The Significance Of The Word Islam - 1439 Words

†¢ The historical importance of the term Allah is that it is the concept of the belief of one God demonstrated by the Muslims. They believed that he was the only God in the universe. †¢ The historical importance of the phrase Muhammad is to describe a messenger of Allah. The reason is that one day he was meditating, he heard the angel Gabriel who told him that he was the messenger of Allah. In addition to that, he was the last prophet. He also spread the religion by converting other people. Also, he became a vital leader. This can be demonstrated when he becomes the political, religious, and military leader of Medina. He destroyed other religions by attacking Mecca and destroyed the idols in the Ka’aba. †¢ The historical importance of the†¦show more content†¦Also, they have to pray five times a day towards Mecca. †¢ The historical importance of the term hajj is to describe one of the five pillars of the Muslim religion. Every Muslim that is physically and financially able, should visit Mecca at least once in their lifetime and wear identical garments there, so they can all stand as equals in front of Allah. †¢ The historical importance of the phrase Qur’an is to describe a book that was written after Muhammad’s death so his followers can recite his revelation. This is considered the holy book of the Muslims. The Qur’an was written in Arabic because it is considered the true word of Allah. †¢ The historical importance of the word Sunna is to describe the body of Islamic customs and practices based on Muhammad’s words and revelations. †¢ The historical importance of the phrase hadith is to describe a collection of traditions that contains the sayings of Muhammad that accounts his daily practices. †¢ The historical importance of the term shari’a is to describe a body of law that was assembled to follow the Qur’an and Sunna. These laws regulated the family life, moral conduct, and business and community life of Muslims. †¢ The historical significance of the word caliph is that it means successor or deputy. †¢ The historical significance of the phrase caliphate is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph. †¢ The historical significance of the term Rashidun is that

Analysis Of The Book The Cask Of Amontillado By Susan...

Although injustice is a common theme throughout the works of C.K. William’s â€Å"The Nail,† Susan Glaspell’s â€Å"Trifles,† and Edgar Allen Poe’s â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado,† there are many different forms in which injustice is expelled. For example, the injustice in Poe’s â€Å"The Cask† is dissimilar from the injustice found in Glaspell’s â€Å"Trifles,† and William’s â€Å"The Nail† in the sense that â€Å"The Cask† talks about injustice in the form of one man murdering another without a clear, justly motive. Glaspell’s â€Å"Trifles† talks about injustice through saving the wife whom was the perceived murderer of her husband, because some women withheld key evidence that they found, which would have led to the wife being rightly convicted. And lastly, the injustice found in William’s â€Å"The Nail† is unlike the other stories mentioned, in the context that William’s eludes to the point that injustices are tackled from within one’s sense of reason, and outward injustice is simply a result of inward turmoil. Therefore, one can only conclude that injustice cannot be categorized to simply a terrible act not being rightly judged – nor can it be marginalized. It surpasses the borders of actions which can be judged by law, and can be found just as often in the silence of a thought. Poe’s â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado† begins with a man named Montresor recounting a day, 50 years prior, when he murdered his friend, Fortunato, in cold blood, after much preparation. Though there is vague detail provided by Montresor that

What can the public sector procurement learn from the private organisation procurement teams Free Essays

Simply viewed, purchasing is ultimately purchasing. Procurement specialists in the two sectors and even from the third sector of charitable, non-profit, and volunteer groups order their purchases from the same suppliers. Both the private and the public sectors pursue value for money. We will write a custom essay sample on What can the public sector procurement learn from the private organisation procurement teams? or any similar topic only for you Order Now Towards this end, they plan responsible efficient and flexible procurement systems. However, few differences draw the distinction between the two sectors. This is reflected in the radically different dynamics in the two sectors’ operations. As the paper unfolds, it emerges that there is a lot which the public sector can learn from the private sector if it is to achieve the same level of success enjoyed by the former (Barrett and Hill, 2004). The volume or size reflects on one of the commonly touted differences in the procurement sectors (Braczyk, Cooke and Heidenreich, 1998). However, it is inevitable to examine differences in reporting, competition, trade agreements, accountability, corporate culture, tendering processing, awarding tenders, and performance. It is also important to look into professionalism across the two sectors. The commonality or difference in skills is critical also. Ethical considerations across the two sectors are equalled examined with a view to raising valuable information whether the public sector has something to learn from the private sector or not. The public sector management environment is heavily regulated by policy, legislation, and specific processes while on the other hand, the private sector remains more receptive to enterprising and entrepreneurial dynamics as exhibited by their differences in corporate culture (Braczyk, Cooke and Heidenreich, 1998). It is true that the private sector is also subject to certain rules and regulations but the difference