Flying Dreams :: essays papers

Flying Dreams To Fly Has Been a Dream On a bright sunny day with the sky as clear as crystal glass, you peer out into the open sky to the land down below. The door opens in front of you the wind rushes into the aircraft. You step out falling freely away as if you were a bird soaring on the winds of time. You peer back to the aircraft for a brief second to see it speeding away. You feel weightless as the wind roars around you. Looking down you suddenly realize that you are falling towards the earth. Someone once said that the sky is the limit, but in skydiving the ground is the limit. Skydiving is not just a free fall and a parachute ride, but an extreme thrill of events in a short amount of time. Skydiving begins on the ground. The equipment that you use is the most important part of a successful dive. The most important piece is the parachute itself. It must be packed so that there are no knots in the lines and so that the parachute will open properly. The reserve parachute is the second most important piece of equipment. It must be packed by a Federal Aviation Administration rigger every 120 days or after the reserve parachute has been deployed. The third piece is your altimeter that is set and calibrated to altitude at ground level. Several optional pieces of equipment are a helmet, gloves and a skydiving suit. Some jumpers like to perform a pre-jump on the ground. It's most commonly called a dirt dive. They walk through the skydive on the ground while talking about what they will do on the jump and then what they will do if the jump doesn't go as planned. The Jump Master is a highly skilled skydiver. The Jump Master has over 500 skydives and licensed by the United States Parachute Association. The Jump Master is in charge of the jumper on the aircraft at all times. He notifies the jumper of the drop zone approaching by giving a one minute warning, a 30 second warning, prepare to jump, and jump signal. The Jump Master also is in charge of checking that you have put your equipment on properly. He checks to see that you have not crossed your leg straps and that your chest strap is fastened securely. Next he checks to see that your ripcord is properly in place, also checks to see that your reserve

