Evidence

Clifford and James Summaries of W. K. Clifford and William James’s arguments for belief | In this paper, I hope to effectively summarize W. K Clifford’s (1879) argument on the ethics of belief, followed by a summary of William James’ (1897) argument on the right to believe, and finally, provide an argument for why W. K Clifford’s (1879) argument is stronger by highlighting its strengths while simultaneously arguing against William James’ (1897) argument. According to Clifford (1879), there is an ethics to belief that makes it always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.

Clifford (1879) begins his paper by providing an illustrative analogy – one where a ship-owner is preparing to send to sea a ship filled with innocent men, women, and children. Prior to its departure, doubts had been brought to his attention regarding its condition and the possibility of a failure to complete the voyage. The ship-owner, now in a dilemma, successfully convinces himself that because the ship had weathered so many storms and successfully completed so many voyages, it was fit to believe that the ship was fit to sail.

He acquired a sincere belief that the ship would successfully complete the voyage despite its apparent faults. Eventually, the ship sank. Clifford (1879) argues that the ship-owner is responsible for the death of those innocent men and women – not only did the ship-owner ignore the doubts regarding the ship’s capabilities, but he acquired a false belief by simply stifling his doubts. Yes, he felt sure about the ship’s capabilities; but, he only acquired such a conviction by allowing himself to believe it, and not based on sufficient evidence.

Clifford (1879) also argues that in the event the ship had not sank and had completed the voyage, the ship-owner “would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. ” (498) In essence, Clifford (1879) argues that the outcome has no effect since the origin of his belief was flawed and based on whims rather than evidence. In another analogy where a group of men are accused for manipulating children, Clifford (1879) argues that those who accused the innocence of the men based on self-propagated beliefs are not “honourable men,” (499) regardless of whether the accused were guilty.

He illustrated the ideology that no accusation can be made unless there is sufficient evidence to supplement it; if sufficient evidence cannot be found, then the individual loses the right to believe that certain belief, as he will harm himself and humanity. Clifford (1879) argues it is right and necessary to examine evidence on both sides of any belief with patience and care. Right, because when a man is so consumed by a belief so as to not entertain other grounds, he can still choose the action stemming from that belief – thus, he has a duty to investigate “on the ground of the strength of his convictions. (499) And necessary, because those who become consumed by their self-sponsored beliefs must have a rule to deal with actions stemming from those beliefs. Clifford (1879) argues no one belief is isolated from the action that follows, and no belief is ever truly insignificant. No individual can judge the validity of his beliefs in an unbiased manner; thus, the actions following beliefs, regardless of being true or false, can have strong implications on our future if not corrected now. Clifford (1879) argues it is essential to continuously judge our beliefs and validate them based on sufficient evidence.

Finally, Clifford (1879) argues our beliefs are not personal property; rather, “our words, our phrases and processes and modes of thought are common property. Belief… is ours not for ourselves, but for humanity. ” (500) Because our actions – which stem from our beliefs – affect those around us, Clifford (1879) deems it a universal duty to constantly doubt our closely held beliefs. Although “we naturally do not like to find that we are really ignorant and powerless,” (500) Clifford argues it would be a crime and a sin on humanity to acquire a sense of power when the belief has not been sufficiently investigated and earned.

Clifford (1879) is a strong proponent of proof-based beliefs and of the continuous criticism of beliefs held backed by loose evidence. In order to advance as a fair and just society, our beliefs must be evaluated and supported by evidence which is fair and just, and not by apparent truisms which satisfy our personal power struggles, insecurities, and lack of interest. William James (1897), on the other hand, attempts to define the permissible cases in which it is intellectually respectable to believe without sufficient evidence.

James (1897) begins by providing three criterion for judging beliefs: either beliefs are 1) living or dead; 2) forced or avoidable; or 3) momentous or trivial. A live hypothesis is one where the hypothesis appeals to the existing beliefs of the individual; a forced hypothesis is one where one must choose between alternatives, and cannot proceed without doing so; and finally, a momentous hypothesis is one where there is a lot at stake and/or when the decision is irreversible. James(1897) argues that certain actions and convictions need pre-existing beliefs which do not require sufficient evidence.

He uses Pascal’s Wager as an example – James (1897) argues Pascal’s Wager may force individuals in choosing to either believe in God or not, regardless of there being sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the former or latter. However, James (1897) argues that different propositions hold varying meanings and importance to different individuals; it is individuals’ pre-existing beliefs which form future beliefs once further information is received. James (1897) acknowledges the fact that many beliefs are pre-supposed and without sufficient evidence.

To challenge Clifford (1879), he says “our belief in truth itself… that there is a truth… what is it but a passionate affirmation of desire,” (505) effectively questioning Clifford’s (1879) double-standard; if Clifford (1879) requires sufficient evidence for beliefs, where is the sufficient evidence to support the belief of truth held by scientists and philosophers alike? Then, James (1897) extends the argument to say we want to have a truth – it is our will which pushes us to believe in a truth and “puts us in a continually better and better position towards it. (505) In discussing telepathy, James claims scientists do not want to consider the evidence for telepathy because “they think… that even if such a thing were true, scientists ought to band together to keep it suppressed… It would undo the uniformity of Nature and all sorts of other things without which scientists cannot carry on their pursuits. ” (505) James argues that “[the] very law which the logicians impose upon us… is based on nothing but their own natural wish to exclude all elements for which they… an find no use. ” (506) Thus, James effectively argues that even the scientists’ passionate convictions and prejudices form their beliefs, as we see in the case of telepathic research. Finally, in this section, James (1897) argues such behaviour re-inforces Pascal’s Wager – a pre-existing belief can generate further beliefs, and that logic alone is not enough. Then, James (1897) takes two approaches in looking at the “duties” in matters of opinion – that we must know the truth, and we must avoid error.

