Category: Logic

The basic understanding of logic and design is that processes should be presented in a way that demonstrates certain algorithms, i.e. the description of a process should be precise and should contain detailed instructions on what to do in each of possible causes. This is needed to ensure that machines can read these instructions; however, logical instructions are important in processes conducted by humans, too, because they provide comprehensive and structured descriptions of workflow. Two types of logic and design tools are flowcharts and pseudocode; also, the way they work together can be discussed.

Flowcharts are diagrams that present processes and workflow in detailed, step-by-step way. In these diagrams, several types of elements of a process are recognized; the main ones are activity and decision. To distinguish the former from the latter, activities are presented in rectangular boxes, while decisions are presented in diamond-shaped boxes. Each decision element has a certain number of options (usually “yes” and “no”), and activities are indicated for each of the options by connecting the decision box to an activity box with an error. Also, decisions and activities can be accompanied by comments or annotations. According to Xinogalos (2013), flowcharts have been heavily used in introductory computer science courses to explain to learners what algorithms are because flowcharts are examples of programming thinking in which processes are described with precision and without ambiguity.

Pseudocode is a method of presenting the way a computer program or a different algorithm works; however, instead of being strictly structured according to the rules of a certain programming language, pseudocode is informal. Informal structuring is needed to avoid technical aspects of building algorithms and simplify the representation of a problem-solving process. When teaching about pseudocode, educators stress the logic behind breaking a process into a series of steps instead of stressing syntax standards. Pseudocode resembles codes in actual programming languages; therefore, different types of pseudocode exist that are similar to different programming languages. Pseudocode is more intelligible than machine code and intended to be read by humans rather than machines.

Flowcharts and pseudocode can work together. Both are forms of presenting the task-solving process in a structured manner. However, Andrzejewska et al. (2016) found that the use of flowcharts and pseudocode can be challenging because a lot of time is needed to learn how to create them and to design them. If the task is simple, more time is spent on presenting the process of solving it in the form of a flowchart or pseudocode than the solving process itself takes. However, it can be argued that, in solving complicated tasks, flowcharts and pseudocode can be helpful because they break the process into certain steps and help problem solvers see how the process should be approached, what weaknesses exist, and how the process can be improved if there is a need for improvement. The same processes can be presented in both forms; however, flowcharts are graphical and may take a lot of space on paper (also, additional software may be needed to create them), while pseudocode is textual and takes less space but can be more confusing and less intelligible than the visual representation in a flowchart to a person who is not familiar with programming languages at all.

Both flowcharts and pseudocode are methods of presenting processes in a structured manner. While the former is usually more spacious, it may also be more intelligible for some because it is visual; the latter takes less time to be built but may require more training to be mastered, used, and understood.

References

Andrzejewska, M., Stolińska, A., Błasiak, W., Pęczkowski, P., Rosiek, R., Rożek, B.,…Wcisło, D. (2016). Eye-tracking verification of the strategy used to analyse algorithms expressed in a flowchart and pseudocode. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 1981-1995.

Xinogalos, S. (2013). Using flowchart-based programming environments for simplifying programming and software engineering processes. In Global Engineering Education Conference (pp. 1313-1322). Berlin, Germany: IEEE.

According to the concepts introduced by Martin Buber, I cannot be regarded as a separate, self-sufficient notion. Rather, it can exist either as a part of “I-It” and “I-Thou”. While considering the concept of “I-It”, specific attention should be paid to the perception of the self through It unless a person is not involved in relation with another thing or object. The existential philosopher makes an interesting explanation of I-It interaction while contemplating the tree.

An individual can image tree; he/she can also sense its movement, as well as internal process within a tree. All these perceptions are confined to It until an individual is involved in relation with the tree. At this stage, the I concept is closely tied to Thou. Therefore, referring to “I-Thou” concept means endowing the three with symbolic and emotional meaning (Buber 2002). It implies associating different spiritual values with the tree, which is another spatial dimension perceived by an individual.

For Buber, “I-Thou” is compared to dialogue because an individual associates a set of particular values, feelings and senses with Thou or You. Buber refers to this duality as to the entity that cannot exist separately from each other. In contrast, Sartre also presents his own outlook on perceiving the self and identity, but in a different way. In particular, the French philosopher is more concerned with the dynamic of other as an ontological dimension of the individual’s self. Therefore, his conception of self is confined to apprehension and objectification.

