NAME: Galen Hooks

USERNAME: squaww03

MIDTERM GRADE: A-

WEB ADDRESS: https://squaww03.tripod.com/bumblebeetuna

DID YOU DO ALL THE READING? yes

IS THIS YOUR OWN ORIGINAL WORK? yes

1. Please COPY AND PASTE all of the postings you have done for this ENTIRE class (including your responses to the problems I posted)

ASSIGNMENT POSTS

EXTRA POSTS

2. How would Marx critique Max Weber?

Karl Marx

Marx and Weber at first seem fairly similar, yet they do have some points they would argue about. Marx would critique Weber's use of socialism and disregard for the inevitable rise of the proletariat. Marx was so positive that a revolutionary uprising of the lower class to the upper class was necessary. Obviously, he would critique Weber for not being as staunch a supporter of this revolution. Marx would also critique Weber for not thinking that we are a product of the ruling ideas of our time. Marx placed so much emphasis on the importance of production and labor that he would critique Weber for not sharing this interest. The importance of life, according to Marx, was being recognized for labor and production; exploitation of labor was considered a disgusting evil. Marx would disagree with Weber's alternative focus, which was placed more on socialism than on labor. Marx was more concerned with communism, whereas Weber was concerned with socialism. Marx used socialism as merely a step along the way to communism. Marx would disagree with Weber that humans are affected more by societal constructs than material constructs. Marx wanted to focus more on technological and historical advances, whereas Weber focused more on cultural influences, such as art and religion. Marx would greatly disagree with Weber that class struggle is inevitable and impossibly overcome. Instead, Marx believes it is completely necessary and possible to overcome class struggle and for the lower class to rise to the upper.

3. How would Weber critique Marx?

Max Weber

One concept that Marx has is "historical materialism" (found here: http://www.marxist.com/History/historicalMaterialism.htm ). This concept basically states that human consciousness is a result of the society we live in. We think according to our societal surroundings and, more importantly, we think according to the ruling thoughts of our time. The ruling class projects its thoughts onto the lower classes, so the thoughts of a given time period reflect the thoughts of the ruling class of that time. Weber disagrees with historical materialism and instead supports a "spirit of capitalism" (found here: http://www.nd.edu/~dyamane/courses/300/weber_marx.htm ), which states that the base of societal structure is instead this capitalist spirit. Thus, Weber does not agree with Marx that consciousness is a product of environment; it is the other way around.

Weber would also critique Marx's use of generalized rules that are supposed to hold true for all places at all times. For example, Marx thought historical materialism was true at all places at all times. Weber, on the other hand, used the concept of ideal types to base his rules on constructs that were not representative of the real world. Thus, Weber's theories were either based on specific historical moments or on these ideal types, but not on the universe as a whole as Marx did. Weber wanted to avoided making absolute staments that were inflexible with changing times.

Incidentally, Weber had much to say in regards to Marx's concept of class struggle. Weber would critique Marx's theory by suggesting that suppressed classes do not always end up starting a revolution and that there are also other struggles aside from class (namely, status). Whereas Marx saw the uprising of the proletariat as inevitable, Weber was not so general in his claims. There are many examples where the working class knows it is being exploited, but does nothing about it (just look at America). Weber would use this as evidence against Marx's theory that the working class must overcome their suppression and rise to the level of the upper class. Furthermore, Weber acknowledges a completely separate struggle of status that supplements class. Status is characterized more by a person's lifestyle; consequently, there are people of different class who share the same status, and people of a different status who are in the same class. For example, a rapper might make millions of dollars, but he does not live according to the status of the formal attire and fancy dinners of the US President. By adding the concept of status struggle to Marx's theory, Weber has broadened the theory of struggle to fit with times in which class is not so important as status. Weber has avoided making absolute claims, such as those that Marx made, regarding necessary actions by certain classes at all points of time in all places. Marx projected his contemporary life onto all historical times and places, whereas Weber wanted to make less general claims that would fit with each changing time period.

4. What are Paul O'Brien's strongest arguments against believing in God? What are the weaknesses in Paul's argument?

O'Brien has many strong arguments against the belief in God. One such argument is that it is more freeing to be atheistic than theistic. A theist is bound to religious text and codes of conduct, whereas an atheist is able to explore life according to his or her own rules. This is a sort of Nietzschean philosophy of religion being somewhat anti-nature, for theists are bound to rules and atheists are free. An atheist is not told they cannot have premarital sex or that they cannot love somebody of the same sex. This leads to another important argument against belief in God: tolerance. O'Brien makes a good point that certain people, such as homosexuals, might be shunned by devoted theists, but that an atheists learns to be tolerant of all people. The issue even extends to women, who are often trapped within the traditional confines of their religion and are under the power of men. Religion also shows its intolerance with other religions and there has been an undeniable excess of violence throughout history because of this intolerance. O'Brien makes a strong argument that religion contributes to certain intolerance that atheists can avoid.

Another good argument brought up by O'Brien is that atheism does not share the fear of death that theism has. Theists are so concerned with the afterlife that they do not fully enjoy their existing life. O'Brien suggests the possibility that abandoning the concept of an afterlife will make it easier to accept death. He lives his life as though there is no afterlife, an thus experiences life to its fullest. By doing so, O'Brien utilizes his time here on Earth to take advantage of his interactions with people and his environment. Instead of using the excuse that heaven is waiting for him or his family, he takes the initiative to do and say things to people that he won't be able to do if there isn't an afterlife. There is no point in waiting to tell people you love them in the afterlife when you can just tell them here and now.