James (1897) argues it is impractical and unrealistic to know the truth while simultaneously avoiding error; “it hardly ever happens that by merely disbelieving B we necessarily believe A. We may in escaping B fall into believing other falsehoods, C or D, just as bad as B,” (506) says James (1897). Then, James (1897) argues that the risk of being wrong or in error is trivial compared to the possibility of stumbling upon real knowledge and of “indefinitely guessing true. ” (506) In his opinion, it is better to continue to guess or hope for the truth than to continuously deny certain beliefs until sufficient evidence surfaces.

He believes it is better to be light-hearted in the regard of accepting certain beliefs than to constantly question and doubt. James (1897) argues that in most matters, the decision to choose between various options is not so momentous and urgent that a false belief to act on is better than no belief at all. He says “seldom is there any such a hurry… that the risks of being duped by believed a premature theory need be faced. ” (507) James (1897) then goes on to state that modern science’s “nervousness” and yearning to technically verifying the truth may “cease her to care for truth by itself at all. (507) In extending this argument, he states that although technical evidence is strong and important, human passions are stronger. He then poses his final question – that of weighing the perils and benefits of waiting with “impunity” until the sufficient evidence is found. In essence, he asks if there are forced options in man’s already speculative questions, and whether it is wise to continue to wait until “sufficient” evidence arrives. In leading up to his conclusion, James (1897) argues that the desire for a certain truth can help bring about its existence; so, desire or the will to discover a fact can help create the fact.

He infers this to mean that the beliefs conjured and held by our passionate minds may prove to be instrumental in providing the sufficient evidence to justify those beliefs. In conclusion, James (1897) argues that because religion is forced and momentous, we cannot remain skeptical and continue to wait, as we will lose the good provided by religion if we continue to wait in the same fashion that we choose to disbelieve in the first place – James (1897) argues that it is better to risk the chance of error than the loss of truth.

Finally, James (1897) argues that to believe in religion or God with the notion of being right is the prerogative of the individual and is undertaken at his own risk – if the individual wishes to put himself in the best position possible to enjoy the fruits of the after-life, then society and/or science’s imposed rules and laws of requiring “sufficient evidence” for the verification of that God or religion is unjustified. It is the individual’s personal decision and he alone assumes the risk – as such, his right must be respected.

James argues that individuals have a right to believe without sufficient evidence so long as the belief is live, momentous and is forced. He argues that it is impractical to continue to wait for sufficient evidence to surface while the chance to believe gradually dissipates. Now that I have summarized Clifford (1879) and James’s (1897) articles, I would like to elaborate further as to why Clifford’s (1879) argument is stronger than James’s (1897) in the area of religious belief.

In his article, James (1897) made a number of references to the apparently frivolous actions of scientists and their narcissistic habits of “waiting” for sufficient evidence. However, his rendition of live hypotheses still does not give sufficient reason to believe in a certain belief without first establishing a basis for its verification. First, in any experiment, “sufficient evidence” is to be based on objective proof which can reasonably prove that the latter cannot hold truer than the former. However, when beliefs are formed based on passion and human emotion, how can one achieve any objectivity?

How can there be fair grounds for comparison? How can one individual, who, in his own right, is passionately convinced of his belief – based on nothing more than emotion – convince the other that his belief is superior when the other individual believes on the same token? Second, James (1897) continually criticizes scientists for their ways and states science’s search for “technical verification” is a shun for the truth; however, would modern science have discovered the cure of diseases and made significant inroads in the field of medical research had it stuck with one belief and not explored other avenues of growth?

Is it, then, morally right to continue to hold certain medical hypotheses valid while simultaneously rejecting other possibilities when such an act could concern the lives of millions? Should there not be room for a reasonable amount of doubt and criticisms within one’s beliefs to continually improve, rather than degrade, as James (1897) suggests? Yes, James suggests that evidence should be required when the matter at hand is a significant one – but who can be a fair judge on the magnanimity of such a topic?

Thus, although it may be tedious and inconvenient to continually question and doubt one’s basis for belief, it is necessary and categorically the right thing to do. We owe it to ourselves and to mankind to be honest with one another, and not believe just to satiate our personal thirst for power. Finally, James (1897) asks that those who believe – regardless of whether they have evidence or not – must be left alone and have the right to “live and let live. ” I vehemently disagree.

As Clifford (1879) suggested, beliefs turn into actions, and by the time we realize the action undertaken was an immoral one, it is usually too late. We are all connected – any thoughts in my mind, or yours, can affect others in an infinite number of ways. As James (1897) stated, most everyday beliefs will not affect others drastically; however, there is a fraction of beliefs which can turn actions affecting many people or any one person in profound ways, either negatively or positively.

In such a scenario, do we want to leave open the possibility of unfounded beliefs adversely affecting some person’s life? Do we want to run the risk of hurting a loved one and/or our reputations because we were too lazy or did not find the issue momentous or live enough to gather sufficient evidence for a belief? Thus, although Clifford’s (1879) proposition may seem, again, tedious or time-consuming, it is the only way of ensuring we close the cracks and do our best to ensure a fair society.

