31 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2020
  2. Local file Local file
    Moravec - Dualism through Reductionism.pdf
    1
    1. macolasurdo1 06 Dec 2020
      You are in an operating room. A robot brain surgeon is in attendance. By your side is a potentially human equivalent computer, dormant for lack of a program to run. Your skull, but not your brain, is anesthetized. You are fully conscious.

      I do not like this opening of this article. i understand that the aurthor is trying to be creative and paint this picture for the reader, but this situations only seems to make his points seem silly and unrealistic. I also think it takes away from his legitamate points in the article.

    Annotators

  3. Local file Local file
    Paul Feyerabend - Against Method.pdf
    6
    1. macolasurdo1 06 Dec 2020
      Unscientific' procedures such as the herbal lore of witches and cunning men, the astronomy of mystics, the treatment of the ill in primitive societies are totally without merit.Sciencealonegives us a useful astronomy, an effective medicine, a trustworthy technology.

      I agree wth this point. "unscientific" procedures have become increasingly popular over time and the belief in pseudosciences have become larger. People see these ideals as legitimate when they really have no reason to belive what they claim.

    2. macolasurdo1 06 Dec 2020
      State and science, however, work closely to-ether. Immense sums are spent on the improvement of scientific ideas. Bastard subjects such as the philosophy of science which have not a single discovery to their credit profit from the boom of the sciences.

      I somewhat agree and disagree with this statement. I think that the state should work closely together with science. I think that there should be an insentive to carry out research and having the state fund and rpopel this kind of work is good. I disagree with the statement of how philosophy of science is not important and doesn't contribute anything. It tackles some very tuff questions within topics such as ethics and morals, Being a divider between what kind or research is ethical or not. Also, it helps in trying to determine legitimate research and data.

    3. macolasurdo1 06 Dec 2020
      Attacking the basic ideas evokes taboo reactions which are no weaker than are the taboo reactions in so-called "primitive societies."

      I found this point to be interesting. When somebodies personal ideals are attacked, they become very defensive and hostile. Almost like you are attacking their entire life and existence. This has a effect where people fall into ignorance and will cancel anything that disagrees with their ideals.

    4. macolasurdo1 06 Dec 2020
      Copernicanism

      the fundamental theoretical basis of modern astronomy, first demonstrated in the early 16th century by Copernicus, who showed that the earth and the other planets orbit around the sun.

    5. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with acceptedtheoriesis unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory.

      I don't really agree withthis point. The entire purpose of new hypothesis agreeing with accepted theories is ebcause thoes etheories are gerneally accepted and well defended. It is reasonable to question those theories, but unless you can privide and defend a better theory, those current theories are the best.

    6. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.

      I agree with this statement. By constantly raising questions and contradicitons, you investigat possibilities and strengthen the reasoning for the original concept. Or you amy find that the original concepts does not worl out after all or that there is something better.

    Annotators

  4. Local file Local file
    Methodological Naturalism vs
    4
    1. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Scott hopes that her proposal will put an end to the turf wars that have raged between science and religion.

      I do not think that this proposal will stop the debate between science and religion. When agressing certian things such as consiousness and the creation of the universe. Science and religion tend to conflict with their ideas beacuse topics like these are still unknown in terms of if therea re of the natural world or supernatural world.

    2. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Because creationist explanations appeal to supernatural objects and processes, they are not scientific, and thus do not belong in science classes

      I agree with this point. many of the thing taugh t which is considered science has to do with materialsticprocesses within our world. Even if it's something heavily debated like evolution, if still falls under a theory that adresses materialistic findings and belifes and is regared as science. Where many religious belifes deal with supernatural and non material things which des not fall under being scientific.

    3. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Because one can investigate the material world without believing that all there is is matter in motion, one can consistently be a scientist and a theist

      I agree with this point. you can stll study the material world and figure out how it works while still beliving in theistic processes since wwe really have no way of showing what can exist ourside of a=our material world.

    4. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      It says that scientists must limit their investigations to the material world and their explanations to material processes.

      I somewhat agree with this point. All investigation and research falls within our material world and universe. We as humans cannont go past the dimensions of the universe that we are confined to. Even if reality has many dimensions that make it up, there is really no way for ust to definitively study or understand them.