One more strong argument O'Brien makes is that atheism encourages a triumphant humanism in which people strive to realize their full potentials. Instead of suppressing human capabilities and suffering from excessive humility (as is often done by theists), O'Brien explains that atheists devote more time and energy to improving themselves as human beings. Humans can do so much with themselves by focusing more on this world than on otherworldly matters. This humanistic quality of atheism is appealing and makes a strong argument against believing in God.

The weaknesses in Paul's arguments are that not every theist and not every atheist is alike. There are theists who have more humanistic qualities than certain atheists. There are atheists who may be more intolerant than certain theists. Some atheists might not be responsible enough to still function morally with society without a set of moral codes and rules. Thus, O'Brien's assertions say more about human beings than atheism and theism. He basically paints a picture about atheists that could very well be attained by theists. Theists could still believe in God and the afterlife and share the same vigor and reverence for life that O'Brien has. Theists can very well be tolerant. If theists just lessen their strict adherence to the Bible or absolute rules, they will have avoided many of the arguments O'Brien makes against the belief in God. Although O'Brien makes strong arguments, none of them make it necessary to completely give up a belief in God. Therefore, instead of proving that his arguments against theism are right, O'Brien has supported his other assertion, which is that each individual must believe in what is right for his or herself.

5. Why is Christianity and its moral views, according to Nietzsche, ANTI-NATURE?

Nietzsche had plenty to say about Christianity and its influence on morality (as is evident in his "God is dead" statement). Because of Nietzsche's existentialist foundation, Christianity was an institution that he greatly criticized. Nietzsche was an advocate of humans being able to create their own lives. Christianity, therefore, would be greatly criticized because it suggests that God controls our lives. Christians pray, believe in fate, fast, make sacrifices, abstain from sex, and incorporate a number of other actions into their morality that they believe will appease God and will therefore benefit them in life and the afterlife.

Nietzsche would critique these actions because they are all in assumption that there is another life in which Christians will benefit from their morality. Nietzsche believed that there is only this single earthly life, so such religious commitments would be fruitless. Why put all of your energy into this so-called afterlife, which is not even guaranteed? Nietzsche encourages one to focus this energy on the life one is currently living, and with all the vigor in the world. Furthermore, Nietzsche believes
that the belief in an afterlife is simply a denial of the real world in which we live. This denial leads to a fear of time and ends up putting more focus on death than on a vibrant life.

Aside from critiquing the thought that Christian morals will pay off in another life, Nietzsche disagreed with the austerity of these Christian morals. He especially criticized the suppression of passion (mostly sexual) that is stressed in Christianity. Nietzsche believed that sexual passion is natural and necessary in life. Passions, according to Nietzsche are pretty much synonymous with life. Since Christianity attacks passions, it is essentially attacking the nature of life at the root. Passions, after all, are natural occurrences within human thought processes and emotions. If passions are natural, and Christianity and its morals deny the passions, then Christianity is anti-nature. In denying what is natural, Christianity deprives its followers of fully experiencing the intensity of life's passions.

6. In what ways was Marx a humanist?

Marx is a humanist because he believes in recognizing human potential. The rise of the proletariat is essentially a rising of this class of people to reach their human potentials, which have been suppressed by the bourgeoisie. Humanists believe that human beings should use their facilities to the fullest extent instead of exploiting or taking advantage of human capacity. Marx disliked the social concerns of his time because they went against this humanistic notion. Not only that, but humanism also has deep regard for consideration of human beings. By denying a human the ability to achieve anything, a humans best interests are also denied. Humanists do not think humans are indifferent towards their success, but instead they NEED success. Thus, the suppression of the proletariat is also a suppression of human needs, not just wants.



In the "Communist Manifesto", Marx encourages the working class to rise to the state of the upper class in order to overcome the class struggle. Marxist-Humanism comes into play with this concept as well, for Marx imagines a society in which people have goals and they work to reach them. Aside from other aspects of Marxism, for example, economics, humanism is evident in the importance of the regard for human interest. With the rise of the proletariat, the human race will act in its best interest. This is the basis of humanism, for humans will be working for their own achievements and success. Marx utilizes this humanism thoroughly in the "Communist Manifesto".

7. How is Lane's pretext/text/context argument similar to Wilber's HOLON argument (yes, you need to research the web for this one).

The pretext/text/context argument states that there are aspects of life that make up larger qualities, which in turn make up even larger qualities, ad infinitum. Lane's example is a book, which has words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, all the way up to the overlying theme of the book and the surroundings in which it is read. Individual letters can be considered pretext, paragraphs can be considered text, and the room in which one reads the book can be considered context.

Now let's understand Wilber's holon theory. According to

"a Holon is a part of the universe which is complete and consistent in itself, but is also an necessary integral part of a greater system which encompasses it". This has a clear connection to Lane's pretext/text/context theory because there are smaller parts making up larger parts, which in turn make up even larger parts, which in turn make up even larger parts...you get the point. The difference is, Wilber calls these parts "holons". So the words in the book that is used in Lane's example would be called a holon, and the sentences are holons, as are the paragraphs, and so on and so forth. Each holon makes up another holon, which makes up another holon.

