Sign in or 
Location: POD (Philosophy Of Disciplines)
Discussion: POD discussion
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
skphuan |
POD discussion
Feb 19 2008, 9:43 PM EST
Over the weekend, a discussion thread will be started on facts, inferences and opinions. The quality NOT quantity of your contribution will be graded for your "classroom participation". Look forward to reading your posts from 23Feb (Sat) - 29Feb (Fri).
2
out of
17 found this valuable.
Do you?
Keyword tags:
None
|
tanjyr |
1. RE: POD discussion
Feb 23 2008, 4:52 AM EST
Is this the discussion thread or do we post somewhere else?
0
out of
12 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
falconseraph |
2. RE: POD discussion
Feb 24 2008, 3:39 AM EST
Fact: No discussion thread has been started.Inference(s): Miss Phuan is busy at work. Miss Phuan does not know we relocated the thread. We're supposed to start the discussion. We no longer need to do the assignment. We will automatically be given full marks for class participation. Opinion(s): I think we should make some clarifications with Miss Phuan. I think we should just start something so we at least say we did something. This idea of 'classroom' participation on our website is interesting, but not feasible. 6 out of 12 found this valuable. Do you? |
samuelanonymous |
3. RE: POD discussion
Feb 24 2008, 3:52 AM EST
1) True2) Possible 3) False, I sent an email to her. 4) False, she is supposed to tell us what to discuss about. 5) True, for now. 6) False 7) Agreed. 8) Possible, but i don't think we need to. 9) False. 6 out of 10 found this valuable. Do you? |
ianyapxw |
4. RE: POD discussion
Feb 24 2008, 6:38 AM EST
Just some definitions to help outFact: A fact is defined as something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation (Chamber's Dictionary, ninth edition). For example, it is a fact that gravity exists Inference: The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). For example, I am able to infer that an apple drops to the ground because of gravity Opinion: A personal view, attitude, or appraisal. For example, I belief that our lives would be better if gravity did not exist (Dictionary.com unabridged (Version 1.1), based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary). 3 out of 12 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
tanjyr |
5. RE: POD discussion
Feb 24 2008, 8:12 AM EST
Is it a fact that what dictionaries write are true or is it a widely believed opinion that whatever is written in a dictionary is an accurate explanation of the word. Therefore as it is not a fact that dictionaries are correct, we are not able to believe in dictionaries. Therefore, an inference would be whatever Ian said is not a fact and thus is not the last say on the definitions of facts, inferences and opinions.
0
out of
10 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
haoala |
6. RE: POD discussion
Feb 24 2008, 8:50 AM EST
"Is it a fact that what dictionaries write are true or is it a widely believed opinion that whatever is written in a dictionary is an ACCURATE explanation of the word. Therefore as it is not a fact that dictionaries are correct, we are not able to believe in dictionaries. Therefore, an inference would be whatever Ian said is not a fact and thus is not the last say on the definitions of facts, inferences and opinions. "You shouldn't have used the word "accurate" because accurate is already relative and not absolute anymore. Since, you are talking about dictionaries as something absolute or by man made definitions, you should have used the word "true" because that is much more absolute than "accurate" even though people might argue and say that truth is relative. Using "accurate", you confuse the readers. There's already an "opinion", so the opinion should be whether the dictionary is true, not just accurate. And you skipped some logic after that sentence. You said "therefore" dictionaries are not necessarily correct (relatively absolute word) without explaining how you came to that conclusion. In the sentence before, you asked a question without answering it, but after that you went to explain the consequences of option without telling us how you came to that conclusion. And how reliable is your dictionary, Ian? -Adriel 0 out of 9 found this valuable. Do you? |
timelessbeing |
7. RE: POD discussion
Feb 24 2008, 10:19 AM EST