rests on the nature of the regulations. The entrepreneurial dynamics are apparently an absent phenomenon in the public sector apart from few instances. This entrepreneurial focus is an area where the public procurement sector needs to learn and improve on based on the private procurement sector model. However, the sector may be impeded by the political influence, as the partisan nature of political processes is influential. The professionals who work in the public sector procurement need significantly more than the regular amount of diplomacy, patience, communication skills, and political intelligence if it is to prevail (Barrett and Hill, 2004). On the other hand, private sector procurement operates in more advanced challenges in the form of bigger risks, more recognition, among other issues. It is on this premise that the view that private sector pays more recognition to competence as key towards success in comparison to the public sector is held. The public procurement sector should minimise the diplomacy and political leanings and focus on competency just as the private procurement sector. Such focus should ensure bigger and attractive returns. Accountability and transparency present other areas of concern in reference to procurement (Barrett and Hill, 2004). This is influenced by the fact that the stakeholders in the public sector procurement come from diverse circles and do not stand a meaningful chance in influencing it. The stakeholders largely composed of taxpayers, clients, elected officials, and in other instances; vendors, underscore this realization. On the converse, the private procurement sector employs up-to date mechanisms to ensure accountability ad transparency in engagements. Most private procurement entities also focus on specific markets, an aspect that the public procurement sector can only attain through the establishment of specialised separate units to address the various aspects of procurement demands. It is thus not surprising that before procurement decisions are made, it is preferred that consensus is struck. Public organizations thus focus on consensus building rather than working competitively (Braczyk, Cooke and Heidenreich, 1998). Public procurement officers are as a result under an obligation to work cooperatively as opposed to doing so competitively. This is further under-lied by the idea that public enterprises engage in the sharing of some information, as it is a requirement in most public organisations. Ontario Public Buyers Association offers an example of organisations, which operate under these conditions. Consensus building is desirable towards appeasing contending stakeholders but this holds limited economic sense. This holds true since consensus building does not factor in the essence of time and other factors, which influence business in a positive manner. As proposed earlier, public procurement should be split into specialised units to deal with specific issues in procurement as it happens in the private sector. The freedom and flexibility to conduct business is absent in the public sector (Earl, 2002). On the converse, the private sector enjoys the presence of these attributes, which constitute the dream pursuits of every buyer. Flexibility is examined in reference to the kind of red tape associated with the public sector procurement. The procedural rules negatively influence the procurement process as the lengthening of the exercise proves an unattractive proposition. The red tape as a result puts constraints and unnecessary demands on the process of procurement. Red tape was intended to ensure observance of set rules ad regulations, but this s no longer congruent with emerging trends in business. As a result, doing away with the unnecessary procedural demands is desirable if the public procurement sector is to make progress. The absence of purposeful negotiations, discussions, leniency measures further compounds the shortcomings associated with public sector procurement. It is notable that public enterprises do not take their time in responding to issues like requests for proposals. Precision and detail must be presented to every relevant department before a decision is arrived at. On the converse, in the private sector procurement, the clients’ issues are keenly attended to as required. In the entrepreneurship spirit, private sector procurement allows for the negotiation of deals on the basis of fees and terms of work which appeal to both parties, as a result, growth in private procurement in tandem with quality of work (Earl, 2004). The focus is on building a good and long lasting working relationship between customers and private organizations. In the private sector procurement, if a company or client secures a satisfactory engagement, when similar projects emerge, the need to go through the same sieving exercises are not considered. The basis upon which tenders are given rests o the previous records of accomplishment. The solid ethical and moral aspects, which governmental organizations lean on, account for some unnecessary engagements. Public sector procurement demands that adherence to rules and procedures are unquestionable (Edquist, 1997). The formal protocol on responsibility, liability, accountability, and the need to protect government information constrains public procurement. On the other hand, the private sector procurement extends freedom on contractual engagements. The private sector clients focus on the market share, competitiveness, and visibility, fees, and contracts act as a measure towards achieving these goals. The moment corporate professionalism is established with a private sector client, the credibility set is useful in determining fruitful future engagements. Of late, governments are embracing e-Procurement; this embracement is based on the realization made concerning the beneficial attributes arising from both administrative and cost reductions associated with such in the private sector (Malerba, 