Demarcation in Philosophy of Science Essay

The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience, and more specifically, between science and pseudoscience (a theory or method doubtfully or mistakenly held to be scientific). The debate continues after over a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method. The demarcation problem is the philosophical problem of determining what types of hypotheses should be considered scientific and what types should be considered pseudoscientific or non-scientific. It also concerns itself with the ongoing struggle between science and religion, in particular the question about which elements of religious doctrine can and should be subjected to scientific scrutiny. This is one of the central topics of the philosophy of science, and it has never been fully resolved. The Purpose of Demarcation Demarcations of science from pseudoscience can be made for both theoretical and practical reasons. From a theoretical point of view, the demarcation issue is an illuminating perspective that contributes to the philosophy of science. From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and public life. Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas. The demarcation issue is therefore important in many practical applications such as the following: Healthcare: Medical science develops and evaluates treatments according to evidence of their efficiency. Pseudoscientific activities in this area give rise to inefficient and sometimes dangerous interventions. Healthcare providers, insurers, government authorities and – most importantly – patients need guidance on how to distinguish between medical science and medical pseudoscience. Expert testimony: It is essential for the rule of law that courts get the facts right. The reliability of different types of evidence must be correctly determined, and expert testimony must be based on the best available knowledge. Sometimes it is in the interest of litigants to present non-scientific claims as solid science. Therefore courts must be able to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Environmental policies: In order to be on the safe side against potential disasters it may be legitimate to take preventive measures when there is valid but yet insufficient evidence of an environmental hazard. This must be distinguished from taking measures against an alleged hazard for which there is no valid evidence at all. Therefore, decision-makers in environmental policy must be able to distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific claims. Science education: The promoters of some pseudosciences (notably creationism) try to introduce their teachings on school curricula. Teachers and school authorities need to have clear criteria of inclusion that protect students against unreliable and disproved teachings Ancient Greek Science An early attempt at demarcation can be seen in the efforts of Greek natural philosophers and medical practitioners to distinguish their methods and their accounts of nature from the mythological or mystical accounts of their predecessors and contemporaries. Medical writers in the Hippocratic tradition maintained that their discussions were based on necessary demonstrations, a theme developed by Aristotle in his â€Å"Posterior Analytics†. One element of this polemic (passionate argument) for science was an insistence on a clear and definite presentation of arguments, rejecting the imagery, analogy, and myth of the old wisdom. Aristotle described at length what was involved in having scientific knowledge of something. To be scientific, he said, one must deal with causes, one must use logical demonstration, and one must identify the universals which ‘inhere’ in the particulars of sense. Criteria for Demarcation: Logical Positivism also known as Verificationism * Held that only statements about empirical observations and formal logical propositions are meaningful, and that statements which are not derived in this manner (including religious and metaphysical statements) are by nature meaningless. * The Viennese philosophers who introduced the positivist paradigm effectively laid the groundwork for the modern philosophy of science and one of its most important strands of thought. The early Positivists favored a rather strict approach to the demarcation and strongly affirmed the empirical nature of science, meaning that questions that cannot be empirically verified or falsified are irrelevant to scientific thought. * These philosophers, who called themselves logical positivists, argued that to produce a meaningful claim, one must always return to the tangible observations that result from that claim. * By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to be seriously defective. Falsifiability * Proposed by Karl Popper. In his monumental book, â€Å"The Logic of Scientific Discovery† he proposed the idea that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable; unfalsifiable hypotheses should be considered pseudoscience. Popper’s emphasis on falsifiability changed the way scientists viewed the demarcation problem, and his impact on philosophy of science was enormous. * Popper’s demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science and for giving some pseudosciences the status of being scientific. Postpositivism * Thomas Kuhn, an American historian and philosopher of science, is often connected with what has been called postpositivism. * In 1962, Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which depicted the development of the basic natural sciences in an innovative way. According to Kuhn, the sciences do not uniformly progress strictly by scientific method. Rather, there are two fundamentally different phases of scientific development in the sciences. In the first phase, scientists work within a paradigm (set of accepted beliefs). When the foundation of the paradigm weakens and new theories and scientific methods begin to replace it, the next phase of scientific discovery takes place. Kuhn believes that scientific progress—that is, progress from one paradigm to another—has no logical reasoning. He undermines science as a whole by arguing that what is considered science changes throughout history in such a way that there is no objective way (outside of time or place) to demarcate a scientific belief from a pseudoscientific belief. Science, Kuhn argues, is like politics: institutions believe that certain ways are better than others at different points throughout history; however, it is impossible to be more or less certain of our basic assumptions about the world. Within a democracy (a