After all, in the presumption of innocence, our legal system works in a similar way – the legal system ensures every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, regardless the magnitude of the verdict, because it knows the implications of sending an innocent man to prison. Thus, every belief by the prosecution and defence must be backed by sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. After analyzing the summaries of the respective philosophers – W. K.

Clifford (1879) and William James (1897) – I hope it has become evident that sufficient evidence to support beliefs is not only right and necessary for us, but for humanity as a whole. As a society, we cannot shun substantive, technical evidence because we are satisfied with our pre-existing beliefs. To advance as a society, it is our universal duty to continually question our beliefs and search for sufficient evidence in forming our new beliefs. References Pojman, Louis, & Rea, Michael. (2012). Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Boston: Clark Baxter.

Praising Children Yaren D Obando Introduction to Psychology I Praising Children The field of behaviorism has always lacked agreement and will always be a debatable subject. Nonetheless, we find ourselves in the middle of one. Whether is bad or not to praise, or frequently use positive reinforcement in our children, and its consequences of doing so or not doing so is the issue at stake here. Both perspectives, both positions, and both sides have been well represented by the authors of each article.

The fact that positive reinforcement indeed strengthens all behaviors wanted will never be proved wrong, but what I intent to do in this integrative analysis is to prove the fact that praising children, and the misuse of positive reinforcement could bring negative outcomes in them. I will do so starting with a detailed summary of each one of these articles that are being looked at, followed by a complete analysis of the evidence found in each of these arguments. Lastly a complex conclusion that will recap the main points argued in this paper, as well as how they tie in and support the final argument.

Stop Saying “Good Job! ” In this article, the author Kohn mainly emphasizes the importance of supporting and encouraging children and he shows us ways to do it without praising them or without using positive reinforcement. He goes on to explain with evidence, direct quote, or even with personal experiences why praising children is bad, and gives us five main reasons to support his argument. Kohn explains that we as adults that praising is a way of doing something to children to get them to comply with our wishes, and that we exploit children’s dependence for our own convenience.

The author gives us the alternative to have a conversation with children that we have done or failed to do instead of praising, making children become more thoughtful people. Kohn also suggests that praise may increase kids’ dependence on us, and that the more we praise them the more they rely in our evaluations, our decisions about what’s good or bad, rather than using their own judgment which can affect their life as they grow older. He also argues that by praising kids e are indirectly telling them how to feel. Instead of letting them take delight in their own accomplishments, to feel pride in what they have learned how to do. Kohn compares the praising to a goody, and explain that children behave well just because they are trying to get the goody, and not for the fact that and acting might be good in itself alone. Praising increases pressure in children, to keep up the good work that has gotten them the goody so far. All of this gets in the way the actual kids perform.

Finally, Kohn ends his arguments with some advice, and a solid conclusion stating the fact that encouraging our children is great, we just have to watch the way or the motives for which we do it, and that maybe positive reinforcement isn’t so positive after all. A Bad Job with “Good Job” (A Response to Kohn) In this second article the authors, write a clearly response that disagrees with Kohns’ argument and point out all of its weaknesses. They go on to refute in the same format every single idea that Kohn presents within his articles.

Rather than purposely manipulating children for adults’ convenience, praise does nothing more than encourage social graces, fine motor skills or valuable skills chosen by them in their own children. The authors go on to argue that such alternative of having a conversation with children could serve to reinforce the behavior, cause misunderstanding in the effects of certain behaviors, and also to independently generate alternative behaviors. In short, making this offered intervention alternative of minimal applicability.

The authors try to refuse by mentioning the massive evidence and research done to prove that Kohns’ idea of that the more we praise, the more the kids seem to need it, so we do it more is wrong. They go on to explain that too little positive reinforcement is the reason why we have poor self-esteem and poor adult outcomes, and not the fact that we frequently praise kids as Kohn suggested. On this idea, they don’t argue that children should take pleasure in their accomplishments, but the fact of how they should take pride in those.

In fact, is positive reinforcement the primary key in which children learn to take pride in them, and how positive reinforcement it is promoting the importance of children engaging in self-evaluation. For the authors in this article the “goody” is positive child outcomes, and positive reinforcement has effectively met theses ends. Also that this reinforcement increases behaviors, not decrease as Kohn suggested. They rebute the idea that good job functions decreases the behaviors that are intended to increase, since positive reinforcement only strengthens behaviors wanted.

Strain and Joseph conclude their response by summarizing all of Kohns’ ideas, right away refuting all of their most important contrary ideas, and giving us food for thought. A Double Take Without a doubt, it had been more than clear that positive reinforcement will always increase a favorable behavior or outcome to be repeated in the future, this is to be true whether the reason, motive or case in which is used is right or wrong.

Praise in this issue could be easily being compared to the food pellet used in The Skinner Box; subjects will always strive for the reward, no matter what’s at stake. Now let us not get distracted and really focused on the important issue, how does praise (positive reinforcement) affect children? Well, let’s look at the evidence provided. Kohn, gave us five main reasons why praising affects our kids in a negative way, on the other hand Strain and Joseph not just refuted this five reasons, but explained how it affects kids in a positive way. 1.