Second distinction between Buber and Sartre’s concepts consists in directness of relations between the self and its dimensions. In particular, Buber insists on the idea of direction connection between I and Thou and, therefore, an a person sais I, he/she always implies Thou (Buber 1958). Sartre’s ideas are different: the concept of other is always in conflict with the self. It implies the possibility of placing the self in different conditions.

Thus, a person avoids embracing his/her subjectivity and identifies him/herself with ‘look’ for the other. Because of the rejection of the serf as an object, a conflict arises, which contradicts the theory of Buber who believes that I and Thou could not conflict because I reflects Thou and vice versa. More importantly, I can affect Thou and Thou can influence I.

Because the relational dialogue is often represented as a love dialogue according to Martin Buber, people often relate to other people not because they constitute objects, but because they are spoken (Buber 1966). In contrast to “I-It” concept according to which people are bound by being to others, “I-Thou” concept represents the spoken relationship between individuals (Buber 1966). This kind of response contradicts the conception of Sartre’s being for other because it excludes the possibility of being involved into considering others through the self.

In conclusion, the concepts represented by both philosophers are quite antagonistic because they reflect two opposite sides of debates on identity and self. In particular, Buber is more concerned with entity and wholeness of an individual whole responding to the world whereas Sartre focuses on alienation as the basic concept of considering the self and other dynamics. In addition, specific attention should also be paid to subjectivity and objectivity of addressing the issue of I, Thou and Self, which are closely related to relational dialogue.

Reference List

Buber, M 2002, A Conversation’ in Meetings, Routledge, London.

Buber, M 1966, The Way of Response, Schocken Books, New York.

Buber, M 1958, I and Thou, Scribner’s’, New York.

Women’s logic is a field of research surrounded by many stereotypes shown in culture. Firstly, it is separated from male logic, portrayed as imperfect compared to the opposite gender. Secondly, it is associated with stereotypical patterns of behavior associated with hysteria or the inability to use complex technologies. It is necessary to analyze this question from a scientific point of view and to understand whether the thought processes of different genders are different.

Logic is the ability to make a decision, reason correctly, solve various problems, and draw the right conclusions. It is considered that men’s logic is based on thoughts and women’s – on emotions (Brett & Wilton, 2020). Men are guided by cognition when solving problems and tasks, and women are dominated by intuitive perception. Using magnetic resonance imaging, scientists studied how people of different genders solved the same problems. The results showed that the reason was not only in the peculiarities of psychology but mainly in the different structures of the brain (Brett & Wilton, 2020). In particular, it was found that men and women differ in the ratio of gray and white matter, although they might have the same intellectual abilities (Brett & Wilton, 2020). For example, in the areas responsible for logical analysis and processing of abstract information, men have approximately six times more gray matter than women.

Besides, there are other differences between male and female brains, which explain some peculiarities of thinking of different genders. When women are solving logic tasks, mainly the areas located in the frontal lobe of the brain are activated (Brett & Wilton, 2020). These are the areas where the centers of control over movements, emotions, and speech are located. The particularity of brain structure is the reason for the high emotionality of women and their typical feature, which is a tendency to make sensual-emotional decisions rather than logical ones. In men, the logical centers are closely connected with the zones responsible for processing external stimuli. This evidence explains that men tend to weigh all factors more carefully and make well-founded logical decisions (Brett & Wilton, 2020). However, it is important to emphasize that this denotes only different ways of thinking and logic but does not indicate an intellectual advantage of any gender.

Reference

Brett, C., and Wilton, L. (2020). Handbooks of research on online discussion-based teaching methods. IGI Global.

The successful implementation of the proposed project depends on the stakeholders’ ability to be involved and focus on the anticipated short-term and long-term goals. The manager in charge will focus on the best practices to monitor and coordinate operations (Torralbas-Fernández & Calcerrada-Gutiérrez, 2016). The logic model presented below outlines the major aspects, strengths, and barriers that all participants will need to consider to ensure that positive results and recorded, thereby maximizing the experiences of more victims of domestic violence in Memphis, Tennessee.