    Annotators

  5. Local file Local file
    The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism by Phillip E. Johnson | Articles | First Things
    5
    1. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Whatever the fossil recordmay suggest, those Cambrian animals had to evolve by accepted neo-Darwinian means, which is to say by material processes requiring nointelligent guidance or supernatural input.

      Is this posed as a problem? There is evidence and reasons that suggests that randome mutation and environmental pressure can direct the evolution of a species. Why is there a need for some kind of intelligent guidance or supernatural input to propel this process of evolution.

    2. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Lewontin laments that even scientists frequently cannot judge thereliability of scientic claims outside their elds of speciality, and have totake the word of recognized authorities on faith. “Who am I to believeabout quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar systemif not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what Dawkinsand Wilson tell them about evolution.” One major living scientic popularizer whom Lewontin does not trash ishis Harvard colleague and political ally Stephen Jay Gould. Just to ll outthe picture, however, it seems that admirers of Dawkins have as low anopinion of Gould as Lewontin has of Dawkins or Wilson. According to a1994 essay in the New York Review of Books by John Maynard Smith, thedean of British neo-Darwinists, “the evolutionary biologists with whom Ihave discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas areso confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who shouldnot be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against thecreationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving nonbiologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.”Lewontin fears that non-biologists will fail to recognize that Dawkins ispeddling pseudoscience; Maynard Smith fears exactly the same of Gould. If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confusedto be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say thatevolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions andcounterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting tha

      I think that this kind of argument is weak. Just to disregard a theory or idea because it seems to complex compared to the alternative and not even take the time to look into the theory further is nonsencical and shows that you never really wanted to listen to the argument in the forst place. Oakam;s razor does apply to the sense that the simpler process is right, but I belive this needs to be taken within reason. stating that just some higher being just made things a certian way is and since this explainatino is simple, therefore right is an intelectually lazy position. Whith that idea comes with an increadible amount of assumptions and contradictions. A better theory makes the least assumptions, has the least contradictions, and fits better wthin known universal and natural laws.

    3. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Although Lewontin wants the public to accept science as the only sourceof truth, he freely admits that mainstream science itself is not free of thehokum that Sagan so often found in fringe science.

      I agree with this statement. Many people blindly follow scientist that claim that they have found the truth. But a lot of main stream science availible to the public can be very skewed and may not be as solid as an argument as people belive it to be. It may just be something that people want to here, therefore they have an easier time accepting it.

    4. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Scientists may think they have good reasons for believing thatliving organisms evolved naturally from nonliving chemicals, or thatcomplex organs evolved by the accumulation of micromutations throughnatural selection, but having reasons is not the same as having proof. Ihave seen people, previously inclined to believe whatever “science says,”become skeptical when they realize that the scientists actually do seem tothink that variations in nch beaks or peppered moths, or the mereexistence of fossils, proves all the vast claims of “evolution.”

      Many of these reasons for evolution do have some sound evidence that backs it up. Would there be exceptions or certian anomilies? yes, thats what makes those cases and anomily, but what this process does is it best explains this process were we can get these complec structures and specialized traits a such a large variety while sticking to known natural laws. By just simply stating that we can never full trace back lineages, therefore there is no proof is a weak argument and doesn't hold and water.

    5. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny the bred varietiesof dogs, the variation of nch beaks, and similar instances within types

      Some people who belife within a faith or religion still belive in evolution. But there are many poeple who still belive the text of the bible for example literallly and denie evolution. when taking this approach, you need to account for all of the fossils that are found and are provent o be real animal . This is a position that the creationism museum takes where they try to show and explain how the animals from the fossils did exist during the time frame of the bible.

    Annotators

  6. Local file Local file
    Believing without evidence is always morally wrong | Aeon Ideas
    2
    1. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      he second argument Clifford provides to back his claim that it is always wrong to believeon insufficient evidence is that poor practices of belief-formation turn us into careless,credulous believers

      I do not agree with this point. you could argure that there are many belifes that have insufficient evidence such as religion, but they still create moral actions such as fundraisers or volunteer work.

    2. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      His first argument starts with the simple observation thatour beliefs influence our actions.

      I agree with the author's point. Pretty much all of our actions are due to our belifes. That is the entire reason why we do things. We think that doing a certian action is the correct thing to do, therefore we carry out that action since we percive it as the right thing.