2002). Tendering platforms, desktop purchasing systems, and e-marketplaces, features common in private sector procurement have been adopted in the public sector procurement. This is a positive step, which should pave way for similar improvements towards the promotion of efficiency and effectiveness. The nature of public sector procurement goes through rigorous bureaucratic procedures based on institutional demands (Miles, 2004). The regulation process of public procurement, which witnesses different roles played by international, national, and regional authorities, implies that this type of procurement faces a number of hurdles to overcome. This regulation is meant to ensure competition and transparency in the procurement exercise. To cite an example, public procurement in the UK has to be consistent wit the European Union procurement guidelines, which offer a framework of rules on the issue. These rules and regulations deter EU member countries from distorting competition in public procurement on the basis of geographical or national basis. The creation of the European market provides an avenue for getting value for money in the procurement sector. Apart from adhering to the European Union policy on public procurement, the public institutions must also comply with the requirements imposed by the government as reflected by the Value for Money policy. This policy demands that procurement choices should be premised on whole life cost assessment as opposed to lowest price only. On the basis of this synopsis, it is clear that government procurement is diverse in respect to what it has to cover. This extension and complexity implies that achieving efficiency and lower costs is hard to make operational. Reducing the complexity characterising public sector procurement is thus a challenge. The tendering process is designed in a way that ensures that work done by the government is given out fairy. The government considers the pricing and the nature of the entity offering the required services. The aim is to ensure that tender processing is fairly done based on governmental policies. Though important, pricing is not the major focus in public procurement (Malone, 2001). On the other hand, private sector tendering focuses on fairness and effectiveness in reference to competition. This is based on the drive towards achieving the most cost-effective outcomes in the tendering process. The primary focus is the cost effect, an attribute the government needs to learn from the private sector tendering (Malone, 2001). The political elite holds a lot of power when it comes to public tendering. This is partly due to the fact that the political class hold executive powers in country leaderships. On the other hand, in the private sector, key officials of companies who hold the required expertise holds the power of making decisions on the tendering processes (Malone, 2001). The public sector should learn from the private sector by fully authorising the bureaucratic experts to control the tendering process. If the public sector is to be in a position to operate competitively, it needs to posses buyer power. As in the case of the private buyer power, the public purchasing power may rise from the size of demand in reference to the public sector against the total market demand or due to strategic importance (Cohen and Levinthal, 2006). The size of the market however big, it may be affected by the uncoordinated and fragmented approach by the public procurement sector. This uncoordinated approach lowers the purchasing power of the public procurement sector. This presents one area the public sector needs to learn from the private sector. Towards this end, the public procurement sector should learn how to coordinate its activities properly in order to take advantage of its aces to big markets. The public procurement sector is fraught with unnecessary restrictions on participation (Cohen and Levinthal, 2006). The sector is also characterised with cost escalation. This especially affects small bidders. Such represent the level of discrimination in the sector. Large firms who are at a sound financial standing are thus the ones favoured in the public procurement sector. Towards reducing the chances of participation from the procurement process, the nature of restricted communication as reflected in the limited publication of contracting opportunities, this coupled with the narrow based qualification criteria place too much focus on firm size and experience. There are both benefits associated with increasing the number of bidders. However, the question of whether the government attains the balance between increased costs due to the higher number of participants and the expected drop in the prices as a result of the fierce competition both within the short term and the long-term. The pursuit of value for money should ensure the correct trade off is made, however, this may never be the case. This is attributable to the fact that the administrative costs are more visible as compared to the cost savings obtained from intense competition. Further, afield, risk aversion may lead to favouritism in which case, well-established companies and incumbents take the opportunities ahead of new entrants. Incumbency may limit participation. This is possible if minor suppliers believe that the public procurement sector is friendly to senior suppliers. This implies that some suppliers may boycott the bidding exercises, as they fear their success chances are limited. Such boycotts may in turn trigger price increases due to lowered competition (Cohen and Levinthal, 2006). Openness and publicness pass as challenges on the public procurement sector. Everything, which is done by public procurement, is subject to scrutiny from the public. The public purchases are normally orchestrated through invitations for bids. This opens the process to public bidding. In public procurement, public bid tabulations, which are posted on government