The Role of Galileo's Daughter

So basically, anybody can recognize that Galileo made huge scientific advancements at a time that wasn't quite ready for these advancements to be made. Accepting that the Earth moves around the Sun was not exactly high up on the Roman Catholic Church's agenda. However, Galileo still deserves major props for making and recording observations that we still accept today. 

 

With that being said, praise is still due to Galileo's daughter, without whom Galileo's work would never have been possible. This wonderful woman was somehow able to completely take care of her father, only having contact through letters. She managed his finances, made and sent him medication, made sure he was fed, and went on to encourage and even edit his book. Not only did she keep him alive and as well as possible, she also kept him doing what he did best. What is then truly remarkable, is that (even as a nun) when he was confined to his house, she still supported him as wholly as she had before. I couldn't imagine that she would even feel opposition towards the Church, let alone write anything to that effect, yet she still gave him the same support. 

annnnnnnnd thats all I got from that lovely NOVA movie (drips of sarcasm fall to the bottom of the page), I will add more later! 

Taking Issue With Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas was crucial for the continuation of philosophy in Western civilization. Through his Five Ways, Aquinas reintroduced reason to Christianity to pick up where philosophy left off. If Aquinas didn't work it out, the BIble would've continued to prevent all of Western civilization from observing, and trying to understand our world. While I do grant him this, I cannot help but criticize his Five Ways, especially the First Way. 

Within this first proposal, Aquinas is addressing motion, and the way it works. Primarily, he states that nothing can move itself. If this was true, very little would exist. People move themselves and animals move themselves. Oooooo, Tommy, I think you have a little problem, but lets try to bear with him for a little longer. Next, he claims that if every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover. Alright, I'll let this one slide after I already disproved what this is based on. Aquinas then states that this first mover is the Unmoved Mover, named God. Thats where I must attack again. Wait, why God? Why not, say, a bell pepper? What if it was a bell pepper, and for arguments sake, lets just say that it was. There would STILL be a problem. This is a HUGE leap! What sufficient evidence do we have that the chicken came before the egg? Nobody can just go jumping to conclusions and introducing a completely unrelated third party. This argument of Aquinas', would be like me saying that the chicken came before the egg because of a roll of toilet paper. It is random to say the least!  

For these issues, I believe the First Way to be the worst of Aquinas' five proofs. They are all quite weak and are from nowhere inside the ballpark, but if it got philosophy rolling again, I can't say I despise the guy. 

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

Okay, lets face it, accepting science is just as much of a leap of faith as religion is. However, the difference is crucial. Religion is personal, it appeals to what every human being wants: acceptance in our universe. Science, on the other hand, is purely factual and spends no time explaining its relevance to the individual. Herein lies the problem: do I believe in Intelligent Design, or do I accept that we evolved from monkeys? Personally, if I wasn't allowed any gray areas, I would have to choose the latter.  With that being said, claiming either of these options as the whole truth would be ludicrous. 

While I acknowledge that teaching Darwin's Evolution in schools is not the greatest idea (due to the lack of evidence NOT being recognized), I also think that teaching Intelligent Design in the same manner would not be right. For instance, Intelligent Design advocates have claimed that the complexity of an organism is evidence for the existence of God. Wait, this is supposed to be self-evident? Well, what if it isn't? Are they going to phone the inquisition on me? There are far too many leaps involved in this version of creationism for it to be taken seriously by any true scientist. These claims cannot be tested, and they propose no new hypotheses unique to them. At least Darwin had SOME support to his claims. 

I'm not proposing that somebody conjure up an accurate description answering all the big questions immediately (although it would be nice), I am merely pointing out that teaching anything as fact when it isn't is stupid. Now THAT, Intelligent Design team, should be self-evident. We shouldn't be teaching Darwin's Theory of Evolution the way we do now (as everything but a theory). We shouldn't be proposing creationism stories, yes that is all they are, to be taught in schools. We should be laying all of it out, take it or leave it, for students to decide for themselves as soon as they are able. Of course this plan of mine is assuming that we have also figured out a way to ensure that we have prepared students to make their own EDUCATED decisions, but that is a completely separate issue. 

Hitler's terrible arguments started WHAT?!?!?

Unfortunately, Adolf Hitler was quite serious when writing his "Mein Kempf". The issue (or issues) with that are that he could not stop with the fallacies. In almost every paragraph he creates a history, a world, without any true argument. Although the fallacies are far-fetched to begin with, even if taken as true, they are as truthfully false as he supports them. In case you didn't quite pick up on that, his defense is weak (if there at all). Just so I don't make the same mistake, I happen to have an example; I have something to actually support my argument that Hitler made it all up with no defense. In Chapter 11, he says: 

"Here, of course, we encounter the objection of the modern pacifist, as truly Jewish in its effrontery as it is stupid! 'Man's role is to overcome nature!' " 

Setting aside the overt racism (yes, I do realize that's the point but bear with me) Hitler simply states something without any foundation and without any evidence. This quote is an example of a hasty generalization in that it is a conclusion based on insufficient evidence that is dripping with prejudice. This particular excerpt is subtle (to say the most) by comparison to his countless other fallacies. Adolf Hitler justified the torture and slaughter of a people (a race he created) with, if you will, no justification. This is why I am grateful for being taught philosophy, learning to detect fallacies. Future generations need to be prepared to understand that people like Hitler are not only full of it, but have no real argument. 

Deductive Logic (first blog...YAY!)

We all use deductive reasoning on a daily basis, but we may not be aware that we are using it. The three main types of deductive logic are: syllogisms, modus ponens, and modus tollens. Personally, I find syllogisms to be the hardest to understand and test for validity and/or truth. Modus ponens and modus tollens are much easier for me to distinguish. Modus ponens state:

If p, then q

p

Therefore, q

Modus tollens, on the other hand, are the negative of modus ponens, so they state:

If p, then q

not q

Therefore, not p

Here is an example of how they differ:

Modus Ponen:

If Emily is a buttface, then I will stick my tongue out at her.

Emily is a buttface.

Therefore I will stick my tongue out at her.

VERSUS

Modus Tollen

If Emily is a buttface, then I will stick my tongue out at her.

I will not stick out my tongue at her

Therefore, she is not a buttface. 

In a modus ponen, the q term is being concluded, but in a modus tollen, the the p term is being concluded. While they both start with a statement including both the p and q terms, their deductive logic and hence their conclusions take different paths.