Question About Chess And Psychology

 

1. King Vikram & the Vampire: Story # 6: The Girl who transposed the heads of her Husband and Brother. Which combination of head and body is her husband?

 

But while she was arranging the rope about her neck, a voice from heaven cried: “Do nothing rash, my daughter. Leave the rope alone. Though you are young, I am pleased with your unusual goodness. Place the two heads on the two bodies and they shall rise up again and live through my favour.”

 

So Lovely left the rope alone and joyfully went to the bodies. But in her great hurry and confusion she made a mistake. She put her husband’s head on her brother’s body and her brother’s head on her husband’s body. Then they arose, sound and well, like men awaking from a dream. And they were all delighted to hear one another’s adventures, worshipped the goddess, and went on their way.

 

Now as she walked along, Lovely noticed that she had made a mistake in their heads. And she was troubled and did not know what to do.

 

When the vampire had told this story, he asked the king: “O King, when they were mingled in this way, which should be her husband? If you know and do not tell, then the curse I spoke of will be fulfilled.”

 

King Vikram’s Answer:

 

“The body with the husband’s head on it is her husband. For the head is the most important member. It is by the head that we recognize people.”

 

Task:

 

Probe Vikram’s answer with essential questions. Don’t forget to ask essential questions on his assumptions! Note that “assumption” is used in a specific sense in critical thinking module # 4. It is an unstated reason. So, neither Vikram’s stated reasons nor his conclusion or answer is an “assumption” in this technical sense in critical thinking.

 

You must identify Vikram’s answer and reasons before you can identify his unstated reasons or assumptions.) and answer them in light of the story. Quote relevant details from the story in your answers.

 

 

 

2. In the story “Silver Blaze”, identify an important clue and a deduction based on it by Sherlock Holmes. State the clue and the deduction each in one concise and clear sentence. Formulate Holmes’ reasoning in terms of Modus ponens or Modus tollens or Disjunctive or Hypothetical forms of deduction.

 

Clarification:

 

Make sure not to switch your clue and deduction when you analyze Holmes’ reasoning. Remember, the clue is the premise or reason or the observation and the deduction is the conclusion Holmes draws from the premise, reason, or observation.

 

Modus Ponens (proving mode):

 

If you do modus ponens for Holmes’ deductions, then the clue must go into the “if…” part and the deduction or conclusion must go into the “then…” part. You then affirm the clue in the second premise and then affirm the deduction in the conclusion.

 

For example, “If Helen Stoner had a railway return ticket in her hand (clue), then she arrived by train (deduction or conlusion).” Helen Stoner had a railway return ticket in her hand. So, she arrived by train.

 

 

 

Modus Tollens (disproving mode):

 

If you do modus tollens for Holmes’ deductions, then the deduction or conclusion which is disproved goes into the “if…” part and the clue which would support that deduction or conclusion goes into the “then….” part. You then deny the clue in the second premise and then deny the deduction in the conclusion.

 

For example, “If the gypsies had killed Julia Stoner (deduction or conlcusion to be disproved), then they would have been able to enter her room through the window or the door (clue which would support the deduction or conclusion).” They could not have entered her room through the window or the door. So, the gypsies had not killed Julia Stoner.

 

 

 

Disjunctive syllogism format:

1) Either Drebber died voluntarily or he was murdered.

2) Drebber did not die voluntarily.

—————————————————————–

C: Drebber was murdered.

 

 

 

Hypothetical syllogism format:

 

1. If the US launches attacks in Libya and Somalia (X), it will increase the risk of terrorist retaliation against US citizens (Y).

 

2. If the risk of terrorist retaliation against US citizens increases (Y), their security is undermined (Z).

 

Therefore, if the US launches attacks in Libya and Somalia (X), it will undermine the security of US citizens (Z).

 

 

 

3. Two-move Checkmate Problem: Black: K-e4; N-f4; pawn b4; R-h1; White: K-c1; R-d1; N-c2; pawn a2;

 

Black to move and checkmate white in two moves. What are these two moves?

 

Note that the second move must be a check move resulting in checkmate for white, but black’s first critical move may or may not be a check move. Also, you have to think about how white can respond to black’s first move. If you identify the correct first move black must make, then no matter how white responds, it will face a checkmate in the second move by black. However, depending on how white responds to black’s first move, the second and final move by black which delivers the checkmate will differ. You should identify these alternative responses by white and the second and final checkmate moves by black in your answer, e.g., “Black’s first move is ___________If white responds by doing x, then black’s second and checkmate move is ____________. If white responds by doing y, then black’s second and checkmate move is __________.”