Where Wilber strays from Lane is that he thinks the context is the Spirit. Wilber thinks the Spirit precedes all else and is the ultimate overlying principle, whereas Lane does not think anybody really knows what the Spirit even is. Wilber also thinks science necessarily thrives off of reductionism of holons, sort of applying Occam's Razor over and over to make things more and more simpler. Lane disagrees, however, because there is a point at which we reach "cheap reductionism". At this point, using the book for an example, reducing each individual letter down to it's essence of the ink and the molecules that make up the ink will not help the reader understand the context of the book. There is only so much one can reduce before it becomes a burden instead of helpful. Thus, although Lane and Wilber have comparable concepts regarding the structure of matter that makes up more matter, they differ in the implications of this concept.

8. What is the neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism? What is the best argument AGAINST vegetarianism?

Who knew Garfield read "Why I Don't Eat Faces?"

The neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism is that animals have a central nervous system and can feel pain, thus they should not be eaten. Humans feel pain through their central nervous system the same way a non-human animal does; humans obviously do not want to be slaughtered for food, so why would other animals want to be slaughtered? If a living being can experience pain or displeasure, it would be morally wrong to inflict pain on this being for unnecessary reasons, and according the neuro-ethical argument, eating meat is unnecessary to sustain a healthy lifestyle. Humans are quite capable of existing without eating meat, which means we are needlessly killing animals in a painful way. This differs from, say, health arguments for vegetarianism. The neuro-ethical argument is geared toward the suffering of the animal that is killed for food. People who follow the neuro-ethical argument thus tend to have a strong stance on all animal rights, whereas someone who is a vegetarian merely for health reasons might still wear fur. The neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism is simply that animals are capable of feeling pain, so humans should not kill them for food if it is very well possible to survive without doing so. More importantly, humans have the CHOICE to do so.

Like the man in the above cartoon, not everybody is moved to show compassion for the rights of animals. Usually this resistance towards attributing rights to animals comes from a speciesism in which humans feel they are above the rest of the animal kingdom. Instead of using this superiority to protect those lower than us, humans use it as a right to power over lower animals. I will not consider this the best argument against vegetarianism, although I seem to run into it the most. In trying to think of the best argument against vegetarianism, I came to the conclusion that there really isn't one. Each argument I came up with was inadequate. For example, one argument that I thought was strong is that animals are killed in the process of harvesting grain as well, so even if one is a vegetarian, animals are still being killed in the process of making vegetarian food. Although this may make vegetarianism seem less heroic than it tries to be, it is not adequate in dissuading vegetarianism because there is not a good argument against trying to save the most animals as possible, even if there are still some that are killed.

Another argument I was going to use is that humans have teeth and digestive tracts that are equipped for meat-eating, so it is not in our nature to practice vegetarianism. I am not saying that having canines means we SHOULD eat meat, but it is support in favor of there being a reason that people eat meat. This, however, is also not a good argument against vegetarianism, for it does not prevent one from making the choice not to harm a living being. I decided that there is not a best argument against vegetarianism because I have not thought of an argument that cannot be refuted. This is because vegetarianism is a choice, unlike breathing air, and people do not have to have substantial support for their choices. If a person chooses to eat meat even for the many reasons that I felt were inadequate to answer this question, these reasons are still good enough for that individual. Perhaps the best argument for vegetarianism is the same as the best argument for murder: people have the freedom to make choices to suit their own preferences, regardless of the harm done to another living being.

9. Francis Crick argues that we are nothing more than a packet of neurons firing. What are the strengths and weaknesses in his argument?

Francis Crick's suggestion that we are nothing more than a pack of firing neurons is labeled the "Astonishing Hypothesis". The level of astonishment raised by this hypothesis varies, for some people are okay with being a pack of neurons and others are not. Those who are not okay with this possible reality should understand the strengths of Crick's argument. For example, the once enigmatic question, "What is life?", was thought to be beyond human comprehension and untouchable for its sentimental value. Yet, by using science to materialistically look at things at smaller and smaller scales, we have found that DNA is the answer to a once unanswerable question. The same way people have come to accept the implications of DNA, perhaps they will someday have to accept that the soul is a physical entity with a definable structure. The success in scientific endeavors that search within the tiniest components of the body is great support for a search for the soul or consciousness. Since such unquestionable subjects have been conquered in the past, it is not impossible to conceive of it happening again. In other words, there just might be extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.

10. Critique homeopathy and explain why most skeptics view it as pseudo science.

Homeopathic medicine is a process in which certain substances are diluted a number of times in a liquid and are still thought to have a healing effect on illness. It is considered a pseudo-science because the substance, whether it is urine or medicine, is diluted sometimes 24 times, to the point where no effective amount of the substance is remaining in the water. Homeopathic medicines have inconsistent results, and consistency is important to science. Many people believe homeopathic medicine serves more of a placebo effect; people THINK the medicine his helping, so they will themselves into feeling better even though they have taken an ineffective medicine.

Homeopathy is also widely viewed as quackery because people profit from selling it and promising false medical effects. Homeopathic medicine is unproven to be effective and homeopaths themselves cannot always be trusted. Anyone from a chiropractor to a veterinarian can administer homeopathic medicine and there are no strict guidelines to assure the validity of what is administered. Not only are the homeopaths inadequate judges of its effective, a number of people who have carried out studies to test homeopathy have been homeopaths. Obviously there is a biased in these studies; the 1988 INSERM study was funded by a large homeopathic company and ended up being rigged to falsely imply that thoroughly diluted amounts of medicine left a "memory" in water. If the people who carried out this experiment had to tamper with evidence, there is reason to believe that homeopathic medicine is not effective enough to speak for itself. If homeopathic medicine were effective, nobody would have to cheat to prove so.