Manipulating Children: Kohn to prove his point within the first claim he makes, he quotes a professor at the University of Northern Iowa, which called this approach “sugar-coated control”, that get children to comply with adults’ wishes. Strain and Joseph, on the other hand use common reasoning to refute Kohns’ point, stating that of course it is wrong for adults to make children engage in: “developmentally inappropriate and nonfunctional behaviors”, but of course if used the right way it could encourage the repetition of positive behavior that in the long run will benefit kids.

Also, Kohn mentions that it could maybe having a conversation with kids instead of praising could actually make them understand the point of doing an act. The opposition quickly replies by stating that such conversation could even cause confusion in children of young ages. 2. Creating Praise Junkies: It is not hard to understand the clear point Kohn makes in his second claim, by praising kids we make them dependent of us, and our own judgment. But he goes to extend and brings the words of a researcher at the University of Florida to support his claim.

He suggested that students that are praised lavishly when answering a question right, were more tentative with their responses, or scared that they could be wrong and the teacher would disagree with them making them feel insecure. The weak rebuttal to this claim make by the opposing authors tries to incorporate nameless evidence and decades of research that prove Kohns’ point to be wrong, but do not go on to named them or explain them. They tried to argue the fact that indeed is the lack of praising that causes poor self-esteem and poor adult outcomes. . Stealing a Childs’ Pleasure: Kohn to prove his third point he incorporates a personal experience of his daughter which clearly is guided to the audience. He explained how she wants her daughter to instead of looking up to him for a verdict on an act to share her accomplished pleasure with him. Strain and Joseph, argue back again with nameless evidence the fact that positive reinforcement is the key in which kids learn to take pride in their own actions.

Even with the lack of evidence from their part, we cannot ignore that kids will always need guidance at first which makes this is a very strong point. 4. Losing Interest: oh this claim both authors of both article have a very different idea on what the own claim presents; none of them bring outside sources our measurable evidence for us to take account. 5. Reducing Achievement: Praising does indeed create pressure; it’s like an image that one has to keep up with. Kohn and researchers as we mentions have found that praising creates pressure, and pressure gets in the way of getting things done.

Strain and Joseph end this debate by stating once again that positive reinforcement only strengthens behaviors wanted. To conclude, as we can see both sides introduce great arguments to their part. And in fact, positive reinforcement increases a desirable behavior as Strain and Joseph have been arguing. But also in fact it could also have negative outcomes not just for children, but for any subject. The most important thing we get from this is the fact for which we use positive reinforcement, our motives and how we apply it in life, and specially our kids. Positive Praising

In conclusion, after reviewing both arguments we can clearly state the fact that positive reinforcement truly encourages a desirable behavior. We can also clearly state the fact that practicing positive reinforcement (praising) in children, could be a good or a bad, on the same account it could bring positive outcomes or negative outcomes. Children are learning sponges, and as long as guide our kids appropriately there should be no worries. As long as we understand the reason we use praising, our motives, and how we use it in our children but for their own benefit, we all will live in a better world. .

Gathering information is the key to all good investigations, and so understanding the three sources of information is of great concern to any investigator. All of these items add up to a well-rounded and thorough investigation, and thus they will all be addressed herein. First, an exposition on the methods of inquiry are in order. The two overarching methods of inquiry are 1) those that reconstruct and examine past events and 2) those that discover or generate new information (Osterburg & Ward, 2010). These two are actually interrelated, and there is a good deal of overlap between them.

Any number of disciplines in both the hard and soft sciences can be employed in the service of an investigation, including those, which would not necessarily seem related to a police investigation, like entomology, meteorology, etc. Thus, understanding the behavior of insects that inhabit a body or the effects of weather on a body might provide crucial details about the precise date and time of a murder, for example. In fact, a wide array of disciplines is often applied to a complex investigation when used in conjunction, can provide a great deal of information about a case.

As well as utilizing the methods of inquiry, the best criminal detectives also generally approach a case with a particular mindset. In essence, the investigative mindset is part schema (innate perspective based on a broad knowledge of the world) and part active thought process. What it amounts to is an open-mindedness and (preferably unbiased) skepticism that allows the investigator to remain open to anything unusual in a case or anything that leads to a better understanding of the facts and circumstances—evidence—related to or surrounding a case (Osterburg & Ward, 2010).

The investigator with this mindset will therefore approach a case looking for evidence that seems contrary to how things should be according to his or her knowledge about the world and understanding of how things generally go under normal circumstances. She is also looking for information that fits what is already known about the case, but the investigator must be careful here not to come at it with preconceived notions about the guilt or innocence of anyone directly involved in or a tangential to the case.

For the gathering of evidence, the best approach is usually the application of the scientific method, defined as such: “a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it (Scientific method, 2009). ” The problem to be identified in this case is the investigator’s hypothesis about what took place at the crime scene and who was involved in it. Ergo, a good investigator moves from inductive reasoning—guesswork, hunches, suspicions, etc. toward deductive reasoning, which is the use of specific data applied to the situation to see if everything fits with what she believes to have happened. In Osterburg and Ward’s Criminal Investigation, the authors give an example in which a woman was murdered in her apartment in conjunction with a romantic dinner. Going on a hunch, the investigator suspects an ex-boyfriend to be the culprit. He then gathers data to see if his suspicions are reinforced by the facts available to him (Osterburg & Ward, 2010).

There are three sources of evidence that an investigator may draw from. The first of these is people. The relevant sources here are all of the people directly connected to a case (witnesses, suspects and of course surviving victims) and friends, relatives and various associates of suspects and victims (Osterburg & Ward, 2010). Although people can be open and helpful in a case, some of them may lie; distort facts or even refuse to cooperate altogether, creating a conflict for the investigator.