 

 

 

 

 

4 . Module 12: Critical Thinking And Mass Media Propaganda: Watch the video on “The Myth of American Democracy” by Prof. Jerry Kroth in the module page on “AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: MYTH OR REALITY?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZzvKXZUyQs&list=UUTHZbk9nPwc3RmPl2izhChA&index=19

 

 

What are his main reasons and examples for his claim that “American democracy” is a myth? Probe his reasons and examples with questions before justifying your agreement or disagreement with his argument.

 

Compare his argument with the arguments made by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn in the video “Is There Hope in This Desperate Time?”. Watch also the video clip “Noam Chomsky & Abby Martin: Electing The President of an Empire” on the same module page. What are the views of Zinn and Chomsky on the issue of democracy in America?

 

How does Bob Marley’s song (on the same module page) “Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights” complement the suggestions by Chomsky and Zinn to initiate and /or develop democratic struggles in the US?

 

A review of Thomas Ferguson’s book “Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems” states that “To discover who rules, follow the gold.” This is the argument of Golden Rule, a provocative, pungent history of modern American politics. Although the role big money plays in defining political outcomes has long been obvious to ordinary Americans, most pundits and scholars have virtually dismissed this assumption. Even in light of skyrocketing campaign costs, the belief that major financial interests primarily determine who parties nominate and where they stand on the issues—that, in effect, Democrats and Republicans are merely the left and right wings of the “Property Party”—has been ignored by most political scientists. Offering evidence ranging from the nineteenth century to the 1994 mid-term elections, Golden Rule shows that voters are “right on the money.”

 

Thomas Ferguson breaks completely with traditional voter centered accounts of party politics. In its place he outlines an “investment approach,” in which powerful investors, not unorganized voters, dominate campaigns and elections. Because businesses “invest” in political parties and their candidates, changes in industrial structures—between large firms and sectors—can alter the agenda of party politics and the shape of public policy.”

 

Does the “investment approach” of Thomas Ferguson help to make sense of what has gone wrong with “democracy” in America? Explain.

 

 

 

5. Watch the video clips “The Worst Slaughter Of Indian Peoples In United States History: Indians in California” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR2IgSIvjCk

and “American Holocaust: The Destruction of America’s Native Peoples” by noted American historian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qra6pcn4AOE David Stannard in “Racism, Militarism, and Violence” in the Module on “Critical Thinking and Current Issues”. State three central facts presented in each of these two video clips and the main deductions we should draw based those facts. (Try to think like Sherlock Holmes and focus on the clues (facts) and the deductions or conclusions you can draw based on them.)

 

In “Racism, Militarism, and Violence” in the Module on “Critical Thinking and Current Issues”, read the interview “Was America Great When It Burned Native American Babies?”with Benjamin Madley, UCLA history professor, and author of “An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873” on the campaign of extermination against Native Americans in California. Read also on the same module page Madley’s Op-Ed piece in the LA Times “It’s time to acknowledge the genocide of California’s Indians”. What are some of his central claims and supporting reasons? What essential questions do you have on his views? (Take a look also at the notes on George Washington’s orders to destroy the Iroquois nation and the horrifying eye-witness descriptions of the Sand Creek Massacre of Native Americans in Colorado.)

 

Watch the video clip of the song “My country ’tis of thy people you’re dying” by Buffy Sainte-Marie in the module on “Critical Thinking and Song”. How does her song capture and convey the truths on the slaughter of Native Americans in California and elsewhere and the history of their oppression and marginalization in the course of US history? What are your essential questions on her song?

 

 

 

 

 

 

This assignment is worth 100 pts. The assignment questions are (altogether) worth 75 pts and the two feedback posts are worth 25 pts.

 

 

 

Important Note: There is no “Edit” option available. Pl. complete your assignment in a file on your computer and then copy and paste it by clicking on “Reply” to this assignment at the bottom of this page. Verify that your initial assignment is complete and in order before clicking on “submit”!

 

 

 

There are three important conditions for grading your discussion submissions. Your discussion submission will receive a “0” if these conditions are not met. There are no exceptions to this requirement. The objective is to get you to practice completing all assigned tasks conscientiously.

 

1. You must first post your discussion assignment before you can read discussion posts by other students. Your first posting must be your completed discussion assignment. Any incomplete or fragmentary or irrelevant first posting will be interpreted as an attempt to see the answers of other students and will receive a “0”.

 

Pl. complete your discussion assignment in a file on your computer and then copy and paste it by clicking on “Reply” to this assignment at the bottom of this page. Verify that your discussion assignment is complete before clicking on “submit”!

 

 

 

2. You must complete All questions and tasks. Incomplete submissions will receive a “0”. Copy and paste each question with the correct numbering before answering it. Points are lost for not doing this since it makes it difficult to see which question you are answering.

 

 

 

3. You must submit a substantial feedback (Min: three paragraphs for each feedback and addressing specific points and examples, raising questions, and offering constructive criticisms.) on the discussion assignment submissions by at least Two students. You will earn a “0” on feedback if you do not submit your substantial feedback on the discussion assignment submissions by Two students.