websites. This implies that everybody understands what is going on. Overall, the private sector procurement focuses on profit, which is achievable through fierce competition. In practice, there is great variation in the way in which private managers go about establishing links with the customers. This is captured by the pursuit of firms’ attempts to lock opponents out of the market (Malone, 2001). Some firms operate in unstable environments, others like do like monopolies, while others operate in relatively protected niches where entrants find it difficult to make inroads, this under-lies the kind of challenges facing private businesses. Some sectors and businesses adopt methods, which are technologically advanced than others, further compounding the challenges (Egeberg, 1995). On the other hand, the public sector passes as a more homogeneous entity operating in a placid environment. Bureaucratic organisations are in most cases long establishments, which act, as monopolistic suppliers. The supply is to the society as opposed to the market, further to this, the pursuit of profits do not take precedence ahead of the provision of services to the citizens. The assumption that the public sector has been lacking in innovation is often advanced. However, Tan, (2004) notes that the spur of competition lacks in public procurement, a stark contrast with the private sector procurement. The public procurement sector should embrace new technological innovations like e-Procurement if it is to gain from benefits associated with such advancements, as is the case in private procurement (Fagerberg, Mowery and Nelson, 2000). Conclusion The drive towards introducing private-like procurement style into the public procurement sector is a plausible effort as this in the end translates into a number of benefits desirable to the needs of the clients its serves. Such adoption is bound to increase efficiency thorough cost reductions and improvement on service provision. The social responsibility is the major bottleneck affecting the public sector procurement. The public institutions remain accused of being irresponsive to the needs of the people they serve. However, all public organisations exist in a global setting, which heavily bears on how operations are conducted. This co-existence; between public and the other sectors imply that there is a lot to be passed or transferred through learning. The continued nature of existence of the public sector also indicates that learning through experience is a possibility since the various governments institutions are in a position to determine what works and the others which fail. The role of competition however desirable it is may prove inapplicable to the public sector procurement. This is the case in reference to when the public institutions are bidding for example, weaponry and other sensitive products. The public sector is also charged with diverse responsibilities, which are not based on economic terms but rather on the social responsibility aspect. Despite this, the public sector should learn from the public sector on how to become competitive on various fronts. On the basis of the above realisation, it is hypothetically presented that adopting measures to delink the public procurement sector from the diplomatic and political machinations presents a way out in the area. The sector should also encourage more competition in terms of recruiting skilful personnel and in allowing a level playground when it comes to the tendering process. The sector is equally expected to alter the procedural requirements, which mire the biding and tendering exercises. Such a move should lead to a flexible system, which paves way for the achievement of efficiency and effectiveness in the sector. How to cite What can the public sector procurement learn from the private organisation procurement teams?, Papers

Evolution of Black Music in America Essay Example For Students

Evolution of Black Music in America Essay African American Studies4/7/04The BluesBlues is a form of music that grew from the social realities of Blacks inthe American South during the last two decades of the 19th century. Early or Rural Blues is probably the oldest form of blues we know. Dominated by men, it used strong vocals accompanied by instruments like theacoustic guitar, piano, and harmonica. It was usually performed by oneperson or a small group. This was a secular type of music focusing on theexperiences of everyday life of African Americans during the late 1800sand early 1900s. Its difficult to determine who the innovators of thistype of music were, because it grew mainly from field hollers, or worksongs, that set the pace for gang labor on slave plantations. Rural Bluesevolved into Urban Blues and Rhythm ; Blues, the forms of Blues that mostof us are familiar with today. W.C. Handy was one of the first musicians to take the tunes and styles ofthe Blues and present them in modern styles with bands and singers. One ofhis most popular songs was the St. Louis Blues. Urban Blues began to come into fruition during the Great Migration. Thisperiod, (1910s-1920s), saw a great number of Blacks moving from the Southto Northern big cities like Chicago and NewYork, and west to Los Angeles. In the move, African Americans carried the Blues with them. This was alsothe period when race records became popular. One recording in particular,Crazy Blues by Mamie Smith sold thousands of copies in the black ghettosof Northern industrial cities. In the 40s and 50s, increased urbanization and amplification led toelectric blues music. Musicians like Muddy Waters used the electric guitarand his bands driving backbeat to gain fame in this new style of Blues. One very famous musician to emerge from this period is B. B. King whorecorded his famous The Thrill Is Gone back in the 1960s. The Blues is arguably the backbone of African American music as we know ittoday. From Blues we have; Gospel, Jazz, Rock ; Roll, just to name a few.