Witnesses may also be confused about what they actually observed as memory is not always reliable and can even be biased by personal, professional or societal schemas. Learning how to get people to cooperate with police and sorting out lies, half-truths, mistakes or previously overlooked information is essential to criminal investigation. Ongoing surveillance of the people involved may also shed light on a case. The second source for investigators to consider is physical evidence.

In police work, the two main disciplines employed in the examination of this data are forensic medicine and criminalistics. The condition, location and position of human remains; materials and fibers located at the crime scene; the trajectory of bullets and the type of bullets used; the pattern or spatter of blood; impressions made by fingerprints, shoes or tires; the presence of contraband (such as illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia or illegal weapons)—these are all types of physical evidence that might be used to reconstruct a crime or other past event (Osterburg & Ward, 2010).

In considering this evidence, the investigator will ask herself questions related to the crime, such as: What is this item doing here? Why is the blood pattern directed this way? Does this evidence support or contradict my hypothesis about a suspect? And so on. Finally, records and documents are a prime source of evidence for most investigations. Although technically records are physical evidence, they are a special form of physical evidence, in that they are in widespread use and are used, stored and accessed both privately and professionally specifically for their informational value.

It is no wonder then that they often contain or form important, highly specific evidence for an investigator. Documents such as a driver’s license, social security card or state ID card will help the police identify an unknown murder victim, for example. Criminal records of a murder victim may also provide clues about the nature of his murder, such as whether or not he was involved in the illegal drug trade, which may lead to a suspect. Phone records may even indicate that two people have been in contact when one or both have denied that they know each other (Osterburg & Ward, 2010).

Records may be stored as a hard copy on paper, plastic or some other medium, or they may be stored digitally, as on a computer hard drive or CD. In the end, it is apparent that science and a scientific perspective are highly important to police investigations. The two methods of inquiry provide a basis for understand what happened and how it happened. Encountering an investigation with the proper mindset will offer a higher success rate. In addition, of course, the application of the scientific method is indispensable, as is understanding and exploiting the three sources of evidence.

1. Administrative Findings Given Great Weight in Court Sebastian F. Oasay, Jr. vs. Palacio del Gobernador Condominium Corporation and Omar T. Cruz, [G. R. No. 194306, February 6, 2012. ] LINK: http://lexoterica. wordpress. com/2012/03/05/february-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/ Appeal; factual finding of NLRC. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by the Supreme Court, more so when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter. Such factual findings are given more weight when the same are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In the present case, the Supreme Court found no reason to depart from these principles since the Labor Arbiter found that there was substantial evidence to conclude that Oasay had breached the trust and confidence of Palacio Del Gobernador Condominium Corporation, which finding the NLRC had likewise upheld.

Gatus vs. SSS [G. R. No. 174725, January 26, 2011] LINK: http://sc. judiciary. gov. ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/174725. htm The sole issue to be determined is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding of the ECC that petitioner’s ailment is not compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended. xxx The burden of proof is thus on petitioner to show that any of the above conditions have been met in his case. The required proof is further discussed in Ortega v. Social Security Commission[17]:

The requisite quantum of proof in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt nor preponderance of evidence. In this type of cases, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In this case, substantial evidence abounds. xxx The questioned Decision deemed as established fact that petitioner is a cigarette smoker; but petitioner vehemently denies this, saying there is no competent evidence to prove he had that habit.

What petitioner would like this Court to do is to pass upon a question of fact, which the ECC, the SSS, and the Court of Appeals have used to deny his claim for compensation. This is not allowed under Section 1 of Rule 45, which states that “[t]he petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. “[21] Hence, questions of fact may not be taken up in a petition for review on certiorari such as this case now before us. As we have held previously:

A question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts while a question of law exists if the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. There is a question of fact if the issue requires a review of the evidence presented or requires the re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. However, if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence, the question is one of law. xxx

The matter of petitioner’s cigarette smoking, established by two competent government agencies and the appellate court, is thus a matter that cannot be questioned before us via petition for review. There is no doubt that petitioner deserves sympathy because even the benefits already given to him were questioned after the SSS found that he was a chronic cigarette smoker. For humanitarian reasons, as he pursued his claim all the way to the Court as an indigent litigant, and due to his advancing age, we would like to clarify that what had already been given him should no longer be taken away from him.

But he is not entitled to further compensation for his condition. We have once more put great weight to the factual findings of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, namely the SSS and the ECC, as they have acquired expertise in all matters relating to employee compensation and disability benefits. As we have held in Ortega v. Social Security Commission[25]: It is settled that the Court is not a trier of facts and accords great weight to the factual findings of lower courts or agencies whose function is to resolve factual matters.

It is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again. Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 2. Decisions not stating facts and the law Saballa, et. al vs. NLRC [G. R. Nos. 102472-84. August 22, 1996] The Issue The petitioners raised the lone issue of whether or not: RESPONDENT NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN, DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, IT DECLARED THE RETRENCHMENT OF PETITIONERS VALID AND LEGAL. ” Petitioners argue that while the NLRC claimed to disagree with the factual findings/conclusions of the arbiter, it did not state what particular findings and conclusions it could not go along with; and while the Decision purports to apply the requisites for a valid retrenchment, the public respondent did not specify what those were.