Simplified Logic Model

Monitoring Plan

A powerful monitoring plan is necessary to ensure that this project is executed successfully. Within the first year, the relevant managers will examine the ongoing construction activities until positive results are recorded. The pioneers will make sure that the right professionals are identified, recruited, and equipped with the necessary skills. Such leaders will monitor how potential beneficiaries are selected or identified. The team will go further to allocate the available resources effectively and request different partners and participants to offer timely reports (Nies & McEwen, 2015). These measures are critical to ensure that the program is within the budgetary allocations. The managers will focus on how different activities are completed and match them with the original time plan. Such initiatives will support the entire program and deliver positive results.

Policy and Organizational Strengths

The intended NGO seeks to capitalize on the established policies in an attempt to achieve the intended goals. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1996 remains a landmark law that will support the outlined operations. Different stakeholders and politicians in this country focus on emerging ideas to prevent cases of domestic abuse. The criminal justice system goes further to promote similar initiatives and strategies aimed at meeting the demands of many victims of domestic violence. These policy ideas will make it possible for this organization to get the relevant paperwork and licenses to start operating successfully (Nies & McEwen, 2015).

Minimum hurdles will be encountered since the NGO seeks to improve the experiences of many victims of abuse in accordance with the established legal frameworks.

Several strengths explain why this organization will achieve the outlined short-term and long-term aims. First, the number of victims of domestic violence has continued to rise in the United States. These individuals lack the relevant support and care, thereby being unable to lead high-quality lives (Torralbas-Fernández & Calcerrada-Gutiérrez, 2016). The decision to introduce such an NGO will attract more people and make it successful. Second, many professionals specialized in the areas of human support and social work are available in the selected region. This NGO will not encounter any obstacle while trying to recruit and employ competent people who can meet the changing needs of the intended beneficiaries.

Third, Memphis has many attorneys and well-wishers who can be involved to provide adequate legal support to the affected individuals. This can improve the healing process and eventually make it possible for the NGO to continue providing timely and high-quality to the greatest number of women. Fourth, the United States has numerous NGOs focusing on a wide range of social problems, including homelessness, domestic abuse, child welfare, and orphaned individuals (Nies & McEwen, 2015). The success of such agencies is a clear indication that the proposed organization will consider the importance of replicating such models and eventually record positive results. Fifth, the present world has numerous resources and opportunities that can make this origination successful. The emergence of modern technologies will make it possible for the targeted agency to advertise its operations and attract more beneficiaries.

Possible Barriers

The emergence of certain barriers means that the intended NGO might take long before recording meaningful results or meeting the demands of more citizens. The first outstanding challenge that can make this organization incapable of achieving its aims is the absence of adequate funds and resources. Nonetheless, the managers and pioneers anticipate that the requested assistance will be provided in order to create new opportunities for supporting the needs of more victims of violence in Memphis. The second barrier to effectiveness performance of this agency is the fact that many women would be afraid to seek help even after going through violence (Torralbas-Fernández & Calcerrada-Gutiérrez, 2016). This weakness explains why some of them only speak out when things are no longer controllable. Sometimes this outcome is only recoded or identified after the affected woman loses her life. This barrier might make it impossible for this organization to attract more female citizens and benefit from the available shelter.

The third predicted barrier is the fact that some delays might be recorded depending on the manner in which materials are acquired or supplied. Some challenges might emerge such as increased costs that might expand the proposed budget. This form of barrier will have negative impacts on the success of the entire project (Nies & McEwen, 2015). Consequently, the involved stakeholders and managers will have to remain focused and consider the importance of having a contingency plan. Such an approach will neutralize these projected barriers and eventually make the project successful.

Organizational and Community Theories

The first model that seems to support how those in charge will support the attributes and goals of this project is organizational theory. The leaders will consider the best strategies to ensure that all individuals relate well, solve emerging challenges, and implement additional practices to make the program successful (Torralbas-Fernández & Calcerrada-Gutiérrez, 2016). This framework will create a new opportunity for allocating resources, hiring and guiding all the participants, and eventually making sure that all workers focus on the needs of the identified victims. Such an achievement will become a new opportunity for tackling cases of domestic violence in Memphis.

The concept of systems theory goes further to describe and explain how this NGO fits perfectly in the wider community. Since it focuses on the challenges many people face, chances are high that it will become admirable and benefit from the support of the existing government agencies and well-wishers. All stakeholders will be willing to solve emerging challenges while at the same time encouraging women to seek the right help from the NGO (Nies & McEwen, 2015). This development will eventually make the agency the best shelter for many troubled and abused women in the selected society. The leaders will consider additional ways of changing the situation and making it possible for more women to achieve their potential. These attributes reveal that the NGO will have increased chances of achieving the outlined short-term and long-term objectives.