    Annotators

  7. Local file Local file
    Blanshard - The Ethics of Belief.pdf
    6
    3. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      In the remaining years of his life this earnest and devoted man, whose name was Thomas Torquemada, put to death by fire some two thousand persons who could not believe as he did, many of them after prolonged torture. Was this wrong? Most of us would say that it was hideously and atrociously wrong.

      Something that I disagree with is how he is tightly linking belifes with actions and how he condems the belife because the action is immoral. I do no think that having belifs is immoral. everyone is entitled to their own belife and nobody can really regulate something like that. Its when individuals go to certian lengths an commit immoral acitions among others becuase they belive that the way others think is not correct. Trying to suppres the belifes people can hold is a slippery slope and can create a very dangerous restrictive society.

    4. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      To forgo truth needlessly is also wrong, and that is what we do when, with sufficient evidence before us, we decline to believe

      I agree with the author's point here. People tend to throw out information and ignore it if it clashes with a strong belief that they have.

    5. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      To think is to seek to know. In seeking knowledge, we assume that it is something worth having, something intrinsically good, that to miss it through ignorance or error is an evil, and that the more of it we have, the better.

      Why is is better to have more knowledge? why do we regard is as an act of evil if we pass knowledge worth having? does it make us feel safer knwoing that we have a better grasp of the world around us that before?

    6. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      There is one field, namely religion, where people do very commonly take belief to be a matter of moral concern.

      I agree with the authors point here. Religion and belief are constantly pushing out moral teachingand consers but there really is no basis as to why people should follow them other than beliving the consequenses of the religion when you do not act morally.

    Annotators

  8. Local file Local file
    Schick Template
    7
    1. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Churchof ficialswh o maketh e final decisionaboutwh ethe r a cure is a miraclean d if so, whe th er it is causedby Go d, app arentlyign ore theseotheralternatives.

      I agree with Michael's point here where he states how the possibility of the miracle happening by some other unatural force other that God can still be a possibility.

    2. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      personfull of religious zeal may seewhat he or she wantsto see, not whatis real ly the

      I agree with Michael's point here. Many people can be blined by confirmation bias and they many buckle to beliving that a certian event may be evidence towards their personal belife

    3. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      hedifficultiesof ru li ng ou t hoax ,fraud,or dec eptionare legend.We haveexcellent rea -son todayto believeth at somecon tem po raryfaithhealersuse fra ud and deceitto makeit seemthat theyhave paranormalpo wersan d are getting miracle curesand evenresurrecting peoplefromthe dea

      Michael is explaining the popular opinion that many of there popular miracles are just hoaxes and are faked in order to push the narative of a higher being that is capable of anything.

    4. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      “Would you makethat sameclaimaboutthe Resu r-rection?Willyourscien ce someday exp lain ho w ourLord rose fromthe dead?”the mon signorsai d, hi s vo icedrippingwithsarcasm

      This statement from the monsignor also conferms that he really isn't taking Michael's claims seriously. The resurection of Jesus is a difficult topic to tackle and use as an argument as there really isn;t any way to confirm the actuall resuraction of Jesus. There are many documented eye itness acount of Jesus actually dying on the cross and seeing Jesus after he has resurected, but there is not indication that people observed the action of him resuracting. So a lot of the faith of this claim relies on how well you can trust the word and documentation that is availible.

    5. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Good, good!I deemit regrettablethatBi shopThomas and otherssaw fit to use the resourcesof th isofficeto instigateheretical an d un orthodoxideas

      This already seems like a sign that Pagello was not going to take the investigation on miracles very seriously

    6. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      In particular, itwas discoveredthat a confidentialreport on the mira -cles was beingpr eparedby Michael Fla nagan,SJ, thewell kn own intellectualbloo dh ound,and th e wo rd wasout thatthe powerfulmenin th e Chu rch hierarchywereupset.

      Would this direct a lot of criticism towards Michael from the church since they found out that this investigation on mericals was sort of secret?

    7. macolasurdo1 05 Dec 2020
      Mike rememberedleav ing th e Bishop’sofficewi thmixedfeeli ngs. On the on e han d, th e challenge was ex -citing.He had alw ays had somereservations abo ut theCh urch’sdoctrineof miracles,and this assignmentwouldgive hi m the ti me an d stimulusto test his id

      This gives me the impression that Mike will conduct this investigation legitimately and seriously.

    Annotators