Theory Observation Distinction Essay Example

Theory Observation Distinction Essay Is there a genuine distinction between observable and unobservable entities? Why does it matter? How, and why, might one distinguish between theoretical and observational statements in science? I have decided to tackle both these questions because they feed into and relate to one another. They emphasize different aspects of a prevalent debate, all aspects of which I wish to touch on. Whether the question of a distinction between observable vs unobservable entities is synonymous to the question of a distinction between theoretical vs non-theoretical statements is itself a matter of debate. Quine advocates semantic ascent, the shift in which the language we use to refer to the world becomes something we talk about in its own right. Semantic ascent is a shift from questions about objects to questions about words or statements. He says we should ‘drop the talk of observation and talk instead of observation sentences, the sentences that are said to report observations’ (The roots of Reference). So obviously Quine thinks the two questions are equivalent. They have often been treated as equivalent questions, or at least not distinguished too carefully. I agree with Van Fraassen that we should at least note and respect the differences between the two ways of talking about what might be the same issue, and not make the category mistake of talking about theoretical entities, just for clarities sake. At any event Paul M Churchland disagrees with Quine that the two debates are parallel , He says â€Å"we agree (Churchland and Van Fraassen) that the observable/unobservable distinction is entirely distinct from the nontheoretical/theoretical distinction†. We will write a custom essay sample on Theory Observation Distinction specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Theory Observation Distinction specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Theory Observation Distinction specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer This disagreement / confusion as to the very terrain, layout of the questions of the debate, arises because there is the ordinary language question of how do we naturally apply the terms ‘observed’ and ‘observation’, as well as the question of whether a principled O/T distinction can or should be drawn; as Gerry Fodor’s Granny says: â€Å"True there is an epistemologically important distinction, that it’s reasonable to call ‘the’ observation inference distinction, and that is theory relative. And, also true, it is this theory-relative distinction that scientists usually use the terms ’observed’ and ‘inferred’ to mark. But that is quite compatible with there being another distinction, which it is also reasonable to call ‘the’ observation /inference distinction which is also of central significance to the philosophy of science, and which is not theory relative. † It is this second principled O/T distinction that I will focus on as opposed to the ordinary language distinction, I do not think ordinary language arguments bear on the question of whether there is or should be a principled distinction. Although examining what inclines us one way or another in ordinary language usage may clarify factors that also influence us in an overall distinction, such as naturalness, entrenchment, flexibility and plasticity. After semantic ascent the question of whether there is an O/T dichotomy becomes one of whether all observation reports presuppose some theory. This slightly ignores the question of the ontological status of the entities, whether observed or unobserved, but this will come up when I tackle the subsidiary part of each question the â€Å"why make a distinction, for what purpose? †or â€Å"why does it matter if a distinction presents itself? I think the strategy of semantic ascent is useful and justified since the debate takes place in at least two domains, the perceptual/cognitive (internal) and the observational/inferential (public)â€Å"The strategy of semantic ascent is that it carries the discussion into a domain where both parties are better agreed on the objects (viz. , words) and on the main terms connecting them. Words, or their inscriptions, unlike points, miles, classes and the rest, are tangible objects of the size so popular in the marketplace, where men of unlike conceptual schemes communicate at their best. The strategy is one of ascending to a common part of two fundamentally disparate conceptual schemes, the better to discuss the disparate foundations. No wonder it helps in philosophy. † Quine word and object. But it is a bit confusing and difficult to translate debates or points between the two, and certain debates are clearer at the ground level rather than the meta-level. There are three classes of arguments that bear on the T/O distinction: 1. Meaning holism arguments. Which tend to work against the distinction 2. Ordinary language arguments. Which tend to work for the distinction 3. Psychological arguments. Which can work for or against As well as a specific argument by Grover Maxwell from the continuity of observation with inference which works against the T/O distinction. There are two extant modes for making the theory observation distinction – Fodor’s and Van Fraassen’s. Fodor defends the distinction against the implication from cognitive science that perception is continuous with cognition. Van Fraassen defends the distinction against Maxwell’s challenge that it is impossible to draw the line between what is observable and what is only detectable in some more roundabout way. Fodor and Van Fraassen have different reasons for drawing a distinction, Fodor, to defend realism, Van Fraassen to attack realism, strangely enough. Fodor to defend realism against Kuhnian relativism, and Van Fraassen to defend constructive empiricism, a form of anti-realism, against incoherence, and so pit it against realism. As Andre Kukla notes â€Å"It is not surprising that a realist and an anti-realist should agree on something; but it is curious that van Fraassens and Fodor’s defenses of the theory-observation distinction play diametrically opposite roles in their philosophical agenda’s. † Andre Kukla the theory observation distinction. But should we be driven by a philosophical agenda in debating a question? Or should we resolve the question and then decide on a position which accords with our answer? Shouldn’t we be neutral when we make philosophical decisions? Unfortunately in philosophy there is so little ‘evidence’ making up your mind is more a matter of achieving coherence, it is legitimate to allow justification to flow in all directions. The question of whether there is a T/O distinction is relevant to the debate between realists anti-realists and relativists in the following manner. So far as realists debate with anti-realists is concerned, the T/O distinction is optional for realists. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by making it unravel. They have everything to gain, because the constructive empiricist position is incoherent without a T/O distinction. But so far as realists debate with relativists goes, realists have conversely everything to gain and nothing to lose by defending a distinction, they would defeat relativists. Kuhnain Relativism requires the lack of a theory neutral language with which to adjudicate our differences, so we get incommensurability, incommensurability leads to the irrationality of theory choice thus we get relativism. But realists cannot have an easy victory against both parties. I suggest that the realist denies the T/O distinction and so wins against the constructive empiricist. The lack of a T/O distinction does not entail relativism; a theory laden observation can still test a theory. To return to the question of whether we should be driven by a philosophical agenda in deciding a point, it must be remembered that we are concerning ourself with the question of whether there is a significant or principled O/T distinction. Its significance comes from its position within a larger debate. Frankly, everyone can admit there is some sort of distinction or difference between direct and indirect observation, the question really is how significant the difference is, whether a distinction can be drawn at a position significant enough to support any theory, the significance depends on the work it is made to do by larger theories. Paul M. churchland defines his scientific realism as a realism entirely in terms of his attitude towards the T/O distinction. He believes any attempt to draw the distinction, particularly Van Fraassen’s, is arbitrary. By any skepticism â€Å"our observational ontology is rendered exactly as dubious as our non-observational ontology† He is not an orthodox scientific realist; he is skeptical about the overall truth of our beliefs, the reference of scientific terms, and the convergence of theory towards truth. But he is skeptical about the success of all our theories, cognition at large, from a low to a high level not just scientific theories, and thus does not distinguish between the integrity of observables and the integrity of unobservables. He states that â€Å"global excellence of theory is the ultimate measure of truth and ontology at all levels of cognition†. Although churchland has exactly the same attitude to observables and unobservables, a cautious skeptical attitude, relative to his peers he has a slightly pro attitude to unobsevables, and a negative attitude to observables. This pro – attitude to the unobservables of science makes him a realist and his slightly negative attitude to the observables of everyday life make him a scientific realist â€Å"the function of science, therefore, is to provide us with a superior and (in the long run) perhaps profoundly different conception of the world, even at the perceptual level†. I agree with Churchland as to the theoretical character of perceptual judgments, I agree that â€Å"perception consists in the conceptual exploitation of the natural information contained in our sensations or sensory states† . Having done part of a module on â€Å"the brain as a statistician† I know that our perceptual judgments are statistical decision problems akin to gambling or any decision based on uncertain evidence. Because inputs are noisy – the external world and inefficient transduction creates noise- the question of whether a signal is present or not will reflect the relative probability that a signal is drawn from distribution A(noise only) or distribution B(signal + noise). Biasing factors are the probability of occurrence of a member of each category, information on which is drawn from memory. Perceptual decisions rely on perception and memory, or evidence and prior knowledge, prior knowledge being essentially a theory about the world. However I disagree with Paul Churchland as to the possibility of our being trained to make systematic perceptual judgments in terms of theories other than the common sense theory we ‘learnt at our mothers knee’ For one, I don’t think we learn our common sense theory rather it is built into our genetics. I do not think we are nearly as plastic as he makes out, on this point I go with Gerry Fodor, perception and cognition are not continuous, and perception can never make judgments in terms of grand theories which we can barely conceive. The boundary between what can be observed and what must be inferred is largely determined by fixed architectural features of an organisms sensory / perceptual psychology† Gerry Fodor Observation Reconsidered. Paul Churchland directly contradicts this saying â€Å"our current modes of conceptual exploitation (perception) are rooted, in substantial measure, not in the nature of our perceptual environment, nor in the innate featu res of our psychology, but rather in the structure and content of our common language†. How plastic the brain may be is an empirical point, and I think Gerry Fodor wins the debate with his analysis of the muller-lyer illusion. Fodor says the robustness of the muller lyer illusion attests to the imperviousness of perception by cognition. There are both perceptual plasiticities and implasticities. Kuhn was impressed by the plasticities, but it is time to dwell more on the implasticities. â€Å"To the best of my knowledge, all the standard perceptual illusions exhibit this curious refractory character :knowing they are illusions doesn’t make them go away† However I don’t think Fodor is being entirely empirically accurate. Some illusions such as the concave – convex illusion, in which heavily shaded circles appear as concave when the shadow is at the top of the circle, and convex when the shadow is at the bottom of the circle, which occurs because we have a strong prior belief / prior assumption that light falls from above, can be reversed or at least nullified if you really try. The famous duck rabbit can definitely be flipped at will. And the old hag, young girl illusion, personally I can never see the old hag unless it is explained to e, then I can. But anyway Fodor makes his point, we cannot always see just what we want to see or think we should see. I agree with Gerry Fodor that perception is fairly modular, and is not (probably) affected (much) by conscious explicit knowledge. Certainly the muller lyer illusion is fairly robust And I think