References

1. Nies, M. A., & McEwen, M. (2015). Community/Public health nursing: Promoting the health of populations (6th ed.). Saunders/Elsevier.
2. Torralbas-Fernández, A., & Calcerrada-Gutiérrez, M. (2016). Using primary care to address violence against women in intimate partner relationships: Professional training needs. MEDICC Review, 18(4), 38-41. Web.

As a rule, two key types of quantitative data are identified (Maimon & Rokach, 2010, p. 102). There is discrete data, which can only take a certain value. The number of people in a crowd can be an example of discrete data in an academic study. In addition to the discrete data, there is also the continuous data, which is characterized by its ability to take both certain and fractional values. According to the definition provided above, a person’s age or a shoe size can be viewed as an example of continuous data.

As far as the types of quantitative data required to show the results of an intervention are concerned, it can be suggested that the information including the grades that the students receive for their performance, as well as the percentage of their improvement rates over the course of a specific time period, can be viewed as quite legitimate for its further use in an educational research. Apart from measuring the students’ the grades, there are other ways to incorporate quantitative data in the study, however for example an analysis of a specific intervention process in education may be incorporated into the research design (Stringer, 2013). Therefore, continuous data is obviously an essential part of any intervention process. To be more exact, the data in question will be required at the beginning and the end of each intervention process so that an assessment of the students in question cold be carried out and that the information regarding the efficacy of the aforementioned intervention could be obtained. Needless to say, the elements of personal information of the study participants, such as their age, must also be incorporated into the study and the analysis of the research results (Hays & Singh, 2011, p. 346).

However, it would be wrong to claim that an educational intervention does not presuppose the use of any discrete data at all. Quite on the contrary, it is essential to be able to identify the number of the research participants, as well as the quantity of tests to be run in the course of the study, the amount of samples to be taken in order to locate the research results, etc. (Stringer, 2013). Therefore, claiming that one of the data type is more important for the research outcomes than the other one does not seem legitimate – instead, one must mention that each quantitative data type plays an important role in the course of the research and must be incorporated into the latter accordingly.

Carrying out the basic tests allowing to define the difference in the students’ performance rates over time, though, is not enough to claim that the intervention used in the course of the research has turned out to be successful;. It is also necessary to incorporate the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy concept in order to test the effects of the intervention. According to the logical fallacy in question, the very fact of the change does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the intervention designed for addressing the issue (Cox, 2006, p. 120). To identify the links between the change, should any occur, and the intervention steps, it will be necessary to identify all links between every single variable in the research including both dependent and independent ones, and test the effects of each variable separately, thus, locating the research outcomes.

Reference List

Cox, L. A. (2006). Quantitative health risk analysis methods: Modeling the human health impacts of antibiotics used in food animals. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Hays, D. G. & Singh, A. A. (2011). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Maimon, O. & Rokach, L. (2010). Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Human beings are endowed with a unique ability; that of being able to reason rationally and logically. However, man’s reasoning is from time to time characterized by errors in reasoning, particularly when presenting arguments (Moore & Parker, 2007, p. 40).

Most instances, these errors in reasoning may follow a common pattern hence forming logical fallacies. There are hundreds of logical fallacies that can be identified depending on their different patterns. Ambiguous claims and the two types of fallacies which originate from problems with ambiguity are composition and division.

Ambiguity in reasoning has been identified as one of the most common fallacy that people commit in their day to day engagements. A statement is said to be ambiguous if it can be interpreted in different ways. Ambiguity is characterized by the use of words which ordinarily have more than one meaning. In most instances, ambiguous claims are not obvious. Studies in ambiguity have found that differences in definitions of key claims are at the center of ambiguous statements (Moore & Parker, 2007, p. 48).

There are different types of ambiguity. The first one is the semantic ambiguity which is characterized by the presence of an ambiguous word or phrase. For instance, if a person says that the average price of a house in the city is $100,000, it is ambiguous because of the word, average. Semantically ambiguous statements can be corrected by replacing the ambiguous word with an unambiguous word or phrase.