 

To submit a feedback, click on the student’s discussion submission and then click on “reply” to type your feedback.

 

Late submissions are not allowed and you must not send late submissions to me by e-mail. They will not be accepted or graded. Only discussion assignments submitted in the discussion tab are graded.

 

Unless specified in the question, there are no limits on the answers to the discussion questions. A reasonable answer will likely take a few paragraphs depending on the question and the related tasks.

Ethics And Moral Reasoning

Hello class!  Please select ONE of the five options below for your initial post. Thank you!

I attached Week 4 – Instructor Guidance at the bottom also for discussion.

 

PHI 208 Week 4 Discussion Prompts

 

 

1.      1. An important aspect of Aristotle’s virtue ethics is the idea that virtues are “habits” that we acquire over time, and like any habit, virtues affect not just what we do, but our desires and emotions as well.  Focusing on either Hill’s article or Robinson’s article, how might this be important when discussing environmental ethics or military ethics (focus your discussion on just one of those, but feel free to discuss the other in reply to other people’s posts)? How would a virtue ethicist reply to someone who says that they wish they could do more to express concern for the environment or be more courageous, but are too “weak willed” to do that?  Use examples from the assigned media when appropriate.

 

2.      2.Aristotle says that the virtues are necessary for humans to attain happiness, but he means this in terms of something we might call “flourishing” or “living well”, which he considers quite different than simply feeling good.  Thus, according to Aristotle some people might feel that they are happy, but because they lack the virtues they are not truly flourishing.  However, imagine someone that is deceitful, selfish, greedy, self-indulgent, and yet enjoys great pleasure and appears to be quite happy.  Is someone like this “flourishing” or not?  Explain your answer this by referring to this week’s readings and media, and if possible provide examples from real life and/or from literature, film, TV, etc.

 

3.      3. Aristotle claims that if you are suffering terrible misfortune, you cannot truly be considered happy or flourishing.  However, there are many examples from current and past history, religious traditions, and fiction of people that might seem to contradict this claim (for example, in the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12, Luke 6:20-23) Jesus describes people that seem to be suffering in various ways and calls them “blessed”; some translations say “happy”).   Leaving aside any religious assumptions and considering this from a strictly philosophical perspective, do you think that it’s possible for people to be happy or flourishing even if they are suffering terrible misfortune?  Provide at least one example to illustrate your answer, and refer to the readings and media to support your view.

 

4.      4.What are 2 virtues that you believe are important to living a flourishing or successful life in either Aristotle’s sense?  Explain what goods in human life these virtues enable their possessor to fulfill.  Provide examples of characteristic behavior that manifests these virtues, and contrast that with behavior that displays a lack of virtue.  Do your examples confirm Aristotle’s view that a virtue is a mean between extremes of excess and defect?  If so, explain what those extremes are; if not, explain why.  Refer to this week’s readings and media to illustrate and support your claims.

 

5.      5. Describe an area in your own life that you believe requires certain virtues in order to do well.   This might be an occupation, an activity or hobby, a role you play (mother, friend, husband, mentor, etc.), and so on.  Explain what this is, and what the “telos” of this kind of thing is; in other words, what is the purpose of this area of life, and would it mean to flourish and do well in it?  Are there things people pursue in this area that are not part of the true telos?  Finally, what are the virtues that one must have in order to flourish and do well in this area of life?  What are some vices that get in the way?  Your answers to these questions should include evidence from this week’s readings and media.

Ashford 5: – Week 4 – Instructor Guidance

 

 

Week 4 – Theoretical Issues in Religion; Instructor Guidance by Christopher Myers, PhD.

 

The Philosophical Study of Religion and God

 

Hello class! In this latest course revision, the curriculum skips over some essential parts of our textbook, including the entire Chapter Four which is devoted to religion and God in Western Civilization! Despite this, “God-talk” is usually a part of our discussions throughout the course and it is important to cover the topic in a philosophy and ethics class! Of course, we are going to be studying this from the philosophical perspective. I would like to open with a few words about the academic approach to religious studies, which is different than learning about a religion as a believer and follower of that religion. In the academic approach to religious studies, we have to maintain a rational objectivity in regard to the different religions and beliefs and practices that we are talking about and studying. Many of us have our own personal religious beliefs and practices but we have to put those into brackets and keep those separate from our academic studies. That does not mean that we cannot express our own personal beliefs, but the discussion here is ordered by rationality and philosophical justification. As an example, suppose that we were studying Buddhism and in particular the concept of reincarnation. It would not help us to simply say “I don’t believe in reincarnation…” or to quote some biblical verse that we think “disproves” it. In our academic study, we would be discussing what reincarnation means to Buddhists and to consider “what would it mean if reincarnation were true?” Of course, we would not be making any metaphysical judgment whether it is really true or not.

