings for non-existant words and still know what you are saying, while others will have no idea of what you are talking about. So language, rather than changing the ideas, changes the way we communicate them, and how our ideas are percieved by others. At least, that's what I think.
I am often conflicted when faced with the idea of whether or not language creates your speech and opinions, or whether your opinions are translated into language. I have always believed that language, be it any dialect, changes how what we say is communicated to others. I also believe that our thoughts are changed to fit the descriptions and restrictions that words and grammar provide. It is always difficult to find the perfect word that describes exactly what you are thinking. Not to mention, words have different meanings when translated. In some cultures, certain words have more emphasis in the native language than in others, as well as some words have double meanings. But sometimes words are just used to express the original idea you have, and if it you think of the process of turning your thinking into words as translating it into language, it just means that although some of the words may not fully express the idea you are trying to stress or communicate, it does keep the original message you had. And it is more effective on changing your ideas when communicating with others, as you can easily create meanings for non-existant words and still know what you are saying, while others will have no idea of what you are talking about. So language, rather than changing the ideas, changes the way we communicate them, and how our ideas are percieved by others. At least, that's what I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