The skeptic would critique homeopathy by demanding extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim regarding the ability of diluted substances to heal. The skeptic would place the burden of proof on those who make such claims. Experiments would have to be made without any tampering and repeated success would have to come about with multiple experiments. Since none of this has happened yet, the skeptic would not approve of homeopathy. The roots of homeopathy are not in favor of any support from skeptics; early versions of homeopathy included draining blood to get rid of a fever. With such loose guidelines and lack of scientific support from the past, skeptics would obviously view homeopathy as pseudo-science.

11. How would a skeptic analyze Bush's rhetoric BEFORE the Iraq war and NOW?

A skeptic would compare Bush's prewar rhetoric and current rhetoric and see that his rhetoric has not changed, for Bush still thinks the war is a good thing. Before the Iraq war, Bush focused on the "threat" that was looming over America, which was in the form of Saddam and Iraq. Bush attempted to install fear and sympathy into the US so that we would back him in

starting a war,

former president Bill Clinton,

claiming that he was not warned about the right things. Bush hopes that by acting like he was innocent and in the dark about 9/11, people will feel more sympathy for him and he will not be held as responsible for the current state we are in. Bush is still using sympathy in his rhetoric, obviously, for he is now using 9/11 as a vehicle to gain sympathy that is perhaps being channelled towards a re-election this fall. After all, Bush used images of 9/11 in his ad campaign, so obviously he is trying to portray himself as a hero who did the best he could in such a devastating situation.

Bush is desparately trying to deny any fault in what he did. In a February article of TIME magazine, titled "When Credibility Becomes an Issue", Bush is quoted as saying,

"I'm just trying to make sure you understand the context in which I was making decisions. He had used weapons. He had manufactured weapons. He had funded suicide bombers. He had terrorist connections. In other words, all of those ingredients said to me, threat."

His rhetoric is defensive and he is attempting to validate his reasons for going to war, even though the public no longer trusts the words that come out of his mouth. This is the same as the defensive rhetoric he used before invading Iraq, when he used Saddam as a target and tried to validate invading Iraq because of Saddam. The reason Bush's rhetoric has remained the same is because he has not claimed fault for the current situation. In the above quote, we see familiar terms: suicide bombers, terrorits, weapons, threat. Bush is saying the same things he said before the war, but the difference is that people are either hesitant to believe him now or they simply don't care to listen. In the same aforementioned TIME article, Bush is also quoted as saying, "Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq." Bush is basically keeping his same mind frame, which is that Iraq was a threat and that it needed to be invaded. Thus, his rhetoric reflects his unchanging feelings and is not much different than it was before the war.

12. Why is neuroscience so important in understanding mysticism?

Neuroscience is important in understanding mysticism because it is very possible that mystical visions are caused by impulses of the brain. By studying neuroscience, scientists will have a better understanding of what exactly is really mystical and what is caused by the brain. For example, there might be an area of the brain associated with OBE's. Perhaps certain people have abnormally sized areas of this part of the brain and so tend to imagine having OBE's frequently. Or perhaps there are certain drugs that affect this part of the brain and induce OBE's. It is already obvious that the brain can conjure up experiences that seem real (for example, dreams), so it is also possible that the brain constructs mystical experiences that people mistake for being real. The only way to figure out the role of the brain is through neuroscience. One example of such an organization that is studying the brain in order to understand phenomena such as mysticism is the Enticy Institute (www.enticy.org). This organization is trying to understand such things as mysticism not by investigating the validity of the mystical experience, but by investigating how and why mystical visions occur in the first place.

It is also important to apply neuroscience to mysticism as a way of representing the compatibility of science and psuedo-sciences. We should not set aside mysticism and say that it is untouchable, but should instead rigorously apply science to it. The same can be said for religion; science should be applied to religion, not separated from it. Some people view mystical experiences as highly religious, so this concept becomes even more important because one is not only applying science to mysticism, but also to religion. By applying neuroscience to mysticism, one is essentially saying that there is nothing that is safe from science and nothing "too special" to be touched by investigation. By applying neuroscience, one is attempting to figure out just how much of mysticism is explainable, and how much is unexplainable. Neuroscience is important to mysticism from the skeptic's point of view, therefore, because it declares that mysticism should not be taken at face value.

I also remember reading about some neuroscientific experiments that were conducted in Rational Mysticism. These experiments attempted to tap into the climax of mystical visions and required the subject to press a button when their climax was thought to be reached. The subjects' brain activities were monitored, but nothing conclusive was found. They did not show any pattern or definitive brain behavior during their visions. Perhaps it is difficult to gauge the climax of a mystical experience or deep meditation. Perhaps people are so enthralled in their vision that they forget to press the button. It is difficult for neuroscientific studies to accurately measure and compare brain activity of mystics, but it is still important. If a pattern is shown, then scientists can figure out what area of the brain controls certain phenomena, or perhaps scientists will find that people who have enlarged areas of specific brain parts are capable or likely to have mystical experiences. Neuroscience is important either way because it will show either that mysticism is a result of specified brain activity or that there is no visible pattern in the brain of mystics, which means it really is a phenomenon.

