Summary Of Inherit The Stars By James P. Hogan

Bragg writes, “… we believe some things regardless of science and sometimes common sense. And what we mostly

He explains why UCTs are as popular as they are in modern society, and why people should nevertheless disregard and approach them with caution. What Keeley refers to as “virtues” are the reason for the popularity of UCTs. He gives the virtue of explanatory reach as the first and main reason for UCTs popularity, which is the account of all knowledge including errant data. This is in stark contrast to the received theory, which is imperfect by nature. This quality of UCTs is particularly attractive because it appeals to human rationality by allowing for no loopholes. Keely argues that errant data alone is not significant enough, and that a theory should never fit all of the data. This leads into one of the main points, concerning falsifiability and skepticism. Unfalsifiability is acceptable when the item or person under investigation is not actively trying to escape from the investigator. Keeley contends that the problem is not the innate unfalsifiability, but rather the increasing amount of skepticism required. Keely seeks a hole in the concept of conspiracy theories that accounts for a person’s innate sense that belief in a particular conspiracy theory is not justified. In the case of the natural sciences, falsifiability is acceptable because of the rigorous protocols in place, and therefore, we are warranted in believing scientific claims.

However, Dianne draws two different point of views in two groups or how she called it two camps. The first camp suggests that there is only one true religion, and it is unified in nature: religious, scientific, and historical truths, and those tell us about how things actually are. The second stands for you can believe in whatever you want as well as me, and everything will be ok while we do not discuss over it. In addition to that, Oliver affirms that these two camps do not hold the complexity presented by truth-claims. Also, she uses a metaphor of a telescope by P. Knitter, a noted religion scholar to facilitate us understand the issues surrounding religious truth, which are good and bad news; good news is that we see through the telescope, and bad ones is that we cannot see everything through that, in other words truth claims always manifest different point of views of people. The author in the chapter posted on Blackboard refers that generally truth-claims are associated with the beliefs of a religious

For this project, I decided to read “The Fault in Our Stars,” a novel written by John Green. This book is about 16 year old Hazel Grace, who is diagnosed with thyroid cancer. She attends weekly Cancer Support Group, where she meets Augustus Waters, a “very intelligent and hot” boy who is currently in remission. They both take a liking for each other, their relationship growing and developing throughout the book as they fight cancer together. Along the way, Hazel learns many important lessons about life.

Toward the end of her speech when discussing whether or not everything is open to debate, Lipstadt refers to the idea that there are “indisputable facts, objective truths,” such as Galileo’s insistence that the earth revolved around the sun (Lipstadt 14:07).

For example, he first tells that "8 of 10 children born in United States will never know a sky dark enough for the milky way". This worrying statistic, probably unknown for the reader, will provoke reader's concern on he topic discussed. Bogard's mistake was to avoid the source of information of this statistic, so the audience will not know whether or not this fact is true. However, he get along with evidence by quotating World Health Organization and American Medical Association, being that both agree with his main claim. He keeps building his argument in telling obvious facts, connected by deductive reasoning. As an example "All life evolved to the steady rythm of bright days and dark nights [...] And too little darkness [...] spells trouble for all". Finally, Bogard also metions statistics based on NASA's pictures, irrefutable proofs about light polution increase. In mentioning official health organizations, obvious and daily facts, statistics and personal evidence, the cogency of the argument gains strength and becomes irrefutable. Consecuently, the author precludes readers to contradict his reasoning, gaining their

People around the globe are familiar with the triumphant words, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, nearly 20% (Russo) believe they were not said up in space, but in a set created by Americans unable to get to the actual moon. It’s concerning that some people think the moon landing was faked, and the conspiracy is starting to become a global issue. The lunar landing was not a hoax.

The STARS program is a process that most students have not even heard about, as a first time student myself, I was not even aware that the program existed. Most people might wonder what STARS is, for instance, STARS, however, stands for “Statewide Transfer and Articulation Reporting System.” It is an agreement that mostly a two-year college and most public four-year colleges in Alabama has that give all the transferring of courses taken to a public university in Alabama. In addition, most student wonder how to connect to STARS through their school site, it is an easy process; most colleges will have a link at the top of their website that will lead straight to the STARS site. However, from there STARS will give student instructions on how

Popper thinks that it is their weakness. He contrasts Marxism with Einstein’s Gravitational Theory, noting the main difference is that Einstein’s theory is a risky prediction. He says, "The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation…" Popper says that confirmations or verifications are easy to come up with for any theory; "Confirmations should only count if they are the result of risky predictions."

In the novel, “The Fault in Our Stars” has helped me in many ways like becoming more open minded about many things that I wasn’t exposed to before. The literary book, “The Fault in Our Stars” gives us an insight into two young teenagers' lives that have been diagnosed with cancer, but still live their lives to the fullest even though they have a limited amount of time. “You gave me a forever within the numbered of days, and I’m grateful” (260). John Green, through the characters of his book, infers that even if you have the shortest life, you can still create a meaningful one which would consist of care, love, and many other things that fulfill you or another

Popper opines that a significant problem with the scientific method is that scientists get so caught up in evidence that supports a specific conjecture that they either 1) fail to consider

In “The Refutation of Skepticism”, Jonathan Vogel establishes an “Inference to the Best Explanation” (hereafter, “IBE”) as a means to refute skepticism about the external world. In this refutation, Vogel acknowledges that skepticism about IBE still remains a possibility, but that this kind of skepticism would be rather outlandish in character and thus could be ignored. This paper shall both establish and evaluate Vogel’s reasoning as to why he confidently dismisses any skepticism pertaining to his IBE, and furthermore will illuminate some points as to why Vogel may have mischaracterized potential threats to his method, leaving his refutation of skepticism vulnerable to doubt that is not as

Karl Popper was critical of inductive methods used in science. He argued that there is a chain of justifying arguments that could never be complete, therefore an original statement that is made can never receives the justification that it needs (Popper 505-506). He was a firm believer in the concept of falsification, emphasizing that we can never be sure that a theory is true but we can be sure that a theory is false. He continues to explain that all inductive evidence is limited: we do not observe the universe at all times and in all places. Popper identifies that no matter how many observations are made which confirm a theory there is always potential for future observations to refute the claim (Popper 426). For example, if millions of white swans were observed, using inductive reasoning, we could come up with a theory that all swans are white. However, no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this information does not provide us with justification for the conclusion that all swans are white (Popper 426). Therefore induction cannot yield certainty. For scientists to continue to rely on inductive reasoning to

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat

"Marco," Star starts, her excitement beginning to dim as they walked on. "I 'm sorry, for this I mean." She gave a glance at the back of Marco 's head, stepping quickly to reach his side. "I never wanted this to turn out so badly."