far too much is made of the duck rabbit illusion – Kuhn says â€Å"it is as elementary prototypes for these transformations of the scientists wo rld view that the familiar demonstrations of a switch in gestalt prove so suggestive†. But I do not think they are anything more than just that – suggestive – because a scientist, does not, cannot form an image or representation of quarks and leptons in any way analogous to a duck or a rabbit, so this image cannot ‘flip’. Paul Churchland seems to think we can form such images, but personally I cannot. I see the western sky redden as the sun sets not â€Å"the wavelength distribution of incoming solar radiation shift towards the longer wavelengths†. However I would say our inability to alter our perception does not damage churchland’s essential point which was that perception relies on theory, implicit theory. A very entrenched embedded theory, but theory all the same. Churchland thinks the distinction between the theoretical and the non-theoretical is just a distinction between freshly minted theory and thoroughly thumb-worn theory whose ‘cultural assimilation is complete’. I think some ‘thumb-worn theory’ is actually entrenched in our biology. But maybe individual differences come into play here, maybe some people are more plastic than others, or innately sensitive to some aspects of reality than others, maybe our biology is not universal. Paul Churchland says that the person with perfect pitch is not a physiological freak but a practiced observer. But I think it most likely that there is something unique about them. Maybe I am closed minded in the sort of visualization Churchland encourages, maybe that’s just me, I had no luck with seeing in the fourth dimension even after reading ‘Flatland’ and ‘speculations on the fourth dimension’ whereas other people (the authors) claim to have, still I’m a bit skeptical. Paul Churland’s thought experiments where he gets us to imagine various other beings, with radically different physiology, beings that can visually see infra-red heat for example, raises the idea of the possibility of other sensory modalities. And although we cannot communicate with them, so they are not part of our epistemic community, there are animals on our planet who presumably sense different things to us, such as bats and dolphins. Van Fraassen insists that is ‘observable’ must be observable to us unassisted, and as we currently are, an anthropocentric conception; â€Å"the limitations to which the ‘able’ in observable refers are our limitations qua human beings. † It could be argued that Van Fraassens anthropocentric conception of the observable is not just anthropocentric, but parochial. Alternatively it could be argued that van fraassen draws the line arbitrarily: according to Van Fraassen we can observe planets using a telescope, but we cannot observe viruses using a microscope, because planets are something we could observe without any augmentation of the senses, where we close enough to them, and indeed some of them we can observe from earth, our natural position, (venus) whereas under normal conditions viruses cannot be seen. I do not agree with this objection to Van Fraassen, I think where he draws the line is one natural place to draw it if it has to be drawn, but it is just that I don’t agree with him that the drawing of the line here is very significant. I am a realist and I believe unobservables are generally as real as observables. From his drawing of the line, van Fraassen only believes in observables. Fodor lightly passes over the fact that â€Å"perceptual analyses are undetermined by sensory arrays† and are only resolved by Bayesian reasoning from previous evidence / experience, and that â€Å"the appeal to background theory is inherent to the process of perceptual analysis† Fodor Observaiton reconsidered. I think this fact is indisputable, and it is in this respect that perception and cognition are similar as Paul churchland maintains, both are theories and â€Å"global excellence of theory is the ultimate measure of truth and ontology at all levels of cognition† . The impossibility of our being trained to make systematic perceptual judgments in terms of theories other that the common sense theory we ‘learnt at our mothers knee’, the implasticity of actual human perception, is irrelevant in drawing a theory observation distinction, both perception and cognition are theory dependent. But Granted as Fodor points out against Kuhn scientific knowledge doesn’t actually percolate down to affect the perceptual. Kuhnian perceptual theory loading does not occur. There is some natural barrier. Is this barrier the location of the O/T distinction? I think it probably is if there is one. It is significant, but not significant for the anti-realist, it does not decide our ontology. It is significant in the realists fight with relativism since observations are theory laden, but are not necessarily laden with the high level theories that they must adjudicate between. So perceptions are laden with perceptual theory, but not laden with quantum theory. Fodor makes the O/T distinction in such a way that it is significant for realists against relativism, but not significant for anti-realists. â€Å"Fodor isn’t looking for a notion of observationality that underwrites our granting epistemic privilege to observation statements. He’s looking for a notion that will ward off the incommensurability arguments. And for that purpose anything that produces consensus will do† Andre Kukla The theory observation distinction. Now to explicitly tackle the questions, â€Å"why make a distinction, for what purpose? †or â€Å"why does it matter if a distinction does or does not present itself? †. I have already touched on the answer to these questions when outlining the role of the distinction (or lack of) in larger debates between anti-realists, and relativists. The question of the O/T distinction has epistemological significance; it concerns the epistemic bearing of observational evidence on theories it is used to evaluate. This is part of the debate between realists and relativists. The relativists holding that observation is an inadequate basis for choosing between rival theories, the realists claiming it is an adequate basis, or there is at least something which is an adequate basis. Observational evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery and the application of scientific theories to practical problems. But we will concentrate on theory testing. It seems that if all observations are theory laden then there is no objective bedrock against which to test and justify theory. The classic or common view of science is that scientific knowledge