"Is it a fact that what dictionaries write are true or is it a widely believed opinion that whatever is written in a dictionary is an accurate explanation of the word. Therefore as it is not a fact that dictionaries are correct, we are not able to believe in dictionaries. Therefore, an inference would be whatever Ian said is not a fact and thus is not the last say on the definitions of facts, inferences and opinions. "Going by this, then even your statement is not a fact, as your statement is merely your own opinion. Therefore, it is not a fact that "it is not a fact that dictionaries are correct", with the only other option of it being fact through and through. Even if dictionaries were merely opinions, these opinions are ones that are shaped by the whole human race, through our use of the language. It is our usage of these words that give these words meaning, and people agree what these words defined as. A person can even invent a word out of the blue, and get a large population of people to use the word to mean a certain thing, and thus cause it to be a proper word. Thus, the meaning of this new word is shaped by the use of the general population. An example of this is seen in a children's novel, "Frindle", by Andrew Clements. The gist of this story is that a student invents the word 'frindle', which he decides to use as a substitute for the word 'pen'. He gets a group of friends to do this too, and slowly more and more people get use to this term and it becomes a word in the dictionary many years down the road. Although this story is far-fetched, it shows how people can shape the definition of a word. Therefore, though a dictionary may not be fact, it is still is a valid truth, as crafted and shaped by human society. -Clement. 4 out of 8 found this valuable. Do you? |
mrjelly |
8. RE: POD discussion
Feb 25 2008, 4:54 AM EST
"Therefore as it is not a fact that dictionaries are correct, we are not able to believe in dictionaries. "However, there is probably no English-speaking person on the planet who has not used a dictionary before. The English language, in all its entirety, is framed and presented in the repository of information which is the dictionary. Since the entire English-speaking community around the world bases their English and, by extension, their English-speaking lives, on the common dictionary, and seeing that most, if not all, dictionaries contain similar definitions of the same word, the dictionary is not shaped by the English-speaking world. The dictionary, to the contrary, shapes, defines, and gives form to the English language. The English-speaking people of the Earth base near everything on the dictionary and what it says. Can it not be said that dictionaries are ALWAYS considered to be correct, that people believe in them and continue to do so? A dictionary always closes an argument over definition. The definitions in a dictionary are not simple opinions. They have, shall we say, transcended mere "opinion-ship", and have progressed into correctness. For the words contained in a dictionary is not merely a general opinion. A dictionary CONTAINS the English language. It is the compilation of virtually every word there ever was, and is accepted by every person on the planet as correct. Sure, a dictionary is not completely fact, but it IS, undeniably and completely, full of UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED TRUTHS. And these truths, like it or not, shape human society as much as human society shapes it. -mark. 4 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
samuelanonymous |
9. RE: POD discussion
Feb 25 2008, 7:37 AM EST
In my opinion, there are very few true facts in our universe. An example is, 1+1 = 2. It doesn't matter what you call it, it is still a fact. I can create my own number system where the symbol 2 means 1(one), and the symbol 3 means 2(two). Then I would write it 2+2 = 3, but the underlying meaning transcends the entire world. That was an example of a true fact. With regards to a dictionary, whatever is contained in it is not a fact. Facts can be validated, while words and their definitions cannot. As mrjelly has mentioned earlier, these are actually opinions. However, I disagree that they have progressed into correctness. Rather, these opinions are held by so many people that it would be most convenient to believe that they are facts. Of course, you can pick out a word and disagree with the definition in the dictionary, since the definitions are only opinions. Whether these opinions are accepted and understood is another story altogether. Thus, whatever is contained in a dictionary is NOT fact, but widely accepted opinions as they cannot be verified and will change over time. Different dictionaries have different definitions of the same word, simply because they were made by different people who have different opinions. If these definitions were fact, different dictionaries would give the same definitions. 5 out of 8 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
samuelanonymous |
10. RE: POD discussion
Feb 25 2008, 8:02 AM EST
