Week 9/24: Chapter 2 Question 3

I really enjoyed reading this chapter because it just opens our minds to so many possibilities and how different we can view things like the existence of God, gender differences, technology, and evolution. The concept I found the most interesting this week is the section called Artificial Intelligence, Reason, and Emotion on page 46. Artificial intelligence is defined as “the study of the computations that make it possible for machines to perceive, reason, and act.” The goal of AI is to build a machine than can think of complex things like emotions or making decisions.  Boss brings up the idea that computers surpass human intelligence to some extent like their ability to search databases in just seconds and share those databases with other computers through the Internet.  To determine if a computer can “think,” Alan Turing created the Turing test where a person is asked whether he or she is talking to a person or a machine. If the machine can indeed communicate like a person, then it has the intelligence of a human being.  No machines have actually passed this test.  Herbert A. Simon, the “father of artificial intelligence,” also believes that machines can have emotions. There is still debate whether such a thing could be possible. Some scientists believe that cyborgs, “humans who are partially computerized,” may happen in the future as they are already making progress in being able to meld computers and human beings.

Week 9/24: Chapter 2 Question 2

I am not convinced with Richard Dawkins’s claims. Dawkins mostly questioned Aquinas’s proofs and did not really provide any evidence that supports his side. He rejected Aquinas’s views but did not disprove them, making his overall argument weak and unconvincing. Dawkins almost has a tone of offensiveness or obnoxiousness in some parts of this excerpt that is quite off-putting and unprofessional for arguing something serious. He also overly praises Charles Darwin’s work at the end. If Aquinas were alive today, he would probably still stand by what he believes in. I feel like he wouldn’t argue with Dawkins by using Dawkins’s claims as tools for refutation but would instead argue his own side with his own perceptions.

Actually, I kind of believe in both evolution and God. I accept the idea of evolution but I am also a Catholic who prays every day. Nobody really knows anyway, right? Are ghosts real? How about aliens? If you believe in evolution and not God, then continue with discovering more scientific evidence that supports your side. If you believe in God and not evolution, then continue professing your faith. The best thing we can probably do is just respect each other’s beliefs and move on.  

Week 9/24: Chapter 2 Question 1

I can identify memorization as one of my strengths. I can look at an image and remember it quite easily later. I also come up with mnemonic devices like acronyms or pictures that really help me with exams or simply remembering things. This strength stems from taking science courses since science, although constantly changing, is pretty much fixed once proven and so memorizing concepts is effective in learning those concepts. Last semester, I took physiology which is the hardest course I have had to take so far. That class required a lot of memorization of bodily processes and functions that were extensive and detailed down to the smallest units of the body. Having the ability to memorize, and I mean actually learn things by heart and remembering without struggling, comes in handy in learning a course like physiology. I’m currently majoring in pre-nursing where that skill would also be helpful. In studying nursing, we have to remember a lot of things like drugs and dosages. In actually doing the job, we have to decide and remember things quickly. I think the reasoning that best applies to nursing is determining the conditions a patient has and then figuring out what that illness or diagnosis is. We have to know certain symptoms and conditions and conclude from there what to do after.

Week 9/10: Question 3

This week, the concept I found the most useful was the section on causal arguments. Although straightforward and quite easy to comprehend, this section was helpful in breaking down the concept and explaining how to use causal reasoning effectively. As mentioned in the book, a causal argument is “an argument that claims something is (or is not) the cause of something else.” It goes on further explaining how we can determine what really causes something or how. If we conclude that something is the cause but really is not, we are actually committing a fallacy and so we need to be careful in this kind of argument. A subsection explains what correlations are. It is when “two events occur together regularly at rates higher than probability.” A positive correlation is when the chances of an event increases, the chances of another event also increases. A negative correlation is when the chances of an event increases, the other decreases. We should also use correlations with caution because they may not always be reliable. Finally, causal arguments should follow the following criteria: (1) the evidence should be reliable, (2) there should not be fallacies, (3) the data should be current and up-to-date, and (4) the conclusion should logically follow the premises.

Week 9/10: Chapter 7 Question 2

Antonia Novello used cause and effect inductive reasoning by first using the statistics of how the number of teens and children smoking was increasing when the Joe Camel cigarette ads were marketed in the late eighties. Because of that statistic, she assumed that there was a problem with the increasing chances of smoking. She then took action by educating students at schools and banning alcohol and cigarette ads that were directed towards children and teenagers. In other words, the cause was that the cigarette ads were causing more teens and children to smoke. Her conclusion or the effect was if those advertisements were to continue, more children will probably smoke. Therefore, keeping those ads out of sight from teens would probably lower the number of teens smoking.  She used the cause and effect inductive reasoning in preventing smoking amongst the youth by looking at the statistics first which were up-to-date and reliable. Her conclusion was also logical and thus, she achieved in lowering that statistic.