Further, citing Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers,[15] petitioners claim that private respondent failed to show by convincing proof the concurrence of the requirements for valid retrenchment, and among other things, failed to show that the losses sought to be prevented were substantial and reasonably imminent. On the contrary, according to petitioners, the evidence on record clearly shows that the enforcement of the retrenchment program was attended by bad faith. The Court’s Ruling NLRC Decision Arbitrary

The petition is meritorious. This Court has previously held that judges and arbiters should draw up their decisions and resolutions with due care, and make certain that they truly and accurately reflect their conclusions and their final dispositions. [16] A decision should faithfully comply with Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution which provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts of the case and the law on which it is based.

If such decision had to be completely overturned or set aside, upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration, in a subsequent action via a resolution or modified decision, such resolution or decision should likewise state the factual and legal foundation relied upon. The reason for this is obvious:  aside from being required by the Constitution, the court should be able to justify such a sudden change of course; it must be able to convincingly explain the taking back of its solemn conclusions and pronouncements in the earlier decision. 17] The same thing goes for the findings of fact made by the NLRC, as it is a settled rule that such findings are entitled to great respect and even finality when supported by substantial evidence; otherwise, they shall be struck down for being whimsical and capricious and arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. 18] It is a requirement of due process and fair play that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. 19] Based on the foregoing considerations, we find the assailed Decision arbitrary in its naked assertion that:  “(A)pplying the requisites (for valid retrenchment) to the instant case, we lent credence to respondent’s evidence supporting the fact that it was suffering financial reverses (pp. 118-136). Hence, complainant’s separation is valid, due to retrenchment. ” The Decision does not indicate the specific bases for such crucial holding.

While it enumerated some of the factors that supposedly weighed in favor of private respondent’s position, i. e. , theNEA’s foreclosure letter; the NPC’s disconnection letter; private respondent’s Income Statement; the fact that the employees’ union agreed to the “forced leave” policy instead of the drastic measure of retrenchment; and the impossibility of reinstating the petitioners “considering the financial losses for 1988 alone not to mention the losses incurred for 1989 and wage increases imposed by the government (pp. 13-141, rollo),” the public respondent nevertheless did not bother to explain how it came to the conclusion that private respondent was experiencing business reversals, nor did it specify which particular data and document it based such conclusion upon. This can only be because the private respondent failed to show convincingly by substantial evidence the fact of its failing financial health, and that such retrenchment was justified.

Our observation is bolstered further by the Comment of the public respondent where it tried to rationalize its ruling by saying: “It is to be noted that private respondent x x x is a big and reputable company and for them to admit that it is in distress is a bitter pill to swallow, yet they must accept the sad situation that they are in. This representation believes in the veracity of respondent’s x x x position. ” Even resorting to the records does not help.

The termination letter dated October 18, 1988[20] stated that the reason for the retrenchment was “to avoid Coop financial losses. ” However, the imminent loss sought to be forestalled by the retrenchment of petitioners was not actually indicated or specified. Page 118 of the records is the demand letter of NEA for payment of private respondent’s arrearages as of June 30, 1988. It warned that the account in the amount of approximately P8. 5 million should be settled within 30 days otherwise NEA will exercise its right to foreclose.

But the records do not show that any property of private respondent was ever foreclosed nor that the savings from the salaries of the retrenched petitioners were to be used to pay for the arrearages; neither was it shown that private respondent did not have the resources to pay said obligation. Page 119 of the records is a Notice of Disconnection stating that the private respondent was required to pay twenty five percent of its outstanding bill to the NEA or face power disconnection on July 29, 1988.

But private respondent did not show that such disconnection was effected then nor that the allotment for petitioners’ salaries was to be used to pay for this bill. The private respondent in its motion for reconsideration asked that the labor arbiter take judicial notice that NPC eventually disconnected its power supply on April 10, 1989, but this only means that the private respondent must have been able to pay up and settle its account on or about July 29, 1988, as it was not disconnected until April 10, 1989.

By October 18, 1988, the losses, if any, sought to be proven by these documents would already have been sustained, so there could not have been any imminent loss which was to have been forestalled by the retrenchment of petitioners effected at that time. In other words, these abovementioned documents did not show any expected loss which made the retrenchment reasonably necessary, nor that such retrenchment was likely to prevent the expected loss.

We do not deny that the private respondent would suffer losses as a result of a foreclosure or power disconnection, however, it failed to show how these threatened events eventually affected the cooperative’s financial health, if they ever happened at all. Besides, they are irrelevant because the imminent loss was supposed to come after October 18, 1988, months after these incidents. Moreover, pages 120-136 of the records (referred to in the assailed Decision) are the financial statements of the private respondent which are unaudited by independent external auditors and are without   accompanying explanations.

This Court has previously held that financial statements audited by independent external auditors constitute the normal method of proof of the profit and loss performance of a company. [21] And since private respondent insists that its critical financial condition was the central and pivotal reason for its retrenchment and forced leave programs, we therefore fail to see why it should neglect or refuse to submit such audited financial statements. Apart from that, we noted that the said unaudited statements were filled with erasures; some entries were even handwritten, and different typewriters were used.