Continued from previous post.George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 presents a different insight into fact and opinion. A character is told a premise, that if he thinks that he is flying, and everyone else in the room thinks the same way, then he is flying. This demonstrates how opinions (of other people thinking that he is flying) can turn into a supposed fact (that he is actually flying). This prospect is highly frightening, because if opinions can be converted to cold hard facts, then anything is possible and the real truth would be impossible to determine. In fact, the situation that someone is flying is fully verified by all the people who witnessed it, thus fitting Ian's definition of a fact. Therefore I feel that this definition of a fact is inadequate, and can be improved by adding a clause that it has to be constantly verified. My last point is that facts are extremely hard to find. Apart from math, many other disciplines may find it difficult to conclusively prove that something is a fact. Newton's second law of motion, F = ma, was found by Einstein to be merely an approximation. The true equation is much more complex and takes into consideration the speed of light. However, at low speeds the equation can be approximated to a very high accuracy using Newton's original equation. All experiments up to that time confirmed the original equation. It was verified repeatedly, but we now know that equation to be a non-fact. In life, facts are incredibly rare. Most of the time, we have widely accepted opinions as well as possible approximations. To prove that something is a fact is also very difficult. Thus, we should also open our mind to these opinions and other non-factual statements, and consider them, even if we do not accept them. 3 out of 7 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
skphuan |
11. choice of topics for POD discussion
Feb 25 2008, 6:20 PM EST
"1) TrueInteresting twist and definitions! It'd be enlightening to observe how this discussion morphs w/o a topic BUT we're not steering in that direction. There are 2 topics up for grabs: (a) effect of coffee on the brain see article www.enhanceproject.org/documents/Cognitive%20Enhancement%20Tech%20Review.pdf (b) profile of bloggers - see article www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Content_Creation.pdf - Take time to read them and we'll vote next Wed. Your reasons for choosing one topic over the other is part of this discussion and the real-time discussion in class. 4 out of 9 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
haoala |
12. RE: choice of topics for POD discussion
Feb 27 2008, 6:08 AM EST
Not linked:"Caffeine improves anticipatory processes in task switching": http://users.fmg.uva.nl/rridderinkhof/2006.Tieges.ea.BiolPsychol.pdf 7 out of 7 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
skphuan |
13. RE: choice of topics for POD discussion
Feb 27 2008, 6:00 PM EST
Thanks for putting up the url - I'd missed it in the last post. The discussion on choice of topics is suspended as the class has (1) voted in favour of coffee; (2) reflections on your previous reflections to submit next Wed after POD lesson. However, do read the articles as we'll choose issues for discussion next Wed as part of the lesson on 'argument'. I'll post issues relating to the articles for discussion on Wed after we agree on a few during our lesson next Wed. 3 out of 7 found this valuable. Do you? |
Totalimmortal_wdt |
22. Coffee Talk
Mar 3 2008, 6:13 AM EST
Though certain ingredients of coffee are known to enhance bodily functions, as mentioned by Adriel and Darren, what do you think on the ethics of using caffeine are? Will it allow for greater productivity, but cause you to burn out later? Is it in its rightful sense seen as a "performance-enhancing drug"? Personally, I take coffee as a drink with a few side-effects, but I would like your take on this statement-" If certain levels of caffeine can increase productivity, should these levels be avoided for consumption in the context of a competition, like chess?" - Yu Shiang
1
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
no-other-name-left |
24. RE: Coffee Talk
Mar 3 2008, 9:43 AM EST
It is a 'drug' if you think about it. Firstly, you can be addicted to coffee, to the point that you have to take it to start the day. Secondly, it enhances your performance ability, but also, like Yu Shiang says, 'cause you to burn out later'. So we have a consumable that can make you addicted to it, and also gives you side effects with temporary feelings of positivity. The only reason that coffee is allowed is because people like you drink it, imagine the public out roar if their coffee supply is cut short. I'm sure we all know that things like cigarettes are bad for us. But why do we still allow it? It's the same reason for coffee. We, as a society have become too addicted to it and have allowed it to become part of our culture. I'm sure that if drugs were widely used, the government would be powerless to stop if. E.g. Cambodia. the drug abuse problem there should be well-known to everybody. The government is unable to fix this problem effectively due to many reasons. One is the fact that a huge percentage of the population relies on the production of these drugs for livelihood, as have become part of their culture, part of their economy. I hope you can see the resemblances here.