Syntactic ambiguity is the second type of ambiguity and is normally identified by the presence of ambiguous grammar usage or the general structure of the statement. For instance, if someone says that the police saw the man with binoculars, the statement is syntactically ambiguous. The statement implies that the police were searching for a man who had binoculars or that they used binoculars to locate the man they were looking for.

Syntactic ambiguity can be eliminated by restructuring the sentence and the punctuations to enhance clarity. The third type of ambiguity is referred to as the grouping ambiguity which is similar to semantic ambiguity. This ambiguity arises when a claim may be correct in a general sense but false when taken in part (Hurley, 2007, p. 71).

For example, if someone claims that secretaries make more money than doctors, it is subject to grouping ambiguity (Moore & Parker, 2007, p. 52). It may be true that secretaries combined make more money than doctors as a group. However, individual secretaries do not make more money than individual doctors. Hence, the ambiguity of this sentence is in the use of the words “secretaries” and “doctors”.

There are two major types of fallacies that emanate from problems of ambiguity. These are the fallacies of composition and division. They are both characterized by errors in distinguishing the parts from the whole of a claim. The fallacy in such claim is in believing that what is true of a group of things taken collectively is obviously true of the same things taken individually (Hurley, 2007, p. 83).

For instance, a claim that since there has been a series of accidents involving vehicles is as a result of all drivers being careless suffers from the fallacy of division. On the other hand, some statements are true when taken individually but not when taken as a group or collectively.

This fallacy is referred to as the fallacy of composition (Moore & Parker, 2007, p. 53). For instance, a claim that since a ticket to watch a soccer match in an 80,000-sitter stadium was being sold at $2 implied that the organizers were not intent on collecting a lot of money suffers from the fallacy of composition-what is true of an individual is not necessarily true for the individuals taken collectively.

Furthermore, to conclude that individual athletes constituting a winning team in the short relay are the fastest 100 meters runners/sprinters is a fallacy. This claim suffers from the fallacy of division. The success of a team in a relay race depends mostly on the strategy of arranging the team such that the subsequent participants who are handed the baton will always have a time advantage at take off as well as to overtake.

The ways of minimizing, if not eliminating the semantic and syntactic ambiguities have been discussed. Fallacies arising from ambiguity together with their relevant examples have also been presented. Human being’s reasoning pattern, therefore, can only be made clearer if ambiguity in arguments and claims are eliminated.

References

Hurley, P. J. (2007). A succinct introduction to logic and fallacies (10^th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth, 71-85

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2007). Critical Thinking (8^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 39-64

Introduction

Prior to evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of reason as a way of knowing, we should first discuss such concept as knowledge, because even now philosophers and scholars have not come to the agreement as to this issue. Overall, it can be defined as image or perception of reality, which is subjective in its very core. The question arises how a human being can acquire these experiences and whether they are always valid. Certainly, reason is primarily based on the information, which we obtain by means of our senses, such as vision, hearing, smell, taste and touch. However, it should be taken into consideration that our senses are often inclined to deceive us. Psychologists argue that every person, irrespective of his or her mental faculties, may fall victim to illusion, which means that logic and reason may sometimes rely on distorted data or facts about reality. It does not mean that he or she may suffer from some mental disorder even a sane person is liable to illusion and there are certain mechanisms, which produce such an effect. Although, it is argued that reason operates only with evidence-based facts, these postulates are derived from our senses thus, rationalism may is prone to error as well. Rational way of thinking and knowing can be successful only under the condition that a human being completely rejects the idea of unquestionable or absolute truth.

Main body

Philosophers have always attempted to find a way of knowing the truth. Among them, we can mark out the famous French mathematician and thinker Rennes Descartes. He attached primary importance to reason or logic as a way of knowing. In his work “Discourse on the Method”, he formulated the major principles of rationalism. According to Descartes, a person should always “avoid hasty judgment and prejudice” (Descartes, 11). In this respect, it is quite possible for us to say that, such approach is by far the most important feature of rationalism. The famous philosopher believes that a human being must never accept anything for granted, unless, he or she knows it to be true. Probably, this is the major strength of reason as a way of knowing because it eliminates bias, prejudice.