specific political paradigm) there can be progress: an economy can grow, schools can be built, and people can be given healthcare. However, if a revolution occurs and the country becomes socialist, the government is not inherently better or worse than before, but simply begins to follow a different set of assumptions. Paradigm shift * A paradigm shift is a phenomenon described by philosopher Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. * Kuhn posited a process to explain the persistence of incorrect ideas, and the seemingly rapid and sudden abandonment of these ideas when they finally are rejected. * People tend to believe in what they know, and science is basically conservative. A current â€Å"paradigm† or theory is difficult to dislodge. It takes either a large volume of evidence, or a particularly powerful single piece of evidence to overturn major scientific theories (scientific revolution). When this occurs, it is called a â€Å"paradigm shift†. Lakatos’ research programs * Imre Lakatos combined elements of Popper and Kuhn’s philosophies with his concept of research programs. Programs that succeed at predicting novel facts are scientific, while ones that fail ultimately lapse into pseudoscience. Feyerabend and Lakatos * Kuhn’s work largely called into question Popper’s demarcation, and emphasized the human, subjective quality of scientific change. Paul Feyerabend was concerned that the very question of demarcation was insidious: science itself had no need of a demarcation criterion, but instead some philosophers were seeking to justify a special position of authority from which science could dominate public discourse. Feyerabend argued that science does not in fact occupy a special place in terms of either its logic or method, and no claim to special authority made by scientists can be upheld. He argued that, within the history of scientific practice, no rule or method can be found that has not been violated or circumvented at some point in order to advance scientific knowledge. Both Lakatos and Feyerabend suggest that science is not an autonomous form of reasoning, but is inseparable from the larger body of human thought and inquiry. NOMA * The concept of Non-overlapping Magisteria is a relatively recent attempt at proposing a clear demarcation between science and religion. It explicitly restricts science to its naturalistic foundations, meaning that no conclusions about supernatural phenomena like gods may be drawn from within the confines of science. â€Å"As to the supposed ‘conflict’†¦between science and religion, no such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap.† Criteria based on scientific progress Popper’s demarcation criterion concerns the logical structure of theories. Imre Lakatos described this criterion as â€Å"a rather stunning one. A theory may be scientific even if there is not a shred of evidence in its favour, and it may be pseudoscientific even if all the available evidence is in its favour. That is, the scientific or non-scientific character of a theory can be determined independently of the facts†. Instead, Lakatos proposed a modification of Popper’s criterion that he called â€Å"sophisticated (methodological) falsificationism†. On this view, the demarcation criterion should not be applied to an isolated hypothesis or theory but rather to a whole research program that is characterized by a series of theories successively replacing each other. In his view, a research program is progressive if the new theories make surprising predictions that are confirmed. In contrast, a degenerating research programme is characterized by theories bein g fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts. Progress in science is only possible if a research program satisfies the minimum requirement that each new theory that is developed in the program has a larger empirical content than its predecessor. If a research program does not satisfy this requirement, then it is pseudoscientific. According to Paul Thagard, a theory or discipline is pseudoscientific if it satisfies two criteria. One of these is that the theory fails to progress, and the other that â€Å"the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations†. A major difference between his approach and that of Lakatos is that Lakatos would classify a nonprogressive discipline as pseudoscientific even if its practitioners work hard to improve it and turn it into a progressive discipline. In a somewhat similar vein, Daniel Rothbart (1990) emphasized the distinction between the standards that should be used when testing a theory and those that should be used when determining whether a theory should at all be tested. The latter, the eligibility criteria, include that the theory should encapsulate the explanatory success of its rival, and that it should yield test implications that are inconsistent with those of the rival. According to Rothbart, a theory is unscientific if it is not testworthy in this sense. George Reisch proposed that demarcation could be based on the requirement that a scientific discipline be adequately integrated into the other sciences. The various scientific disciplines have strong interconnections that are based on methodology, theory, similarity of models etc. Creationism, for instance, is not scientific because its basic principles and beliefs are incompatible with those that connect and unify the sciences. More generally speaking, says Reisch, an epistemic field is pseudoscientific if it cannot be incorporated into the existing network of established sciences. Rejection of the Problem * Some philosophers have rejected the idea of the demarcation problem, such as Larry Laudan. Others like Susan Haack, while not rejecting the problem wholesale, argue that a misleading emphasis has been placed on the problem that results in getting stuck in arguments over definitions rather than evidence. Laudan * Larry Laudan concluded, after examining various historical attempts to establish a demarcation criterion, that â€Å"philosophy has failed to deliver the goods† in its attempts to distinguish science from non-science—to distinguish science from pseudoscience. None of the past attempts would be accepted by a majority of philosophers nor, in his view, should they be accepted by them or by anyone else. He stated that many well-founded beliefs are not scientific and, conversely, many scientific conjectures are not well-founded. 3 Major Reasons why Demarcation is sometimes difficult: * science changes over time, * science is heterogeneous and; * established science itself is not free of the defects characteristic of pseudoscience