There is therefore serious ground to doubt the correctness and accuracy of said statements. Additionally, these statements require further explanations before the accounting procedures of private respondent can be understood. Thus, the Court is wary of according them any probative value, especially since respondent Commission seems to have treated them in a similar fashion by not discussing them in its Decision. In brief, we hold that public respondent gravely abused its discretion in rendering the challenged Decision without adequately explaining its factual and legal

Theory Of Knowledge To what extent can disagreement aid in our understanding of history? October 2012 International School of Curacao Wordcount: 2,691 Historical Disagreements To what extent can disagreement aid in our understanding of history? Disagreement has been present in the world ever since the first biotic and abiotic factors roamed the Earth. In order to understand what the question is asking, we must define its key words. Disagreement is defined as a difference in opinion and diversity.

Even though the word disagreement has a negative tone, it does not necessarily have to be bad. Disagreement offers people a different point of view and can help the world’s population improve its understanding of each other. This brings me to the next key word in the question: understanding. Understanding is described as the comprehension of a certain topic and as having a mental grasp on something. People encounter disagreements during discussions, which makes the conversation richer. I find it is important, for every human being, to understand that disagreements are healthy.

Without disagreement, there will be too much familiarity and similarity, and life will be lacking adventure and uncertainties. Disagreement and lack of understanding are often, if not always, seen in history. Many wars start because of a disagreement and/or because of the lack of willingness of understanding. History is defined as the study of the past. Much of the study of history is factual. Facts are statements supposedly set in stone and true. From a young age on, children are taught that facts are not to be altered. As they grow up, they find that this is false: history is not entirely set in stone.

And that is exactly what this paper will be covering, with the help of Jared Diamond, Galileo Galilei, Gavin Menzies, Fritz Fischer, Charles van Doren, and Reuben Abel. Historiography is the writing of history. According to Reuben Abel, different historiographies are influenced by the history of civilization. This history of civilization is depending on climate, soil, and geography. Geography brings up another historian that helps support that disagreement aids in the understanding of history. Jared Diamond did research on why historiography is different in different continents.

He published his findings in a book called “Guns, Germs, and Steel”. Diamond argued that the gaps in technology and power between human societies are not caused mainly by cultural and racial differences. He states that the geography and ecology of European and Asian landmasses gave the societies there an advantage over those on other continents. Although Diamond’s findings sound realistic, his work was critiqued for ‘factual errors’. Diamond, although criticized, is important to mention in the discussion on how disagreement aids in the understanding of history.

His findings may not all be correct, but some are. This shows that there were many different factors playing in the different historiographies in different continents in the world. Reuben Abel goes on by stating that the history of civilization is also dependent of race, hereditary ability, and psychological factors. Additionally, it depends on the motif of power and on the theory that history is the history of class struggle. This is an idea taking from Marxism, and the first kind of approach to history: that it is cyclical.

Reuben Abel goes on by stating that historiographies should be appraised and assessed, but that there is no crucial experiment that can test the validity of a theory of history. Abel’s claim that “History is far from being exclusively scientific or factual; it is also a larger part creative” is one I can agree with. History is not just facts. Between the factual sentences, there has to be at least one sentence linking one fact to another. The main reason why Reuben Abel is important to mention in this essay about disagreement aiding the understanding of history is that humanity has not yet discovered every bit of evidence in the world.

Abel mentions that the past is “inferred from present evidence”. What he means with this is that the evidence found in modern times indicates the past. With this, Abel concludes that present evidence is not complete. Hence, the past remains a mystery. A good example of historical deception is Stalin’s photograph taken with Nikolai Yezhov, which was altered later to remove Yezhov. Disagreement has been present in history and often a source of major (bloody) historical events. A good example of disagreement aiding in the understanding of history is the three different views of any historical event.

You have the Orthodox view of a historical event, which is the traditional outlook and interpretation of historical ‘facts’. The second view is the revisionist one. These historians take a second look at the evidence of the first view. The third view is the post-revisionist view. Historians look at both the traditional and the revisionist view of the same historical event, and conclude ‘something’ based on both views. This is important in discussing how disagreement aids in the understanding of history. The three views obviously have a different opinion of what caused a certain historical event.

But this disagreement, that is healthy, provides the world’s population with a better understanding of history. The disagreement gives the world the option to choose which view they support the most. Gavin Menzies is another great example of one who argues the truth of history. He states that it was not Christopher Columbus who discovered America in 1492, but the Chinese. He says that the New World was ‘stumbled upon’ by the Chinese in 1421. This is seven decades prior to Columbus. Menzies is relevant in the discussion about disagreement aiding in the understanding of history, because he questions and challenges history.

He has found and states his evidence, in his book, supporting that China had been actively sailing around the world during the 1420’s. The reason why he is arguing the truth of America’s discovery is because he himself found out that many historical Chinese events happened in 1421. This is the main reason why he decided to write a book about the Chinese discovering America before Columbus. Additionally, Menzies is important to mention in the discussion of how disagreement can aid in the understanding of history because of his thesis.

His thesis changed the Western age of discovery and altered the common belief that Europe discovered Asia. Some of his arguments include finding Asian jade in Aztec tombs, and allegations of Chinese ideograms found on pre-Columbian pottery. Another argument he uses to defend his statement(s) is the idea of maps that show countries that were not yet discovered by Europe in the 15th century. His third supporting argument is that not only many academics in China support him; also academics on the West Coast of America believe Zhang He found North America and Australia during his two-year journey over the ocean, which began in 1421.

