The Pros And Cons Of Supportive Reasoning

The problem with psychological continuity, however, is that many of the relations involved (including memory relations) appear to presuppose identity. Parfit attempts to avoid this charge of circularity by using the concept of q-memory. Q-memories do not presume that the person having the q-memory and the person who actually had the experience are the same person, unlike ordinary memories which do presuppose identity. Parfit applies this same redesription to other relations of psychological continuity such as intention and responsibility.

we predict a main effect for belief perseverance condition that If told a prior study found a threatened child ranked a forbidden toy high/lower than a non-threatened child, participant will think that result will persist in a future study. We predict a main effect for credibility of source that participant given more credible source will think that result will persist in a future study compared to those given less credible source. Also we predict an interaction effect between belief perseverance condition and credibility of source condition. That is, if told a prior study found a threatened child ranked a forbidden toy higher than a non-threatened child (More condition), and given more credible source, participant will think that result will persist in a future study with a threatened child finding the toy more attractive compared to a non-threatened child than those in the remaining conditions (More and Less credible, Less and More credible, and Less and Less credible conditions). If told a prior study found a threatened child ranked a forbidden toy lower than a non-threatened child (Less condition), and given more credible source, participant will think that result will persist in a future study with a threatened child finding the toy less attractive

In my week five, I learned about person-centered care(PCC) and we watch two powerful videos related to PCC. The activity about Jim to consider the first four elements of the Clinical Reasoning Cycle(CRC). PCC is the key element of professional nursing practice in Code of conduct (NMBA, 2018) and to achieve this, clinical reasoning skill is fundamental and effects the patient outcome greatly (Cooper et al., 2011). When I was watching video about a senior female patient who were treated from nurses like a task to finish, I was so sad and irritated by their nonprofessional attitudes. In contrast, the other video with Rio 2016 Paralympics was one of my favorite video it is strong and inspiring. I could realize the importance

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

Persons (1989) suggested that a case formulation may explain how current problems are being precipitated and how they actually make sense in the light of the hypothesised underlying beliefs and current triggers. These also may suggest origins of the underlying beliefs in the client’s early life. Judith Beck (1995), Melanie Fennell (1989) and others have expanded this view of the cognitive formulation to include Core Beliefs and Assumptions which are linked to the Automatic Thoughts specific to a given situation.

We hear justifications and excuses every day. Both words in our world can be used in similar fashion. That being said, within the world of law, a justification is about giving reasonable reason for what was done or not. Excuses in the other hand, is a defense that recognizes a crime was committed, but that for the defendant, although committing a socially undesirable crime, conviction and punishment would be morally inappropriate. Justification and excuses are the most common affirmative defenses utilized to be exculpated from a criminal offence. Throughout this essay justifications and excuses are going to be explored in depth as there is a fine line between them. Justifications and excuses are going to be compared and contrasted. Also, court cases are going to be used as examples to expand on this two simple but yet complicated words.

When people think of America, compared to other countries, they think of freedom. From the famous red, white, and blue flag, to the majestic bald eagle. However, America, as everyone knows, has not always been free, but rather apart of Great Britain. As America was gaining more and more settlers and colonists, the British King decided to start imposing heavy taxes and to enforce said taxes, he sent over soldiers and used already stationed troops to enforce these taxes. Of course people were not happy about this, so some Americans started talking of a Revolution, and one of the texts to get people riled up and on the side of the revolution was the pamphlet “Common Sense.” In response to “Common Sense,” the text “The True Interest of America

Clinical reasoning can be defined as, ‘the process by which nurses (and other clinicians) collect cues, process the information, come to an understanding of a patient’s problem or situation, plan and implement interventions, evaluate outcomes and reflect on and learn from the process’ (Levett-Jones & Hoffman 2013, p.4). It requires health professionals to be able to think critically and ensures better engagement and results for the patient (Tanner 2006, p.209). The Quality in Australian Healthcare Study (Wilson 1995, p.460) discovered that ‘cognitive failure’ resulted in approximately 57% of unfavourable clinical events involving the failure to produce and act correctly on clinical information. It also recognises that often nurse’s preconceptions and assumptions can greatly affect patient care and by going through such a process, one can take into account the holistic nature of the patient and provide the best, most appropriate care.

ideas that explain other people 's ideas, beliefs, desires, and behavior. (Bee and Boyd 159).

The purpose of this paper is to argue that Alvin Goldman's paper "A Causal Theory of Knowing" does not solve the problem in Edmund Gettier's paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" To argue the old view of knowledge, Gettier presents a case in which a Subject (S) is justified in believing that a proposition (P) and P entails another proposition (Q). S deduces Q from P and accepts Q. Then S is justified in believing Q. In the first Case that Gettier presents however, P is falsely justified, but Q is a true justified belief: Smith (S) is justified in believing that Jones is the man who will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket (P). Thus, the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket (Q). S is justified in

There are various types of fallacies that can cause an argument to be weak or invalid. Fallacies are mistaken beliefs based on unsound arguments. Discussed during the course of this essay are three specific types of logical fallacies, and the key roles they play in thinking and decision making. Those logical fallacies to be discussed are universal statements, bandwagon appeal, and guilt by association. In order for one to avoid being misled, by flawed reasoning, one should be able to identify and call out unreliable logic wherever it may appear.

concerned with the finding and elaboration of arguments" (1991: 91). In Aristotle's Rhetoric the category of heuresis included

This diagram “illustrates the necessary relations that prevail between the four kinds of standard-form categorical propositions” (Hurley 712). It is evident from this diagram that both A and O propositions contradict each other and E and I propositions contradict each other. When propositions are connected by the contradictory relation, they “necessarily have opposite truth value” (Hurley 215). There is also an existing condition deemed logically undetermined truth value which occurs when “a certain statement is not necessarily either true or false, given the true value of some related statement” (Hurley 711). The modern square of opposition is also comprised of “truths that result merely from the fact that the subject class is empty” also referred to as propositions vacuously true (Hurley

The purpose of this essay is to justify why coherence theory of justification is preferable to a foundationalist theory of justification, I will start by explaining what Coherence the theory of justification and foundationalist theory of justification is. Coherence theory of justification also known as coherentism, is a theory of epistemic justification, this theory implies that in order for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of belief, For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that creates that system must "cohere" with one another. (Murphy, 2007)

Throughout history, philosophers have been trying to come up with a clear way to provide the justification of our beliefs and knowledge. Noah Lemos offers readers explanations of both foundationalism and coherentism for theories of justification. These two different theories offer very different ways to explain the basis of our beliefs. For a foundationalist, they believe that all of our beliefs can be broken down until we reach a basic belief. This belief would be largely independent of other beliefs and not derived from other beliefs. A coherentist feels that a belief can be reasonably justified if it is coheres with our other beliefs.