Furthermore, we may speak about the so-called “subliminal persuasion”, which means that a human being has a predefined image of reality, in other words, we usually see only what we expect to see. As a rule, people try to adapt facts to their theories, and it contradicts scientific principles. Reason rejects such doctrine, ideas, expressed by Rene Descartes radically changed main scientific methods of collecting and analyzing data, especially, if we are speaking about mathematics and natural science. Yet, it may not be always applicable for arts, because they appeal mostly to our emotions, and they are not a subject to rational analysis. Apart, from that mathematics or natural sciences usually give room only for one correct answer or interpretation, whereas human sciences allow multiple interpretations, even the most questionable argument cannot be fully refuted or overlooked.

In the vast majority of cases, people base their judgment or beliefs on stereotypes, deeply rooted in their consciousness; moreover, they do not even intend to question them. Rationalism compels us to have another look at these absolute truths, which, actually, have never existed. Nonetheless, such interpretation of knowledge may be the major weakness of rationalism and reason, because a person, who adheres to such principles, is often unable to accept views of other people. He or she rejects them, just because their validity has not been proven. It is of the crucial importance to be open for discussion and counter-argument.

In addition to that, rationalism is opposed to doubt; reason can accept only unquestionable, indisputable facts, everything that raises doubts, should be regarded as false. On the one hand, such way of knowing may be very effective, because it gives certain level of certainty, though it also makes us unable to look at reality in different light. For instance, a great number of people attempt to put forward the following argument; usually they say “I do not believe in it, because I have never seen it”. It seems that such viewpoint is based on a very common misconception. There are many phenomena, which cannot be detected by our senses, yet, it does not necessarily mean, they do not exist.

To a certain degree, rational thinking is aimed at analyzing the relationships between the cause and consequence. Yet, it should be borne in mind that this connection is not always clear. In this regard, one may easily say that modern science often labels something as false, just because, the origins of the phenomenon are not obvious. Moreover, in many cases, such approach only hinders the development of scientific thought. For instance, many scholars believe that such notion as telepathy is inconceivable just because they cannot trace it origins. As a rule, they apply the principles of Descartes by saying that until it is proven to be true, they cannot accept it. It seems that such doctrine, though it seems a very prudent one, often leads to a deadlock, which is almost impossible to break. It appears that this is the major disadvantages or reason as a way of knowing and thinking. Those people, who believe that reason is superior to emotions and feelings, deny everything that cannot be discussed or analyzed by means of rational thinking. Moreover, they begin to despise everything, which is beyond their understanding. Many philosophers or thinkers warn people against such attitude towards knowledge, because it leads to intolerance.

Overall, it should be mentioned that there is an age-old conflict between reason and emotion; they are often regarded incompatible with each other. For example, according to Aristotle, we have to set aside all our feelings and emotions, because they prevent us from thinking clearly or rationally to be more exact. Naturally, one cannot deny that in several cases, emotions cannot be trusted, because they may give rise to prejudice and bias. Nonetheless, it should be taken into account that both reason and emotions are based on the information that we receive from our senses. Thus, both of them can be erroneous because human mind tends to misinterpret reality.

To some extent rational way of knowing seeks some axiom, the fact, which is undeniable, irrefutable. There has always been a heated debate among philosophers whether such axiom exists. For example, Socrates and Plato did not believe in the existence of such unquestionable truth, whereas representatives of Enlightenment tried to elaborate and prove this concept. Even now, this conflict is not fully resolved. Probably, it would be more prudent to view knowledge as a relative concept that depends on the personality.

In his work, “The Critique of Pure Reason” Immanuel Kant argues that there is the so-called a priory knowledge or absolute truths; thus, they can lay foundations for effective reasoning (Kant, 22). They become cornerstones of our logic and thinking, however, while speaking about such “a priory knowledge”, the philosopher usually refers to mathematics, geometry, physics, and other natural sciences, but there are other areas of knowledge, such ethics and art. A rational action may not be morally permissible and vice versa. Kant tried to use reason for developing moral principles, but on the whole, his ideas resemble Christian or probably it would be better to say religious tenets, which rely on emotions and feelings.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is quite possible to arrive at the conclusion that a human being should employ four ways of knowing such reason, perception, emotion, and language; otherwise, his or her world-perception may be significantly distorted. As regards, reason, in particular, it should be pointed out that its major strength is elimination of prejudice and bias. Nevertheless, such way of thinking has certain disadvantages, namely, it can makes a person very limited, unable to accept views of the opponent, just because they are not evidence-based. Overall, the applicability of reason greatly depends upon the area of knowledge, for instance, such approach to knowledge is very effective for natural sciences or mathematics, though, it may not always be useful in ethics and arts.