3
out of
5 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Totalimmortal_wdt |
25. Interesting point
Mar 4 2008, 3:26 AM EST
So, it is true that coffee is seen as a social issue by many as an act of consumption, be it for the enjoyment or for the effect of keeping oneself awake. I agree that coffee is much less an ethical issue as a social issue, but the ethics of addiction are still a chief concern. Is coffee consumed because we like to or have to? Most adults have to consume their daily dose of about two to three cups of coffee just not to feel lethargic, so caffeine is an addiction in this sense. To me, despite the addiction, I do not feel that caffeine is a real drug. I say this because drugs are much more detrimental to the self than caffeine. What's more, I see the enhancement in productivity as a side-effect. Take this for an example: The body naturally produces adrenaline and this is require for many physical activities. It enhances bodily functions and the body keeps requiring more of it to sustain that productivity. So, is adrenaline a drug? I don't think so. Similarly, caffeine reacts naturally with the body, while drugs force upon the body an excessive amount of foreign substances, like methamphetamine forcing excessive dopamine to the brain. So, I do not believe caffeine is a drug.
0
out of
3 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
no-other-name-left |
26. RE: Interesting point
Mar 4 2008, 9:30 AM EST
Firstly, what are the ethics of making someone addicted to something? Can a gamer sue Blizzard for addiction to Warcraft? Can Beck sue Mcdonalds? Can a gambler sue a casino sue a casino, save in Boston Legal? Well, dictionary.com defines addiction as ' a dependence on a behavior or sub-stance that a person is powerless to stop'. Powerless to stop. Ladies and gentlemen. Ah, who am I kidding? Just gentlemen. Powerless. The moment you take it, you become it's slave. Sure, we can always 'drop' the habit. I don't know about you but somehow, coffee seems to sound a lot like drugs now. Both ARE addictive. And addiction, no matter of what, always leads to negative consequences.Also, I would like to point out a flaw in totalimmortal's reasoning about adrenaline. Firstly, how can one tell the difference between something that reacts 'naturally' with the brain and one that involves the chemicals in 'cooked plants', which IS what most drugs are made of? Plants. Pretty Natural, I'm guessing. Secondly, adrenaline is something that is PRODUCED in the body, contrasted to something that is MAN-made. So unless coffee monster, AKA Issac, suddenly starts bleeding coffee, I highly doubt that nature intended us to drink coffee. 1 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
no-other-name-left |
27. Highly profound question.
Mar 5 2008, 3:17 AM EST
If I am who I say I am, should you question who I said I would be?But If I were who I said I was, but am not, should I ask not who I am, but only who I should be? A man who does not speak doesn't mean that he cannot. A man who eats doesn't mean he doesn't drink. A man can act like a jester, but have the mind of a king. A man can understand, but does not speak. Do not be too quick to judge. 1 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
eagleofnone |
28. RE: Highly profound question.
Mar 5 2008, 7:03 AM EST
"If I am who I say I am, should you question who I said I would be?If you are who you said you are, why can't I question what you must be? But if you said that you were who you were, and are not, shouldn't I ask not what you are, but what you will never be? A man who speaks only uses his ascribed rights to speak. A man who loves doesn't mean that he doesn't hate as well. A man can act like the veteran, and still be the lowest initiate. Make a fast judgement but don't jump to it. That out of the way... Yes, no-other-name-left is right in saying that even adrenaline itself is a drug; people can form an addiction out of anything so long as it gives them the high they want. However, no-other-name-left's point on nature not intending us to drink coffee is absurd. Almost all drugs have some sort of plant base. Even LSD has a chemical structure that is not unlike that of the Mexican morning glory, ololiuqui. Also, nature's drugs are far more lenient on the human body than man-made ones; nature doesn't intend to kill its user most of the time. Compare this to methamphetamines to heroin, for example. Meth still has worse side-effects on its users than Heroin does. In http://www.caama.net/FAQ.htm, Methamphetamines actually remain in the brain longer and end up causing more dopamine to accumulate in your brain. If coffee is used right, it can aid in the general well-being of others. In http://men.webmd.com/features/coffee-new-health-food, six cups of coffee can, among other things, cut down on diabetes by more than half. Do you find this valuable? |
