Essay about Skepticism: A Good or Bad thing?

1. Fill in the table below with the results from the monosaccharide test experiment, and your conclusions based on those results.

The words “certainty” and “doubt” have many varying connotations and implications given a specific context. Even though the definitions of these two words are considered polar opposites of each other, there is one connection between the two that is undeniable: both certainty and doubt can be taken with a grain of salt, as they are all merely just opinions specific to the person that those concepts are presented to. Adding on to that, there is also a concept relating to this; the idea that there is always “the certainty of doubt” and that they are merely two sides of the same coin.

As I was watching the Frontline Video, Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero, I was immediately faced with the question about evil. It is hard to imagine how someone could do something so horrific in the name of religion. So many lives were forever changed during the events that transpired on Tuesday morning, Sept. 11, 2001. As a believer of God, I could certainly identify with the feelings of the people who lost loved ones during the 9/11 tragedy.

“Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgments.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? Often times, when people can’t form a logical reason for certain things they did, their justification is “because I had a gut feeling”. Indeed, people sometimes make judgments based on their gut feelings, or intuition. It is a very subjective and interesting way to gain knowledge. Our intuition can trick us into traps in which we never thought we would fall; it can also lead us to bold, unconventional decisions which bring us truth and knowledge. Our instinctive judgments often become more justifiable when they are “checked”, or verified, by other ways of knowing. Before I answer the

Faith and reason can be viewed as opposites. Faith is an element of belief, something an individual does not necessarily require a reason for accepting without reason. For example, an individual’s reason for believing in God may not seem too rational when they are trying to explain them. They may not even stand up to criticism. On the other hand, reason is constructed as a formula. Faith is basically something we believe in, like something we learn in church. Reason is something we learn in school, such as a math formula.

One argues that today we have a crisis of belief, not a crisis of faith. To explain this crisis, I will briefly examine the relationship between faith and belief, explain why cultural shift is important to note when trying to understand religious issues, go into detail on the three hallmarks of each of the two cultures by showing how they compare to each other, show how Tillich’s notion of correlation deals with this idea of culture and a crisis of belief, and explain how Marsh’s notion of a “theology of negotiation” (33) fits with Lonergan’s definition and allows him to argue that film can help us raise theological questions.

     In Shadow of a Doubt, Hitchcock utilizes and stretches the ambiguous line between comedy and suspense by utilizing smaller characters in the film to keep the story line moving, and to help break sequence or rhythm of what the audience had been perceiving at the time. Many of the minor characters were used as “fillers”, such as the waitress in the bar when Uncle Charlie and Charlie are sitting in the bar, and makes the comment “I would die for a ring like this”; or the quiet, gentle neighbor Herb who is fascinated with the process of homicide and murder. It brings to the audience an immediate comic relief, but similar to all of Hitchcock, leaves an unsettling feeling of fear and suspense with

Skepticism is something that we all have to one degree or another. Some of us who carry some Limited (Local) Skepticism might question whether we can really know if the news anchor is giving us correct information or if the five day forecast is really on track this time regarding the rain it is predicting. Others subscribe to the Global Skepticism view; that is, they would argue that we cannot know anything at all, and, therefore, we can’t have knowledge of anything (Feldman 109). As a global skeptic, we would not only challenge the same things that limited skeptics confront, but we would challenge the very essence of our being. If this form of skepticism is valid, we would have to reexamine

David Hume’s approach to skepticism is very different from Descartes’ ideas, mainly because he believes that it is not good to become skeptical of everything. Hume feels that there are two different types of skepticism: the type the Descartes follows, known as the “antecedent” skepticism that involves doubting everything, and moderate skepticism, which Hume feels is the more reasonable form (Hume 36). Hume feels that antecedent skepticism is pointless, and that by simply doubting everything, one is not able to find an answer to what they are looking for because they may never be satisfied with any form of validity. However, Hume feels that moderate skepticism is “a necessary preparative to the study of philosophy, by preserving a proper impartiality in our judgements, and weaning our mind from all those prejudices, which we may have imbibed from education or rash opinion,” (Hume 36). In other words, Hume is saying that moderate skepticism is necessary

Shadow of a Doubt is an Alfred Hitchcock film that was shot on location in the 1940's town of Santa Rosa, California. The town itself is representative of the ideal of American society. However, hidden within this picturesque community dark corruption threatens to engulf a family. The tale revolves around Uncle Charlie, a psychotic killer whose namesake niece, a teenager girl named Charlie, is emotionally thrilled by her Uncles arrival. However her opinion slowly changes as she probes into her mysterious uncle. In the film, director/producer Alfred Hitchcock blends conventions of film noir with those of a small town domestic comedy as a means of commenting on the contradictions in American values.

One of the most important branches in philosophy, is Epistemology, which means, theory of knowledge. So far, philosophers have made many attempts to discover the source of knowledge, the standards or criteria by which we can judge the reliability of knowledge. We tend to be satisfied with think what we know about almost everything, even though sometimes we are shocked to discover that something that we thought it was sure and certain, is instead proved dubious and not sure. For example, suppose that one person that you know and trust tells you that the moon landing in 1969 is only a lie, and the pictures and film were made in a laboratory. We might distrust our friend maybe or think that in fact there were no prove

Great and simple interpretation Kevin about the article. This man really has great words and is really changing many people point of views in todays society. I agree with you that healthy skepticism is something that many of us should take in consideration, especially since many of us are blind and don't really look at things the correct way. Logical thinking and explanation is absolutely necessary for those people that don't think before anything. I am also majoring in marketing and I think that we can relate similarly because we need to know what's right and what's wrong.

Skepticism is the Western philosophical tradition that maintains that human beings can never arrive at any kind of certain knowledge. Originating in Greece in the middle of the fourth century BC, skepticism and its derivatives are based on the following principles:

How many times have you said, “No way, I do not believe it!” It is our natural tendency not to believe in something that we have not seen with our own eyes or experienced it personally. There is a saying, “seeing is believing” which has led us to a world full of skeptics. We want proof so we are not gullible fools. Skepticism, or scepticism, as it was spelled back in the ancient times, was pondered by philosophers who tried unsuccessfully to figure out the thought process and how we gain knowledge. Philosophers gave deep thought to determine how we arrive at such true beliefs and knowledge of the external world. Three such philosophers were Rene Descartes, David Hume and Christopher Grau. Rene Descartes was a French philosopher in the early 1600’s; David Hume was a Scottish Philosopher in the 1700’s, and Grau an American philosopher Professor born in 1970. The timeline s important because philosophical views have evolved over time. All three men were from different eras, but they each explored, argued, and addressed the topic of skepticism from their philosophical view. This proves that they take the subject of skepticism seriously, just as we should too. There is good reason to believe that a human’s knowledge of the external world results from both a posteriori knowledge acquired through sensory experience and a priori knowledge which is innate. Descartes, Hume, and Grau through their personal views and skeptical

People in our society today who have the atheist point of view on religion, which is the belief that there is no god, are going against the so-called norms of society, and therefor are seen as deviant. Deviance is just an idea. Society determines what is deviant by the ideas they hold of what should be the norm. Atheism is seen as a negative deviance, or below the norm. They have a status that is placed on them in society. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they believe in evil, although that is how it is sometimes viewed from people in society who have a specific religion or faith. Atheism, which is not a new idea, has been evolving in our society, and is the reason for problems leading to debate and court cases, and for