Popper-Kuhn-Rawls

a) Why aren't all true beliefs justified?
True beliefs aren't justify because we will get into an infinite regress, where we will need another idea to prove the first idea and a third idea to prove the second one and so on... Another reason is that general theories can be proved but not disapproved, that means if a theory or a belief can;t be tested then we can;t argue if it is real or not, like the existence of God.

b) What is anti-foundationalist?
An anti-foundationalist is a person who thinks there's no certainty, specially in science where it is totally impossible to prove somethings right and they will rather focus on falsifictionism where it will be easier and better to find the mistakes of ways to prove wrong an idea or theory an try to find ways to fix it.

c) Why is it easier to falsify a statement that to verify it?
It is easier specially in science to find the mistakes on a theory so you can find the ways to make it better than trying to verify it like the example of the aliens where it will be easier to recover the knowledge when we already have a base (like the books) than trying to start from zero again , so it is easier to find the points where something can be proven wrong and find new ways to replace the old theory than verifying it, also because science maybe be kind of subjective some times because the point of view of the scientists.

d) What reasons does the article in The Economist give for doubtful quality of much published scientific research today? How is falsificationism related to this problem?
They said the the quality of the articles published and its facts had decline, that many of them are just proven to be wrong and the majority are like just experiments which are known for being trust but not enough verified, so these is related to falsification because the published papers are not being good enough for science, there hat been proven wrong because mistakes have been found on those researches just like falsification, a mistake has to be found to fix it and make the research better,

e) How is this statement for the article related to Popper's views? "[Science's] privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong."
Scientist have been recognize for finding answers to questions of our world, creating theories to explain us the origin of things, and using different experiments and doing a good research we learn from their discoveries, but another thing that has been seen for a really long time is that those theories have some gaps that have to be filled, like the theories of the universe where astronomers have correct it and the new theory is more exact than the older one (falsificationism).

f) What is an open society?
An open society is a society where everyone has the right to take personal deceptions and the common wealth but not like communism, in these point of view everything has to bring something good to the society, although everyone has the right to be equal there are some cases where the rule can be broken like the example of the doctor, they do win more money that other people in a society but everybody needs a doctor, so as long as he brings good to the society, it will be okay if he wins more than the rest.

g) What is a paradigm shift?
Is an idea that is accepted through, and after some time, like when you have a theory but it's been proven that somethings can be fixed or it changes at all, but the new idea need time to be accepted, not everybody always agrees with changing an idea and moving to another just because somebody said it is wrong, so a paradigm shift is like a change of model or idea.

h) What is distributive justice?

Theory based on the concern of justice distribution of primary goods like rights liberty and money (things that rational people will want to have), and the members of these society have to be conscious about their needs, they must be motivated to search moral principals and be rational

i) What is the veil of ignorance?
An hypothetical state of freedom and equality that makes takes the people to a state of ignorant of their characteristics, like class, race, intelligence and background, but they rational, capable of the sense of justice and know they need primary goods, even though they may not know which ones.

j)Why did John Rawls need the veil of ignorance for this thought experiment?
So society can be sure to reconsidere what they really need and don;t by letting them in a state of ignorance in which they have to choose what will be the best of them and really care about the principles of justice.

Unsolved questions

As I read in the article of the 8 philosophical questions that we’ll never solve, and I think that’s actually true, while I was trying to understand what everything meant I actually found myself wondering how do they actually got to that question or that conclusion, some of them where questions that I honestly have never imagined or at least not at all, but there were specially 3 questions that I found really interesting. So here are those questions:

1)Why is there something rather nothing?

it refers on the question of why are we what we are and why do we act like we do and how things supposedly work here, but there’s actually not a real explanation of how the world that we know works this way. the answer is based on the anthropic principle „The notion that out particular universe appears the way it does by virtue of our presence as observers within it“ (G. Dvorsky) I actually do agree with these because it is actually true, we don’t know what’s going on at all but we at least know it WORKS just because we are here and we (or we think) we are working just fine.

2) Do we have free will?

It talks about the determinism and the indetermnism, of how are actions are control by causality or are just considered random effects, so that means that we actually don’t have free will at all?

And then the theories that our brain takes decisions even before we notice it but that’s still weird, just as the predeterminism… these ideas just make me think that there’s not a real explanation of why do we choose what we choose and it just makes me sad thinking that there’s a possibility that i don’t have free will!

3) Can you really experience anything objectively?

So here’s the one I find the most controversial, we actually experience everything ins a subjective way, for example going out with friends and trying to choose something to eat will be a problem because nobody has the same tastes on food somebody will prefer one thing rather than another and so on, that’s the way things happen in our lives, but the only way I found (with some help) to have an „objective“ experience is through numbers, math, science, measuring… but taking in account one of the article’s questions, what if numbers are not real? then we do have a big problem…

So here are they, the 3 questions that complicated my day making me think in other ways i never thought before, but, I think I prefer thinking my way instead of trying to understand what I will probably never solve.