13. How would a skeptic critique the philosophy of Ken Wilber?

Ken Wilber

A skeptic would critique Wilber by saying that the core of his philosophy is fallacious, for his core is spirituality (according to www.worldofkenwilber.com). Wilber believes we are all striving to reach spiritual enlightnement, moving up a ladder of prepersonal, personal, and transpersonal states of being. Wilber is careful to avoid the pre/trans fallacy, which merges the prepersonal (the body, nature, mythical religion, etc.) with the transpersonal (the spirit, the Kosmos, mysticism, etc.). A skeptic would critique this method because spirituality is not based on scientific fact and is not proven, thus the grounds of Wilber's ladder are shaky.

Wilber also takes mysticism as the core of many of his theories, from personal development to politics. A skeptic would argue tha tmysticism is not completely understood yet, for it could be simply the product of brain impulses and might not be something to take as seriously as Wilber takes it. The skeptic would not be so ready to use mysticism as a goal or as a vehicle towards reaching some higher goal, for mysticism is not based in any fact, is not consistent, is based a lot on testimonial, and basically does not pass FiLCHERS. Skeptics would hesitate to have the reverance for mysticism that Wilber possesses. Wilber places mystics as higher than humans on the evolutionary scale, and since skeptics would not see much validity to mysticism, they would not agree with the placement of mystics in evolution.

A skeptic would be okay with Wilber's philosophy as long as each element he addresses can be tested. Wilber constantly refers to the spirit, soul, inner mind, and so forth, and it is necessary to test out these concepts. Wilber believes that meditation and yoga are forms of science, but a skeptic would encourage tests to prove that one can investigate some type of inner being through yoga or meditation, and be able to discuss and compare these finding accurately with others (as a scientist would).

14. GIVE ME A LINK TO YOUR CHOSEN RESEARCH TOPIC OR PASTE IT HERE.

Psychics have never been people that I took seriously enough to visit, so I made the effort to visit two of them during the month of April just to see what I was missing out on. I kept in mind what I read in the "Cold Readings" article and went to the psychics hoping to find many things worthy of critiquing. The first psychic I visited was very open and tried to incoporate somewhat rational concepts into my Tarot Reading. The second psychic was more like the stereotypical psychic, complete with incorrect assertions and attempted persuasion for "follow up" sessions.

I heard about the first psychic when I overheard a friend of mine saying she was in a hurry to leave our get together to go toa psychic. I asked my friend for the psychic's number and called her within the week. The psychic's name was Anne and I ended up going to her house for a Tarot reading on April 7th at 7:00 p.m. When I was on the phone with her, she told me to come prepared with an idea of what topic I wanted "guidance" on. I chose to ask about what the future of my career would be, since that was something objective and that I could be able to prove right or wrong.

Anne's house was very nice and normal, not that a psychic's house should be particularly abnormal or anything. She did have a lot of incense burning and a huge bookcase full of astrology and tarot books, so there was definitely a mood that I felt. We introduced ourselves and she asked me what problem I had chosen to seek guidance on. Anne was very friendly and acted more like a friend who was going to help another friend out with a problem than an omniscient psychic who knew everything. We sat down at her dining room table and she opened up a silk pouch that held her tarot cards.

As Anne shuffled the cards, she told me to tell her a little bit about my career and what my concerns were with it. She said I would have to voice my concern in the form of a question that I want answered. She also made a huge point in telling me that she was not fortune teller and that she was merely there for "guidance". If at any point she started to say things that I felt were inaccurate or on the wrong track, I was to let her know and she would try to interpret the cards in a different way. This comment, along with the comment of, "One more thing: I'm going to tell you certain things, but don't ever do something just because somebody tells you to", made me feel like she was trying to cover her bases in case she was wrong. I felt like she could basically be wrong with everything she said, but that it wouldn't matter because I was supposed to tell her when she was wrong or not. If that's the case, anybody could sit down and make up a story based on the cards, for there was obviously no requirement that the reader have an accurate interpretation. The comment about not doing what other people tell you to do made me feel like she didn't put much confidence into her reading, for if I am not supposed to follow it, it must not be that great of a reading.

All this was happening while she shuffled the cards. When she finished shuffling, she place the cards face down in front of me and told me to cut the deck with my left hand. I later asked her if the left hand had significance, and she said that the left hand is connected to the right side of the brain, which is associated with intuition. I would critique this by saying it should serve more of a symbolic purpose than a literal tapping into intuition. I cut the deck and she flipped over the cards in three rows of three. Each slot that the cards were placed in represented something specific: For example, the middle slot represented present situations, one of the corners represented future influences, etc. Anne explained that each card has multiple meaning, but that she interprets the cards according to what they "tell" her. This is worthy of questioning, for if each of the cards has multiple meanings, then the reading ends up being a subjective story told by the reader. Why would I believe anything she said? I could just as abley flip over the cards and make a story about what turns up.

Each time Anne would address a card, she would ask me a question about the details of my problem. Basically, I did all the talking. If I gave too vague of an answer, Anne would ask me to explain more. In essence, I was figuring out my problem myself, with Anne simply asking me questions to make things clearer. By the end of the reading, I had learned nothing from her that I hadn't said myself. Anne's ultimate point in everything she was saying was that I create the life I live in. If I want to be successful in my career, I must go forth with full effort. If I want friends, I must go hang out with people. After Anne finished reading all of the cards, she elaborated on these concepts of creating one's own life. She said that I should try meditation or yoga in trying to focus my energy. She said that God is the overlying protector of us all and that every person is connected through our energy.