Arthur Schopenhauer Essay

Arthur Schopenhauer is a German philosopher who was born on February 22nd, 1788 and died on September 21st, 1860. He was born in the city of Danzig but later moved to the city of Hamburg where he became interested in studying metaphysics, ethics and psychology. Schopenhauer is known as the philosopher of Pessimism because he created a theory that challenged the value of existence. Schopenhauer’s main focus was on individual motivation ‘the will’ and how human desires cause pain and suffering. He wrote a book on the will called The World as Will and Representation. This book was a collaboration of Kant’s idea of idealism with his own theory on that the will is the thing-in-itself. Schopenhauer was greatly influenced by thinkers like Kant and Plato. He as well influenced thinkers like Sigmund Freud, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Friedrich Nietzsche. Summary of Ideas: The ‘Will†: Schopenhauer believed that humans were only motivated by their basic desires. He believed that human desires only cause suffering and pain. As well he believed that human desires are illogical and directionless. He believed that the will controls all aspects of human life. Schopenhauer’s ideas on the will are similar to the ideas of Buddhism and the four noble truths. He believed that free will exists but humans are not able to achieve it because everything is determined by how the body reacts to a situation. He stated that â€Å"Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants. †(On the Freedom of the Will) Ethics: The basics of Schopenhauer ethics is about compassion. He believes compassion can’t be taught but only learned by experience. Compassion is the knowledge of seeing someone suffer equally to a suffering they have faced in their life and being able to relate and have sympathy for them. Schopenhauer distinguishes a good person not from the nature of their actions but the level of compassion they have for them. He believes that the difference between a good person and a normal person is distinguished by when seeing someone suffer the good person will sacrifice his own well-being for the other person. Therefore he takes on all their troubles. Schopenhauer believes this is the highest degree in ethical conduct. Pessimism: Schopenhauer believes since the will has no purpose or goal that the will can never achieve satisfaction. He believes the main goal of existence is to gain satisfaction but trying to achieve it is unsustainable because it leads to frustration. For that reason he says existence of human beings can only be characterized by suffering. He believes this theory is for all animals and since humans have a higher intellectual capacity that they will suffer more in life than any other animal. He as well stated that even using reasoning will not change the amount of suffering the person experiences because reason only increases the suffering. Schopenhauer concludes that nonexistence is and should be more preferable then existence. He believes people should realize that to exist is to suffer and the goal in life for people should be to try and resist one’s desires. Application: Animal Welfare: Schopenhauer believed humans and animals are essentially equal and the same. He believed that everything is basically will and that humans and animals are the same because they can recognize characteristics and emotion in each other. Schopenhauer stated â€Å"Unlike the intellect, it [the Will] does not depend on the perfection of the organism, but is essentially the same in all animals as that which is known to us so intimately. Accordingly, the animal has all the emotions of humans, such as joy, grief, fear, anger, love, hatred, strong desire, envy, and so on. The great difference between human and animal rests solely on the intellect’s degrees of perfection. † (On the Will in Nature, Physiology and Pathology) He believed that a good person will have compassion for animals when they are hurt because they are fellow sufferers. People who are cruel to animals are not good people because they do not have compassion.

How to establish the communication Essay

Everyone has different needs and styles in which they communicate. There are also many different ways in which we may establish these communication needs, wishes and preferences. A good way to begin to understand a patient’s needs, wishes and preferences is to read their notes and history’s to see if this contains any relevant information. For example, if I read that a patient has hearing problems, I would then know to make sure that I speak to the patient clearly and slowly and look at them so they can read my lips. Other ways to establish communication needs, wishes and preferences is by interacting with the patient and through conversation I learn how to best communicate with the patient. It is also important to remember to be clear and concise in all forms of communication, especially when working with people with learning disabilities, where they might get confused if I speak too quickly or use too complex language. It may benefit, if this is the case, to use your body language to help explain what you are trying to say and to emphasise the tone of the conversation. Also, pictures can be used to help the patient and myself understand. For example, one of my patients uses cards that display what emotions they are feeling, they will use these to communicate how they are feeling. In the past, I have worked with a patient who is deaf. For me to establish what her needs were, I first spoke to the nurse in charge and they informed me she was deaf, however, could sign or write things down. As I could not sign, our preferred form of communication was writing, which after spending time together worked quite well.