John Locke

He was concerned about human understanding, during his childhood explode a civil war in England and I guess that gave his life a new meaning. He studied medicine, after he travel to Germany he enter to the court and got really important positions, he was really good friend of the count. After some political problems he escaped to france where he met important scientist. He came back to London but goes to The Netherlands when the count died.

As we can see his life was not that easy and his experiences led him to write " A Letter Concerning Toleration" where he made a distinction between religion and politics and of course between the government interests compared to the church's interests, he also wrote an essay based on human understanding and civil government. He was an empiricist, and hat liberal ideas, for example the theory of rights which are really important for us now a days specially the pursuit of happiness, completely opposite to an absolutist regime.

He also talks about the separation of powers, what we live everyday, legislative, executive and judicial.

His ideas about politics, economy and education are remarkable for our daily lives.

Political Philosophers

From the philosophers we read about I think the one I find most appealing will be John Locke, because  he was concerned about humans, he talked about the relationship between the citizens and the government they have, and the separation of powers (just like we know it and live it), and the human rights which I are one of the most important things for a human, now a days we have better lives because of them, we can follow our interests buy the things we like, talk to the people we feel comfortable too and so on. He was right about separating powers so nobody takes control of an entire nation or a continent and of course the government should care about the citizens, they were elected by them, they represent the citizens and theatrically they are citizens.

So, the least appealing for me was Machiavelli, his ideas are really interesting too but I think what he established on "The Prince" is old now, it did happen in different parts of the world, and we all know the consequences of a leader who preferred to be feared as loved, but we also know some examples of leaders who their people loved and they were still good governors.

I think that Thomas Hobbes was the most realistic, he is right about everything, societies are pretty difficult to understand, like as long as we have safety they won't care about freedom or maybe they won't even notice they are missing some freedom. although he is a little pessimistic, he is also kind of right men can be the most terrible being on earth and we actually are.

Plato and "The Republic" where he established the utopia is the less realistic philosopher, because he just imagined a perfect world for him, but what about the rest of the people, I am sure that my opinion of a perfect world is totally different to my neighbor's or a friend's opinion. It's a really nice idea, really original maybe his intentions where good, for example in a perfect world there will be no revolutions or wars which destroy an entire society and maybe everyone will be happy but I will never try to take an Utopia in to practice, I like to be just me :)

In conclusion, some of the philosophers think that the best way to keep a nation under control is with human rights, democracy and a republic while others think a monarchy will be the best, one side of the ideology is that people can deal with their issues and find their happiness one day just like Aristotle said avoiding vices and living a good life, but some on the other side, there are the ones who see the human being as a big monster.

The Big Bang Theory

(Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady)

The big bang theory is a 7 season TV series on Warner Brothers is about a group of scientists who become friends after meeting in the university where they work, each one has a unique personality and representative characteristics that make the Geek’s team really funny, the problem begins where a blond girl moves across the hall of two of our character’s apartment, there’s where they discover how little they know about real life, that not everything is theories and numbers, and how they begin to interact and learn from each other.

Lets introduce the characters:

Sheldon Copper is a pretty weird and complicated guy, he is against all normal behaviors, or at least against of what people believes its normal, he has his own way to live his life, he hates being expose to society and he things he is the most wonderful, intelligent and perfect human being on earth so in conclusion Sheldon is the perfect example of a cynic. He enjoys showing he is more intelligent than the rest and enjoys bothering his friends and people around him. I find his personality really analytic, he is always looking for a scientific explanation and he bases everything on the correspondence theory, if he doesn't know a thing, he will find it out someway. Sheldon is also a perfectionist almost methodic, he follows an specific schedule each day o the week, even food, will be predetermination depending on what day it is, he will wake up always at the same hour and sit in the same place, that kind of reminds me on Immanuel Kant, who was known for always following a perfect schedule. He has also rules for everything, even a roommate agreement, which is like a social contract just like we saw with Thomas Hobbes; he makes a social contract to regulate the behavior and terms to get along with the rest of the people. However, he is one of my favorite characters of the series, even thought he is weird he is really smart and funny.

Here is an example of how he will behave on his territory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AWN_JvrWmE

Leonard Hofstadter is Sheldon’s best friend, as he moved to California to work on the university he looked for an apartment, a small announcement lead him to this building where Sheldon lived, he was even making psychometrical exams and testing the candidates intelligence to know if they where available to share an apartment with him and of course he was accepted, but he never noticed how crazy Sheldon is until he moved in (just like we saw on the video), he is also in love with Penny since the very fist time they met. Anyway Leonard is an stoic person, he doesn't care if he is boring, he controls his emotions and just gives his opinion when necessary, he is also moderated, he never goes to wild parties, he does all his work but he never goes to the extremes, I think Aristotle will have loved him specially in the way that no matter how the rest of the people think about the way he is he will always find a way to be happy. He follows society rules and tries to be a good citizen. Like Gottfried Leibniz he also believe in free will, he let things just be, he respected others opinion and always sees the good side of everything; he will also never say no, so he gets in a lot of trouble because of that, sometimes he will just fight against Sheldon using Ockham’s razor challenging him with the argument that the simplest explanation should go first instead of creating a big drama and some new weird different scientific theories which will make everything more complicated than it actually is.