After Anne finished speaking, she asked if I had any questions. I asked her where she learned to read tarot cards and she said she graduated from the Philosophical Research Society, which is located in Los Angeles. If you go to their website (www.uprs.edu), you will see that it is just like any other university, but they offer classes such as "Psi research" or "Near-Death Experiences". Keep in mind that these classes are not meant to critique or find fault in these subjects, but instead are in support of the validity of such subjects. Anne has a degree in the mysteries, and the University of Philosophical Research is the one of the only schools that offers that degree. She said they teach all of the "mysteries" there, including astrology, palm reading, and the like. I asked Anne if that meant that tarot reading does not mean the reader has to have any special intuitiveness already, since one can just take class on it and learn how to give readings. Anne said that she had a lot of people tell her she would be "good at it", so she kind of had a natural ability to "listen" to the cards. She said, for example, that she often gives readings at parties with her friends just for fun. During these parties, she'll get "on a roll" with the readings and she just seems to know what the cards are saying and she is lifted to a higher state of intuition. Anne did not say one thing to me during my reading that I did not know already. She basically asked me questions and had me talk through my problem. All in all, I did not have much to critique because Anne did not do anything but guide me like a psychologist might do in trying to get information from their patients.

I decided to visit another psychic whose ad my mother found in the Penny Saver. I went to this psychic on April 20th at 10:00 a.m. This psychic was much more abrupt than Anne and really believed that everything she said was accurate. The room she did the reading in was very small and had countless Catholic statues and prayer books. I got a bit uneasy with the extreme religiousity of the situation. The woman, Jacqueline, agreed to do a palm reading and a tarot reading for $15 dollars, which is a pretty good deal. She began with the tarot cards. As Jacqueline shuffled, she told me to make one wish out loud and one internally. Out of a lack of anything else to say, I wished for a happy relationship. She sorted the cards in four rows of four and layered a second row on top of these cards. She told me to hold my palm out for the remainder of the reading. Jacqueline quickly began to analyze the cards that turned up. She made a number of claims while I remained silent. Among these claims were:

"You will be moving in the end of the year."
"You are in a relationship, and the man you are with still loves you, but there is another woman."
"A man and a woman want to bring you down through witchcraft, voodoo or blackmagic."
"You need a cleansing."
"You have a lot of negative energy."
"The man you are seeing is stubborn and doesn't like to listen."
"You constantly help others, but nobody ever seems to want to help you."
"You have lost three people - two of them to death, one from a separation."
"Everything you've touched in the last five and a half years has gone wrong."
"People are bringing you and your family down."
"You are crying for peace, love and happiness."
"You have three children." After I told her that I have no children, she said, "Then you are going to have three children."

She looked at my palm periodically while making these statements. I will now say that no comments she made about my current life were accurate. I am not in a relationship, which is why my wish was to be in a happy relationship, but obviously she did not make this connection. Based on her comments, it is reasonable to surmise that she assumed I was in an unhappy relationship, instead of not being in one at all. Thus, all of her claims about the man I am seeing were false, for I am single. Furthermore, the last relationship I was in didn't even fit her comments. My man was not stubborn, but was rather the opposite. I do not constantly try to help other, but instead find myself spoiled with the love of everyone else and often think I need to give more. I have not lost anybody important to me either through death or separation. I do not have any children and do not even plan to have children. I just recently decided I won't be moving out for at least two years. In a nutshell, Jacqueline gave an inaccurate reading.

Now for the most important part of the session which happened after the reading was over. Jacqueline offered to help me find out who this man and woman are that want to bring me down through black magic. She said she would be willing to help for only $329 with the use of amethyst and crystals. She said that she would help me find these people, but that I must promise not to hurt them once I find out who they are. I declined the offer and realized what might have been the motivation of her reading. I felt that she intentionally gave me a negative reading just so that she could offer to help me for more money. If she had given me an accurate reading, it would have turned out that I am happy and have wonderful people around me, and then I would have had no reason to go back to her. Perhaps she created a problem for me just so she could fix it. Regardless of Jacqueline's motives, she was inaccurate. Even if some of her predictions for the future come true, she was inconsistent with the reading as a whole and it is reasonable to assume that Jacqueline would not be able to make accurate predictions in the future.

In critiquing the two psychics I went to, I will say that they were no different than I expected. They did not prove to me that psychic readings are respectable sciences. They obviously did not pass the FiLCHERS test, for they were not accurate in the first place for me to even consider something like replicability. Although I was not necessarily setting out to find a real-life psychic who could tell the future, I still was expecting somewhat of a method or technique to the readings. The first psychic was so vague and put and left so much of the talking to me that it was more like a self-help session. The second psychic was so blindly making claims and only took so much as a few glances at my palm that I felt she had an agenda other than being thorough with the reading. As the first psychic told me, tarot cards have many interpretations, which leaves a lot of leeway for any mistakes made. I will not visit a psychic any time in the near future, if ever again, and have realized the true pseudo-scientific quality of tarot readings.

15. List the PRO drug researchers in Rational Mysticism and why they advocate a chemical approach. In addition, how would the NON-chemical advocates (e.g., Ken Wiber, etc.) critical such a method?

I will answer this question based on what I remember from reading Rational Mysticism last year and from gathering info from my previous PHIL 5 final:

Among the pro-drug researchers in Rational Mysticism were Alexander "Sasha" Shulgin and his wife, Ann Shulgin. Sasha was so overwhelmed with the experience of a drug trip (as were the other pro-drug researchers) that he dedicated his life to studying drug-induced mysticism. Sasha and Ann were pro-drug researchers because they wanted to investigate the effects of specific drugs and wanted to measure specific types of trips. Their research could have been done without drugs, for they were not simply researching the brain like Andrew Newburg or Susan Blackmore, they were researching the effects of drugs on trips and mystical experiences. Pro-drug researchers advocate a chemical approach because there are certain occurrences that happen only with drug-induced trips, and these are what these researchers are interested in, not just the brain.