HD-DVD versus Blu-ray Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

HD-DVD versus Blu-ray - Research Paper Example stages of technology battle, the HD-DVD and Blu-ray technologies pulled efforts in gathering decoder and disk manufacturers, retail outlets, and media companies towards their respective sides. The Blu-ray gained endorsements from some major retail companies; Blockbuster and Netflix, acquiring a victories string. On 2008 January, Warner Brothers Production Company announced its exclusive support of the Blu-ray format. The top DVD retailers: Best-Buy and Wal-Mart announced their support for Blu-ray as opposed to HD-DVD. The HD DVD from Toshiba continued to get support from major Hollywood production companies such as Paramount pictures and Universal pictures (Jim & Michael, 2008. Blu-ray technology is developed by Sony and has a slower start though slightly more expensive than HD DVD. Its proponents argue that the larger storage capacity of Blu-ray is at 25GB, single layer disk, as well as 50 GB dual layer that is about twice the HD DVD capacity. Blockbuster announced its greater support for Blu-ray than HD DVD in the summer of 2006, hence predicting a shift towards Blu-ray as the major technology of high definition. On 2008 January, Warner Bros announced its release of its DVDs in Blu-ray format only thus joining other production companies, resulting in roughly 70% new releases in Blu-ray. The formats are incompatible with each other and the HD DVD buyers cannot play movies presented in the Blu-ray format (Michael & Philip, 2007). There are companies that find both technologies vital, for instance, NVIDIA’s graphics, Seagate and MIPS Technologies, Sigma Designs and Broadcom, and ‘Moses Baer India Limited’. The winners of Blu-ray technologies are Sony, Apple, Dell, LG, Panasonic, Philips and Mitsubishi, among others. The HD DVD winners include Microsoft, Lite-On IT, Intel and Toshiba (Mark & Charles, 2007). HD DVD had a chance of winning the competition due to its low manufacturing costs and cheaper products. The flexibility to have HD and conventional

Youth Offending Essay Literature review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Youth Offending Essay - Literature review Example Social exclusion refers to the lack of acceptance, belonging and recognition of an individual or a community by others despite the fact that they may be neighbours in a city or a country (Friedman, 1993). Studies have shown that Black and Ethnic Minority (BEM) youths are the most affected by social exclusion in Wales and England. Interestingly, socially exclude youth are often found to be socially and economically vulnerable and have higher risks of living diminished lives in the eyes of the advantaged as well as in their own eyes (Applebaum et al., 2010). The social and economic changes in the free-market economies have been cited as the main causes of social exclusion of minority youths, more so in the Western countries. In addition, weaknesses and inequalities in government service provision have made socially excluded people rather vulnerable in many ways (Coker, 2003). For instance, in England and Wales, the socioeconomically deprived and socially exclude ethnic minority youths have been found to be at higher risks of being crime victims or offenders given their propensity towards committing crimes (CRC, 2008a). This paper thus explores the reasons youths from ethnic minority groups are over-represented in the criminal justice system of Wales and England and the possible approaches with which this trend may be addressed. The Criminal Justice System and Black Minority Youths Perhaps one of the most regrettable and enduring characteristic of the criminal justice systems is racial profiling and stereotyping of youths from minority ethnic groups (CRC, 2008b). Fortunately, there has been a considerable increase in the galvanisation of the link between minority ethnic groups and crime (University of Georgia, 2006). In worse cases, there have been so much racial stereotyping and crime profiling that black youths are referred to as ‘criminal predators’ (Silver, 1994). According to the Youth Justice Board (YJB), which reported that 1,822 young offender s were in custody in the 2010/2011 period, it is this profiling of minority youths that has subtly justified the over-representation of youths from minority ethnic groups and races in the criminal justice systems (BBC, 2011). Out of this population, minority ethnic youths constituted 39%, a 6% increase over the 2009/2010 period. However, the general figures of youth offenders dropped from 1977 of the 2009/2010 period (BBC, 2011). The Guardian also reported similar trends in both Wales and England, reporting that young black men accounted for nearly 40% of the population of youth jails in the two countries. Comparing the 2006 and the 2009/2010 period, the joint report with the Youth Justice Board (YJB) indicated an increase from 23% to 39% by young black youth composition (The Guardian, 2011). This over-representation is not only evident at the trial stages/courts but also in the correctional facilities such as prisons. Although, an unofficial policy, the tendency to racially and eth nically profile minority youths is so rampant that criminal justice practitioners openly practice it. Certain elements have been identified to be core to the culture of racial profiling and the emergence and practice of minority youth typification in the criminal justice system (Walker, 1977). While the number of minority youths incarcerated in the UK and Wales in the last three decades increased, the number of incarcerated white/majority has considerably gone down. Since historical times, youths from minority groups have consistently been over-represented at all the stages in the criminal justice system in the UK and Wales, the senior and the juvenile justice systems (Walker, 1992). In fact, this