Here’s a video where we see how he gets in trouble for trying to be nice helping penny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AG-uCSQg1Q

Penny, is kind of like a representation of the blonde girls stereotype, she is pretty funny and nice and sentimental but she is not really that clever, and that will be a big deal when she starts to get along with the scientific across the Hall, she won't understand at all what they are really talking about, I think penny is an hedonist, although she likes to meet new people, get along with them and just spend a day chatting with friends, she can go wild, specially at the beginning of the seasons where she was a party girl, always making parties across the hall going out to the discos, drinking and doing crazy stuff. She wants to be an actress and rich and perfect but things are not working as she thought they will work, she is also a little bit anarchist, she has sometimes a “whatever” attitude, like there are some driving rules but she doesn't care if her car has no back mirror or is not working, she doesn't believe in rules at least not at all. She is also empiricist, her knowledge is based on her life experiences, for example all her high school dramas, her life with her dad who always wanted a boy and so on, she is a nice character.

Here’s a video of how Sheldon how to teach Penny physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIn3T6nDAo

Howard Wolowitz is Sheldon and Leonard’s friend, he is a small skinny guy with a big ego, he is also a Jew and lives with his mother (who never appears on the series). He tries to hard to be a player and a party guy, but although he is a little bit narcissist he has a great heart. He thinks he can play the hedonist part of life but he is actually an epicurean, he enjoys small and simple things of life, like going to play x-box with his friends, or medieval board games even go to the comic book store and watch super hero movies and cartoons, he enjoys life like for example he eats meet and everything he wants, even if his religion demands not to. I think he is also a little bit like Augustine on his confessions, he will always says how smart and responsible he will be, and about his wife and his dreams, but later, when he stops having some fun and chill around, this actually comes true, he goes with NASA to the space and he got married with a friend of Penny, and that changed his life completely, from being a person who just cared about having a good life to a good and responsible husband and still care after his mother.

Here is how Howard and his mom get along with each other

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaeY8N4T7Do

Raj Koothrappali is Howard’s best friend, he is represent the foreigner stereotype, he tries to get along with USA’s culture but he can't just forget about all his costumes, he is the son of a really rich doctor in New Delhi, and he goes to California to work on the university department of astrophysics, he is the skeptical character of the series, he has a really weird psychological issue in which he can't talk to women, and he is constantly sad because he thinks nobody loves him, specially women. He is a shy person, but when he is okay with the people around him he changes to an epicurean person, specially when they discovered that having a glass of alcohol can help him forget his mental not talking to women issue. I kind of relate him to Montaigne because he thinks everyone has a good side whatever the rest says, he respects how other people express their selves, just sometimes it’s really difficult for him to understand life out of India and there’s where the skeptic comes back to stage, Raj has also the macho mentality but he is also one of my favorite characters.

Video of Raj getting through a bad time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVC5c2e4iNk

So these where the main characters of The Big Bang Theory, one of my favorite shows, it has a mix of everything I even used it for some of my school presentations and homework, I think it is really cool and funny and if you really pay attention to what they are talking about you can learn a lot of new things, about science, philosophy and ethics.

Thomas Hobbes

1588

He was born in England and he had a pretty long live, he died when he was 91, I think that was not really usual in those times. He was son of an Anglican pastor and he spent a lot of time in the Anglican aristocracy, we had really good basis on the classics and geometry but then he got into philosophy.

With the beginning of the Civil War he refuged in France where he started his major works in philosophy, he thought the anarchy was the worst thing that can happen to a society, and that the politic should have a strong government and an authoritarian regime.

One of his most remarcable works was the Leviathan, a big water monster from the Bible which he compared to the state, that it is monstruos but still protect us from the Vemot (civil war), he also believed in sovereignty, laws and justice.

He had a realistic view so he just believed in the existence of bodies which where divided in natural and social, and the last one divided into ethics and politics

He also considered the  Life of nature a big problem for the society because it comes from the stone age where the people where primitive, solitary, poor and brutal.

The laws come from agreements between people, to keep an order and stop confronting one another and he also said that the strong people can impose to the rest, so he stated that a soberan who rules a society can't fail to the society but his decitions are not questionable, and every subdits is free, there is equality and justice.

He was also really pessimistic, he compared the man to wolves, but we can defeat the anger and our problems to live with harmony.

"Fear and I were born twins together"

Blaise Pascal

He was a really smart person, his father notice his abilities since he was little and when Pascal's mother died the whole family moved to Paris and his dad himself instruct him so he had a really good education. One of the most important influences he had was from Descartes and Montaigne.

Pascal was mathematician and philosopher, he state that the reason and faith were separate things and that God's nature is beyond our ability to understand so we are not able to prove his existence.
Pascal died when he was 39 years old, he was often really sick and he was closed to die several times.

His major writing was Pensees or thoughts and one of his more remarkable theories was Pascal Wager where he stated that it is safer to believe in the existence of God in case he does exist; if you believe in him and he does exist you'll be eternally rewarded and if he doesn't, is not that bad.

He made really important contributions to Math (now a days used in gambling), in the probability theory and he created an hydraulic press