is derived from the ‘facts’ or observations. Two schools of thought that involve attempts to formalize this common view of science are the empiricists and the positivists. An extreme interpretation of the claim that science is derived from the facts implies that the facts must first be established, and subsequently a theory built to fit them. This is the baconian method building a case from the ground up. This is not how science actually proceeds. â€Å"our search for relevant facts needs to be guided by our current state of knowledge, which tells us for example that measuring the ozone concentration at various locations in the atmosphere yields relevant facts whereas measuring the average hair length of the youths in Sydney does not† A F chalmers What is this thing called Science?. But the fact that science is guided by paradigms does not support kuhnian relativism. Kuhnian relativism can only be established if incommensurability is, that is if high level theory-loading of observation were established. As I have already argued along with Fodor, observation may be loaded with low level perceptual theory but not with high level conscious and elaborate theory. Proponents of competing theories often produce impressively similar observational data, this indicates perceptual theory loading is not that great. If science were blinded by paradigms that would be a different matter. Against semantic theory loading; Often observations reported non-linguistically, pictorially with tables of numbers etc. Late 20th century philosophers may have exaggerated the influence of semantic loading because they thought of theory testing in terms of inferential relations between observational and theoretical sentences. Against Salience or attentional loading scientists under different paradigms attend to different things. Yes, but doesn’t always happen. And scientists may appreciate the significance of data that is brought to their attention that had not been noticed. Attentional loading is not inevitable and not irredeemable. So observation is and adequate basis for adjudicating between theories (unless the theories are underdetermined by data). In conclusion I would say there is no absolute T/O distinction, but there is enough of a difference, enough bottom up flow of justification, to defeat relativism. A. F. chalmers: what is this thing called science? Paul M Churchland: Scientific realism and the plasticity of the mind Paul M churchland: The ontological status of obsservables: In praise of superempirical virtues Gerry Fodor: observation reconsidered Andre Kukla: the theory observation distinction W. V. O Quine: Word and Object Bas Van Fraassen: the scientific image

Nuclear reactors essays

Nuclear reactors essays Nuclear reactors are places where radio active materials are kept. They can be used for things such as medicine or they have even been used for power. However they do not come without their risks. One of the ways nuclear reactors are used is for medical treatments for illnesses such as cancer and leukemia. The reactor at Lucas Heights is Australias reactor which researches and gives cancer treatment to the hospitals. Nuclear reactors can also be used to harness energy, they do this by using the heat that is emitted from the reactor to create steam which they use to spin turbines. An example of a nuclear power plant is Chernobyl. Nuclear power plants do have their risks and there have already been terrible disasters one of which being at Three Mile Island in the u.s. where the reactor had a damaged core. The reason why scientists thought that the core was damaged was because the reactors fuel was overheating and melting through the reactors thick walls made of steel and cement. When scientists found the problem they quickly found out that there was more damage then they expected. Scientists also feared that a hydrogen gas bubble would explode. The site around the rector was evacuated within a ten mile radius, however scientists still think that there was not enough radiation coming out of the plant to seriously harm anyone. Chernobyl in the Ukraine had their reactor overheat in the year of 1986. The reactor in Chernobyl was being used at the time to create power. It happened when the coolant for the reactor was not flowing properly and when the reactor overheated it caused nuclear fission which opened the walls of the reactor releasing radiation into the atmosphere. The disaster killed many and still has effect on some people today as their parents were exposed to the radiation and passed on to their children. After the disaster the reactor ...

See like a Scientist Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

See like a Scientist - Assignment Example In this case, the line length is equated to the product of the represented distance on earth and the distance on scale. In order to understand the linear and the logarithm scale, this paper explores the comparison of the linear and logarithm scales aligning them with clear differences and similarities. The number of fish killed as a human hearing can better be measured using the logarithm scale than the linear scale. This is so because a change between two values, on a linear scale, is considered being the difference between the given values. For instance, the change from 0 to 500 in the linear scale, is perceived to be similar to the change between 500 to 1000. Different from this, on a logarithm scale, the changes between two values is considered as a ratio of the two values. This implies that a change from 1 to 10 in the logarithmic scale (ratio of 1:10) is considered to be a similar quantity of increase as the change from 10 to 100 (also a ratio of 1:10). The hearing sense considers equal frequency ratios as the pitch differences (Kipp 34). Another difference between the two scale is that the logarithm scale can accommodate a great span in comparison to the linear scale. A logarithm scale operates like the case of zooming. For instance, accommodating 10000 fish killed by 1cm would need 10000cm for the linear scale. In a logarithmic scale each cm is taken to be tenfold hence accommodating 10000 fish killed in only 4cm. This means that in the case where the details over a small span should be visualized, linear scale will be appropriate, and in a case where the overall picture is on a large range like in the case of the number of fish killed, then, the logarithmic scale would be the most appropriate scale to be used (Parker 23). In this regard, using the value logarithms rather than the real value will minimize the wide range to form a size that is manageable. Linear scales cannot be used on the charts having the scales