 

Positive Metaphysical Agnosticism

 

I have an academic approach to religious studies that I call “positive metaphysical agnosticism.” Keeping in mind that this is a philosophy course and not a religion course, let me explain this term. I call it “positive” because it means that I am open to the study of all kinds of religious experiences, and to the people that are expressing them and their religious beliefs and practices. “Metaphysical” means the kinds of ideas and claims they cannot be proven or disproven in a scientific laboratory or by science even in its largest scope. This includes supernatural experiences and beings and claims that go beyond the five senses. For instance, if I were to say “I saw my guardian angel save me from the car crash ,” that is a metaphysical statement. The term “agnosticism” is based upon a Greek word and it literally means: to not know. So, putting that all together, in the academic and philosophical approach, as a professor or student, I would have to say, “I do not know if that is true or not and there is no way that I can tell one way or the other, but we can talk about the concept of angels and supernatural intervention from a philosophical perspective.

 

Good-Faith Dialogue

 

In the academic study of religion and God there need not be any personal conflicts in our discussions together. Atheists, agnostics, and followers of any religion or denomination should be able to have a reasonable discussion. Mosser talks about the “principle of charity” (p. 180) in which we extend to people the good faith that they are good and positive people who are interested in discussing these issues with us for the benefit of the entire class, regardless of their personal viewpoints, religious or not.

 

Remember, this is a philosophy class, and our goal is to learn about religion and God from the philosophical perspective this week!

 

Make sure that take a look at the power-point presentation that I have prepared for you. It goes hand-in-hand with the information in Chapter Four, and will help you summarize the main points in your mind and retain the information for future use!

 

PHI 208 Week 4 PowerPoint Presentation

 

After you have reviewed he power point presentation, you should check out the following video and book! I was fortunate to see a live debate with William Lane Craig at the University of Iowa, with Professor Evan Fales from the Philosophy Department. Later, I took a philosophy seminar with Professor Fales on causality – and both were great!

 

The video and book will introduce you to one of the best philosophical theologians living today and one of the 20th century’s most respected philosophers and atheists – Antony Flew.

 

Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew

 

http://youtu.be/NDSaJrbFOuk Accessed by Christopher Myers, 12/10/12

 

Published on Apr 24, 2012

 

William Lane Craig and Antony Flew met in 1998 on the 50th anniversary of the famous Copleston/Russell debate to discuss the question of God’s existence in a public debate. Unlike Richard Dawkins, Flew was one of the most respected atheist thinkers of the 20th and early 21st century (his scholarly works on David Hume are still studied today, and his “presumption of atheism” argument is still used by atheists). He became a deist shortly before he died in April 2010 (although he was an atheist when he debated Craig).

 

 

Does God exist?: the Craig-Flew debate

books.google.com/books?isbn=0754631907

William Lane Craig, Antony Flew, Stan W. Wallace – 2003 – Preview – More editions

William Craig and Antony Flew met on the 50th anniversary of the famous Copleston/Russell debate to discuss the question of God’s existence in a public debate.

What were the ethical principles violated in the interaction between patients and doctors?

Journal 6: Human Experimentation

After you watch the documentary The Deadly Deception presenting the infamous Tuskegee Study, please respond to the questions below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZquBH0CH24

watch these two videos and answer the question 3-4 sentances for each question

 

1. What were the ethical principles violated in the interaction between patients and doctors?

2. What other parties had interests in this case and what were these interests?

3. What were the arguments used by the defenders of the study to justify its execution?

4. What was wrong with these arguments?

5. How is this experiment similar to the experiments performed by Nazi doctors?

6. What can we do to make sure such experiments are not carried out ever again?

 

Creative Minds And Critical Thinking

Write a paper covering all of the following topics. Each topic point should be 200 to 250 words in length:

  1. Describe an actual situation of public interest in which critical and/or creative thought could have been used for a better outcome (for example, a law with unintended consequences). Discuss why it is important that leaders think critically and creatively in similar situations.
  2. Define free will, truth, knowledge, and opinion as presented in The Art of Thinking. <https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323091975>Do not use other sources. Explain how we use them to form thoughts. What role does each of the four play in critically assessing situations?
  3. Identify three hindrances to the critical-thinking process as presented in the readings. <https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323091975> Do not use other sources. Determine methods for overcoming these hindrances. Identify a time in which you experienced a hindrance in critical thinking and describe how you could (or did) overcome the hindrance.
  4. Select an advertisement. Describe how you (or others) might perceive the message of the advertisement. Now try to determine the reality of the advertisement. Distinguish between your perception and the reality of the message.

Format your assignment according to appropriate course level APA guidelines.