Bibliography

Immanuel Kant, John Miller Dow Meiklejohn. “Critique of Pure Reason”. Prometheus Books, (1990).

Rene Descartes. “A Discourse on Method”. (2006). Web.

Introduction

It should be noted that David L. Hull, Karl Popper, and Percy Bridgman have contributed greatly to the existing body of knowledge. Their works have been reviewed by many other scholars, and they are appreciated by members of the scientific community despite the criticism of some of the texts. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the writings of these three scholars and generate three questions that can be discussed in class.

Discussion

The main query that the author will strive to address is related to operations and their ontological status. Operationism is a philosophical domain, which has been put forward by Bridgman (1927). He suggested a proposition that the meanings of scientific concepts were synonymous to the multitude of operations by which their content was determined. In particular, the philosopher argued that the experimental procedures of a phenomenon represented such operations (Bridgman, 1927).

Consequently, his idea was concluded to an understanding that the meaning of physical concepts should be determined by the totality of experimental operations. Nevertheless, this approach could not be universally applied to all scientific and theoretical knowledge.

Notably, scholars have repeatedly stressed the importance of discovery operations. However, as a rule, they were discussed in the light of unsuccessful operationism. Such cases were covered in the works by Bridgman (1927) and Popper (1959). The overall difficulty of discovery operations was linked to the way they were perceived. To be more precise, the researchers relied on theories, frameworks, and hypotheses and connected them to reality. However, discovery operations have a different nature. The first instance is empirical in its character, which implies that it explicates certain facets of reality. In their turn, operations are a number of principles that should be utilized to select an empirical statement among a multiplicity of them.

Therefore, the interpretation of operations should go beyond the propositions suggested by Bridgman (1927). The article by Hull (1968) strongly supports this statement. Operational and theoretical justifications can be contraposed. According to Hull (1968), operations should not be combined with the artifacts that the study is seeking. One of the reasons for it lies in the fact that operational justifications should be logically consistent solely.

Moreover, based on the analysis of the three texts, it can be assumed that a research providing theoretical definitions solely cannot be considered strong. This inference is fundamental for the scope of the course and the author’s professional endeavors since it should serve as a construct for the further philosophical reasoning and justification. Theory is a part of a reliable study; therefore, the works that have proved a phenomenon using only theoretical instruments are not rigorous enough (Hull, 1968). Their weakness lies in the fact that such researches cannot provide real-life examples.

Conclusion

Thus, it can be concluded that the three philosophical texts have expanded the existing body of knowledge. Despite the fact that some of them have been subjected to criticism and the scholars have recognized the weaknesses of the claims made, these writings have advanced the comprehension of operationism. The main derivation that can be drawn from the reflection is that operational and theoretical justifications should not be regarded as a single method.

Questions for In-Class Consideration

Based on the discussion and the assumptions made, the three questions for in-class consideration are as follows:

1. How can scholars make sure that their operations are scientifically valid and optimum?
2. What kind of philosophical tests can be applied to operations?
3. How do operations push the advancement of knowledge?

References

Bridgman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. New York, NY: MacMillan.

Hull, D. (1968). The operational imperative: Sense and nonsense in operationism. Systematic Zoology, 17(4), 438-457.

Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.

What are syllogisms?

A syllogism can be defined as a type of logical argument. However, syllogisms differ from standard logical arguments considerably. As a rule, a traditional logical inference has two basic elements, i.e., a premise and a conclusion. A standard syllogism contains three basic elements, which are two premises and the following conclusion. A typical syllogism is also different from a traditional logical inference in that the conclusion that follows its two premises does not coincide with the supposed result. The conclusion of a syllogism interferes with the minor premise from a major one with the help of mediation.

What constitutes a “formal fallacy?”

The argument whose premises do not support the conclusion in any way and in which the chain of logical conclusions is always wrong is typically referred to as a formal fallacy. When speaking about a formal fallacy, it is important to realize that it does not matter in the given case whether a specific argument is true or false; it might as well be true with a formal fallacy in it. Traditionally, the following pattern is used to demonstrate the specifics of a formal fallacy:

• Logical statement: 1. If A then B. 2. A. 3. Therefore, B.
• Formal Fallacy: 1. If A then B. 2. B. Therefore, A.