Non-chemical researchers would critique people like Sasha and Ann Shulgin by saying that mysticism lies in the folds of the brain, not in the hundreds of drugs that can be made to induce such experiences. People like Ken Wilber are so infatuated with the natural state of spiritual being that they would not want to research a mind that has been tampered with by drugs. Researching a drugged mind defeats the purpose of discovering the natural happenings of a mystic's brain. Furthermore, drug use produces inconsistent and random mystical experiences that do not say much about the experience except that it might just have been a "bad trip". By staying away from drugs, non-chemical researchers have more control over what they are researching and can compare progress better because they do not need to worry about inaccuracy or inconsistent drug effects.

16. Use 3 different chapters of Martin Gardener's (as found in his book, DID ADAM AND EVE HAVE NAVELS?, and see if you can find any FLAWS in Gardener's ideas or conclusions. Be sure to substantiate your answer. This question is KEY to your test so concentrate on it.

CHP.21: WHAT'S GOING ON AT TEMPLE UNIVERSITY?

In Chapter 21, Gardner expresses his disgust for Temple University's Frontier Science program. Gardner expected the program to be dedicated to topics like superstring theory and dark matter, but the program instead spends energy researching Tarot readings and homeopathy. Because Gardner does not consider these as "frontier sciences", he is ashamed of Temple University for wasting time and money on such topics.

In the Addendum of this chapter, Gardner has a major flaw in his reasoning. He explains that Inna Semetsky replied to his column by saying that he didn't supply any evidence against the efficacy of Tarot readings, but instead just blindly refuted it. Gardner quotes his letter back to all of those who replied to his column, including Semetsky. In this letter, Gardner wrote, "Inna Semetsky is irked because I called her defense of Tarot card reading 'funny', without giving my reasons for rejecting such fortune-telling. I would no more waste space trying to 'refute' Tarot card reading than I would waste space trying to refute palmistry or tea-leaf reading" (229).

The flaw in Gardner's reasoning is that he thinks refuting Tarot readings is a "waste of space". Gardner also makes no point in devaluing palmistry or tea-leaf reading. Instead of lazily throwing Semetsky's comment aside, Gardner should have taken the time and space to refute Tarot reading. Why should the reader believe an author who does not even have time to provide proof? Isn't "proof" what real science is based on? Why is it a waste of space to disprove a pseudo-science such as Tarot reading? Gardner seemed so ready to ridicule Tarot reading, but when he is asked to do so, he shoves it aside as if it is unimportant. One cannot claim that something is unbelievably fallacious and then not supply information to back up the claim. It is the same standard that Gardner uses on Johnson; Gardner is frustrated that Johnson does not offer a substitute for evolution, yet Gardner is not willing to offer his view on why Tarot reading is fallacious. This is an important flaw in Gardner's reasoning.

Not only that, but one of the first statements in the chapter is a quote about the purpose of the Center of Frontier Science at Temple. I will capitalize words that I feel are important in understanding the flaw in Gardner's reasoning:

"The Center's overall objective is to create a legitimate place and environment where scientists, RESEARCHERS, and THINKERS from ALL areas of scientific and intellectual endeavor can come together and discuss their thoughts, projects, and ideas NO MATTER HOW REVOLUTIONARY, with complete confidence and support".

The purpose of the center, then, is to create an open forum for any and all types of thinkers to express their thoughts. This does not mean that their mission is dedicated only to the areas of science that Gardner prefers (such as superstring research), but to ALL areas of science (even if that involves pseudo-science). Had the center made it clear that they were trying to strictly research specific types of science and unknowingly thought that Tarot reading was synonymous with superstring theory, then Gardner would have a little more to go off of. However, the center is obviously aware that it is encouraging all types of work and that there are not only scientists working there, but THINKERS as well. This means that the center is open for anybody to express any ideas. Gardner's disgust with the center is exactly the opposite of what their mission is, which is the freedom to express ideas "with complete confidence and comfort". The center does not want people like Gardner telling them what is bogus and what is "worth space". Gardner is perhaps missing the point of the center, which is to provide open opportunities for sciences that are otherwise laughed at. Gardner's flaw is that he assumes that anybody who does not support what he supports should not have an opportunity to practice what is in his or her own interest.

CHP. 2: PHILLIP JOHNSON ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Archaeoraptor: the supposed link between dinosaurs and birds

In Chapter 2, Gardner attempts to bring down Phillip Johnson, a man who is a staunch believer in intelligent design. Gardner is more in favor of Darwin's theories of intermediate stages of evolution and natural design, so he sets out to prove Johnson as an ignorant idiot. One flaw in Gardner's assertions comes from his tendency to associate Johnson with other people. For example, Gardner writes, "I also found it curious that Johnson never refers to the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries, the man who coined the word mutation"(19). The fact that Johnson did not refer to Hugo de Vries does not make Johnson's claims any less valid. Gardner likewise thinks it "strange that nowhere in his book does Johnson mention the British biologist St. George Mivart" (18). Perhaps Johnson is not caught up in quoting other people because he would rather focus on his own beliefs. Johnson does not have to be so strictly compared to early theorists who shared his thoughts. Gardner projects the same contempt he has for Mivart and de Vries on Johnson. Gardner is too bent on trying to make Johnson seem as laughable as anyone else who previosuly shared Johnson's opinion, except that there is no real reasons to see any of these theorists as laughable. One could even suggest that Gardner is too dependent on quoting others to get his own point across.

