|
1. From: "squaww03" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:45 pm Subject: ? for Lane or anyone else
On the website, for weeks 1-5 there is nothing listed under #2. There are links under #1 and #3, but the one
for #2 is missing. The assignment is to critique three articles, so obviously one link is missing. Hopefully this isn't just
my computer that isn't displaying the link.
2. From: "squaww03" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 10:33 pm Subject: Re: Odd notes from your teacher
I remember when I read "Facing Up", one of the main points Weinberg made was that the more we know about the
universe, the less we understand. It's exactly like what you were saying about "cheap" reductionism; one can only reduce things
to a certain point before it gets out of hand and adds to the confusion instead of clearing things up. I don't really have
anything to add, I just felt like noting the similarity in Weinberg's reasoning...
3. From: "squaww03" Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:55 pm Subject:
yeah i think the mt.sac server is down. hopefully it will be back up soon... --- In occamsrazor@yahoogroups.com,
"kmkprincess82" wrote: > Am I the only one who can't load the class website???? I've been > trying to access it for
three days and I havent been able to get it!
4. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:34 pm Subject: vegetarianism
I just listened to a couple of Lane's letures from his website, including the one on vegetarianism. I often
hear arguments FOR vegetarianism, but here is an argument AGAINST vegetarianism: http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html#SOURCE
I visit this guy's site all the time because not only is he entertaining, he actually offers good points and substantial support
for his views. If you want to read his other articles that take stabs at everything from Bush to the Matrix, go to http://www.maddox.xmission.com/
This guy will either piss you off or make you think. Either way, I recommend his site.
5. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [MSAC Philosophy Group]
enough about janet
Why should a woman apologize for exposing a breast? As I said more graphically in class, we live in a
culture where it is okay to behead someone (PG 13), but not to show one GIVING..... fill in the blanks (which is X). Lest
anyone forget, the former KILLS; the latter gives pleasure (or at least we hope).
I think what we see in the movies is viewed in a completely different way than what we see live on television.
People go into the movies knowing that what they are viewing is fake. If someone were to murder someone at halftime at the
Superbowl, it would be much more horrific than Janet's breast, so I don't necessarily think that our culture is okay with
murder just because it allows it in PG 13 movies. Furthermore, I think murder is not necessarily encouraged in the movies;
the murderers usually are killed themselves or face some sort of punishment. My point is, kids still know that murdering is
bad and they are not as likely to imitate a beheading as they are to imitate giving head. If a 13 year old girl sees Freddy
vs. Jason at the movies, she probably won't leave the theatre with an agenda of slitting peoples' throats. Yet, if the same
girl were to watch a movie with people having sex all over the place, she might leave the theatre and think it is cool to
have sex.
My point here is, our culture does not worry so much about kids beheading people because they know that kids
are more likely to get sexually involved. Our culture is more afraid of kids thinking that sex is okay because we want to
avoid the problems of teen pregnancy and STD's and such. That's why I think we let 10 year olds see a beheading, but not a
blowjob; kids are more likely to imitate the latter than the former. I think our culture is just trying not to add to a preteen's
sexual temptations by making sex a PG13 event. I also think that the reason our culture is trying to make sex look like a
bad thing in the first place is because of the consequences (pregnancy, STD's), not the sex itself. I'm really only addressing
the issue of what is PG13 vs. X, not the Janet incident in particular. I personally don't support the way our culture works
and I don't think Janet should have to apologize, I just think the issue was that she offended people (not that she showed
a boob). It's the same thing as if Professor Lane were to say "fuck" in a lecture and somebody said, "You know, I get offended
when you curse in class". Lane might apologize to the person for OFFENDING them, but not for the fact that he cursed. Likewise,
I think the issue with Janet was that she OFFENDED people moreso than the fact that she showed her boob.
6. From: "squaww03" Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:56 pm Subject: question
Are we supposed to post critiques of every article we read or only of the one's where it specifically says
"post a critique"? There are a lot of articles in weeks 6-8 that do not say we need to post a critique, so I was just wondering...
7. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 10:18 pm
Subject: Re: HELP WITH MIDTERM....PLEASE
i just used what i know about creationism and synchronicity and determined how a skeptic would approach both of these theories
(which don't have any proof). if u don't know what either creationism or synchronicity mean, just type them into google.com
and u'll have no problem understanding the concepts. once u get what they're about, u should be able to understand why a skeptic
would critique them. as far as quantum theory, just think about the article in terms of what it tries to clear up about quantum
thoery and how this relates to what people thought was true about quantum theory and the paranormal. did that help at all?
--- In occamsrazor@yahoogroups.com, "naveen_faruqi" <xpakidivax@a...>
wrote:
> The midterm is due soon..could anyone help me....
> I am stuck on questions #5 (explaining CREATIONISM), question#8 (I do
> not get the reading on Quantum Theory) and question #12 (explaining
> synchronicity). I do not recall reading up on CREATIONISM and
> SYNCHRONICITY.. can anyone help???
8. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:54 pm
Subject: midterm grades
has anyone gotten a grade on their midterm yet?
9. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: website links...any luck?
do you think those links will be up by the final? all i've been doing is reading Gardener's book and i'm assuming we can't
do anything with the other reading if the links are not up yet...
10. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Mon May 3, 2004 12:12 pm
Subject: Re: Final Examination
were we assigned to read Rational Mysticism? I can't seem to find it on the syllabus page, but there are questions about mysticism
and Ken Wilber on the test. if we are supposed to just do a google search, that's fine, but i want to make sure there wasn't
an assigned reading that I missed.
|