Examples of a formal fallacy:

1. If one is ashamed, one’s face will turn red. A man’s face is red. Therefore, he is ashamed.
2. Some men can drive a car. Mr. Johnson is a man. Therefore, he can drive a car.

What is the difference between Conjunction and Disjunction?

In logical operations, conjunction is used to denote an “and” operand; in other words, it denotes the situation in which both operands (or all those included) are true. In its turn, a logical disjunction, known as “or,” is an operand that shows if one or more of the operands involved is true.

Herein lies the difference between the two operands. In the case of Conjunction, the statement under consideration can be regarded as a universal truth; otherwise, the Conjunction does not make sense. The Disjunction operand works differently; in contrast to Conjunction, Disjunction serves to denote that only some of the operands in question are true, yet not all of them.

From a mathematical standpoint, conjunction can be interpreted as the inclusion of a specific subset into another set. Disjunction, on the contrary, presupposes the exclusion of one of the sets.

How Does Truth Table work?

Often defined as a template for analyzing the forms and relations of the elements in logical expressions, a Truth Table consists of several columns in which a corresponding variable is placed. The final column is left for defining and marking the outcome of a logical operation.

It would be a mistake to believe that a Truth Table can only deliver the results for the operations involving only two variables. On the contrary, as it has been stressed above, the number of types of input variables can be rather big. The result, however, is necessarily restricted to the truth-or-false answer.

It should also be mentioned that a Truth Table allows for dealing with the logical operations that include conjunctions, disjunctions, negations, or implications.

A Truth Table can also help in analyzing the relations between different elements of the logical operation in question, therefore, structuring the task and allowing for a better understanding of the problem.

Rene Descartes

Rene Descartes is one of the most significant philosophers who contributed significantly to modern philosophical science. For instance, Descartes’s philosophical views on educations and schooling remain essential and widely discussed until nowadays. In the first part of the present paper, Descartes’s evaluation of education will be reviewed and discussed. Moreover, my schooling system will be evaluated in terms of its value and knowledge of society. In the second part, four rules of logic will be presented and discussed. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated how these rules may help in everyday life.

Descartes and Education

Rene Descartes admitted that school education is an essential part of a person’s socio-biological development. It is impossible to reject schooling, and unfortunately, there are no suitable practical alternatives. Descartes noted that in school, children learn how to socialize and further how to enter adulthood. The philosopher himself attended boarding school at the Jesuit college of Henri IV in La Fleche. Descartes suggested several recommendations for the schooling system, such as introducing ideas of meliorism (“Descartes and Education,” n. d.). He believed that the learning process is an experience, which involves practical experience and thinking process. It is essential to mention that Descartes paid special attention to practical experience rather than theoretical knowledge. Consequently, school education alone is not sufficient to feel confident in a real-life setting.

Concerning my personal schooling experience, it was essential and valuable. I learned being in a group, communicating, problem-solving, and being responsible for myself. Apart from socializing, I received vital academic knowledge for my future university education. However, I should say that education lacked practical wisdom, the same way that Descartes mentioned. We concentrated mostly on theoretical knowledge and seldom on its practical implication. I believe it is a considerable drawback of schooling, and it should be fixed in the near future, as young adults need to learn how to apply the knowledge they get.

Rules of logic

Rene Descartes developed four rules of logic, which help to gain knowledge. The first rule sounds as follows: “Never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such” (“Introduction to Descartes’s method”). This rule implies that it is essential to avoid any prejudice and believe only in that knowledge or facts that are clear to one’s mind. The second principle Descartes suggested is “To divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution” (“Introduction to Descartes’s method”). The following rule is valid for every difficulty in everyday life, whether it is an intellectual dilemma or a daily recurring problem. The third rule sounds as follows: “To conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commenting with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex” (“Introduction to Descartes’s method”). It refers to the process of analysis and synthesis. The last rule is “To make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general that I might be assured that nothing was omitted” (“Introduction to Descartes’s method”). Enumerating allows us to have a road map, which helps to solve complex issues because our memory is often unable to remember too many facts.

Works Cited

“Descartes and Education”. N.d. Web.

“Introduction to Descartes’s method”.Austoaarya.wordpress.com, 2010. Web.