In the midst of quoting Dawkins, Gould, Darwin, Bork, Dyson and citing various books in this chapter, Gardner does not come up with any more of a solution than he expects from Johnson. Gardner wants Johnson to answer a number of questions, such as, "Did God merely infuse souls into soulless animal bodies?", "Did the first mouse have a mother?" and "Why did God put nipples on males?". I find these questions unimportant and unfair to ask. Gardner does not have the answers to these questions, yet he badgers Johnson as if Johnson claims to be God himself. Gardner even explains his own theistic belief, which is that there is a God, but this God does not spend time interfering with earthly matters, such as evolution, in order to keep things moving. Gardner's belief could just as well be questioned, and it surely does not answer any of the questions that he has proposed for Johnson.

Gardner also gets frustrated that Johnson does not suggest a replacement for evolution. Gardner might think he is safe since he supports evolution and does not need to think of a replacement, but Gardner also fails to make evolution so factual as to prove that it is correct. He attempts to bring up the evidence of transition stages of evolution, claiming that there are "thousands of 'missing link' fossils, and every year more are found" (18). Does he mean such fossils as Archaeoraptor, which was supposedly the missing link between carnivorous dinosaurs and birds? That fossil was found to be a hoax,

so obviously that does not support Gardner's claim. This is not the only supposed missing link that turned out to be false. There are also the Caudipteryx and Protoarchaeopteryx fossils that ended up being false. This is not to say that there are no such missing links as the ones in Gardner's claim, but he needs to provide more information about the "thousands" of fossils of which he speaks. Since there are numerous 'missing link' fossils that turned out to be hoaxes, I would think it is even more important for Gardner to offer us with information on the ones that were NOT hoaxes. Without substantiating this claim, Gardner is no more safe from scrutiny than is Johnson.

CHP. 20: THOMAS EDISON, PARANORMALIST

Apparently Gardner does not consider "different" as a good thing...

In Chapter 20, Gardner attempts to take the credit away from Edison because of his support for the paranormal. Gardner tries to focus on Edison's "changing religious opinions, his lifelong interest in psychic phenomena, and his gullibility" (212). By the end of the chapter, Gardner has simply shed light on Edison's personal life, and one is left thinking, "who cares?". The fact that Edison had changing religious opinions dose not affect his intelligence or his contribution to inventions, for Gardner also acknowledges that Darwin and Gould had varying religious views. If Edison believed in immortality, so be it; this is no argument against his already established inventions.







Gardner also critiques Edison's interest in psychic phenomena. Edison was supposedly fooled by magic tricks and claimed to be interested in making a machine that communicates with the dead. Edison also might have thought he had ESP. All of this, however, does not seem to be leading anywhere. I am not sure what Gardner's point is in bringing about these interests of Edison. Perhaps Gardner is attempting to make a mockery out of Edison, for what intelligent man could possibly believe in ESP? It is as if Gardner is trying to stain Edison's name by bringing up his gullibility, but he does not do so successfully, for none of Edison's personal beliefs reflect on what he is known for: his inventions.

In fact, Edison's inventions might be precisely what makes his beliefs acceptable. Gardner closes out the chapter by quoting Edison's diary, in which he proposed the building of an apparatus that could communicate with dead personalities. First of all, Gardner precedes the diary quote with another quote in which Edison explains that the whole concept of communicating with spirits was merely made up in order to cheer up a friend who was in need of a good story. Gardner says he doesn't believe this excuse because of the diary quote, which goes into detail about the apparatus. Gardner might need to question himself more instead of jumping to conclusions that Edison lied in his excuse. Perhaps the diary entry was an extension of the joke. Perhaps it was all for a good laugh. Who knows?

Even if Edison was serious about the apparatus, Gardner should recognize that the point of Edison's diary entry was that he is EXPERIMENTING on the issue to figure out if his beliefs are true or not. Gardner does not give Edison credit for experimenting and being open to failure. Edison does not use strict or unreasonable language, but instead is very responsible in saying that IF it is possible to speak to dead personalities, "it will be accomplished, not by any occult, mysterious, or weird means, such as are employed by so-called mediums, but by scientific methods" (220). Edison also says that if his experiment fails, the chance of there being the afterlife of which he speaks goes down. These are reasonable steps that are taken by Edison. If anything, I would think Gardner would approve of Edison's mind set, for Edison is proposing the steps be taken that neuroscientists take with mysticism. Edison is focusing on scientifically completing an otherwise phenomenal task and is willing to be proven wrong. Perhaps he is not so gullible.

17. What grade do you deserve and why?

I deserve an A based on my work and involvement in this course. I completed all of the assigned reading and researched the web extensively for any topics with broken links. I went out and did hands on research for my project, dedicating time to approach my topic skeptically. More importantly, I questioned myself when thinking that I was right about something. I opened up my normal train of thought to explore ways of thinking and have applied it not only to this course, but also to my everyday experience. In fact, my friends have gotten pretty annoyed for my resistance to everything they talk about (whether it be astrology or magnetic therapy). I spent a lot of time making sure my midterm, final and research project were completed to the best of my ability and I made an effort to learn as much as possible from this course.

Enter content here