Menzies re-opened the discussion of truth in relation to history in 2008 when he stated that the Chinese sparked the Renaissance. With his book, Menzies received much criticism. Oxford professor Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, for example, counters Menzies’ evidence of maps by saying: “What [Gavin Menzies] doesn’t understand is that maps at that time were as much acts of the imagination as cartography”. Menzies replies by stating that there are over 6,000 references that support the idea of ‘diffusion theory’. This is the idea that there are various alternative theories that discuss America’s discovery.

Menzies goes on by stating that it is “Virtually impossible to still argue that Columbus discovered America, that Cook found Australia or that Magellan was the first to circumnavigate the world”. This is also because evidence was discovered that the Vikings discovered America 500 years prior to Columbus, and 430 years prior to the Chinese. Menzies also states that in the 1400’s, only the Chinese had the capacity and knowledge to explore the world. The article on his website summarizes that Menzies says that the Chinese fleet could have circumnavigated the world four times between 1421 and 1426. The key word to view is could.

By using this word, Menzies assumes that the Chinese could circle the world four times, while there is hardly any sign of evidence to support this argument. If Menzies had evidence to support his statement, he would not be using the word could. Another reason why Menzies is significant when looking at disagreement aiding in the understanding of history is because he introduces the idea of ‘diffusion theories’ to a younger audience. He is able to make people question what they were taught at school and think about their sources. But then this question comes to mind: is Menzies’ goal to prove China’s role in the discovery of America ethical?

This means that many historians that studied the topic of discovery should and will be questioned. Many people will be questioning their beliefs and Spain (as well as various other countries) will be suffering under a ‘bad image’. Menzies is making the public question their authority and textbooks. Another man who made the public question their authority and textbooks was German historian Fritz Fischer. In 1961, he introduced that Germany intended to start a (world) war to gain more economic and political dominance over Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Germany had a strong sense of colonialism, and found imperialism very important. Fischer, as a revisionist, concludes that therefore Germany is responsible for the start of the Great War, or the First War. His colleagues and the (German) public received his contributions with shock as it challenged the traditional view that Germany stumbled into the war, just like the other great European powers did. Younger historians later found truth in some of his evidence and Fischer became Germany’s best-known living historian to the world, until he died on December 1st of 1999.

The main reason why Fischer is important to mention in a discussion about disagreement aiding in the understanding of history is because his statement opened up the discussion of the world wars. Before, German people were not allowed to speak of the war, as it was still a very sensitive topic. Fischer blew new life into the topic of Germany’s intentions. The disagreement among him and his supports and other historians has shown that there is more evidence to what humanity is aware of now. Back then; the causes of the Great War were debatable, yet one was seen as set in stone.

Now children are taught that there are various causes of the Great War. This disagreement caused by Fischer has resulted in a better understanding of the intentions of Germany in the Great War. Another important subject related to disagreement in aiding the understanding of history is truth and reality. Before and somewhat after the Renaissance, religious populations believed that the world was flat, and that one could fall off of it. This was, however, proven wrong by various scientists in BC and in AD. Another example of human deception and ignorance of truth and reality is Charles van Doren’s game show appearance.

In January of 1957, he entered a game show and won more than $1 million. It became later known that Van Doren was given the answers to the questions and that he therefore cheated. Van Doren’s cheating shows that even something as simple as a game show, can be manipulated. When viewing this problem on a larger scale, one will make the startling discovery that certain things are happening that ‘ordinary’ people are not and will never be aware of. The manipulation also shows and supports the idea that what happens in the present, and what happened in the past, may be believed to be true, until one knows the actual truth.

Sometimes people do not want to have a disagreement about history and present knowledge. A good example of this is the Renaissance, specifically Galileo Galilei. Galileo was famous for his scientific findings and believes. In 1632, he published a book in which he stated that the Earth was moving around the sun. By doing so he was proving the common believe of the Earth being central in the universe, wrong. This angered the Pope, and Galileo was found suspect of heresy and was forced to say that his findings were wrong. Additionally, he became imprisoned and persecuted by the church.

Galileo is important to mention in the discussion of disagreement aiding in the understanding of history as he demonstrated the advantages of experimentation and change. He was among those who began the Scientific Revolution in Europe. Disagreement is necessary in discussions and in life. Without it, life would be dull and too familiar. Because of disagreement, many people are given the option to choose who and what they want to believe. This is when historiography comes into place. Historiography is the writing of history. There is someone who writes the history that children are taught of in class.

This someone can be a traditional Orthodox historian, a revisionist historian, or a post-revisionist. The lessons for history that we, the ordinary and educated part of humanity, are taught were once determined by one of these categories of historians. Their view is what we value as truth and factual. Galileo, for example, was one among many who proved the truth of a flat Earth wrong. He discovered, with a telescope and calculations, that the Earth is round. Although found mad at first, Galileo proved something that was found true by many religious people, false. Another example of this would be Gavin Menzies.

He argued that it was not Columbus who discovered America, but the Chinese. Although he receives many critics on his book, he has proven that there is new evidence supporting that Columbus was not the first on America. This has made many people question their textbooks and take a second look at many historical facts. Fritz Fischer has done similar and made Germans and other countries in the world take another look at their textbooks. He did so by stating that Germany is responsible for the First World War, as they promoted imperialism and colonialism. Germany was greedy and therefore to blame for the First World War.

Jared Diamond has also made people check their textbooks. He introduced the idea that there are various factors influencing each historical event. Diamond proved that Europe and Asia were able to conquer the New World due to their geography and agriculture. Charles van Doren did not prove anything wrong either, but proved that humanity may be deceived by their lack of knowledge. By entering a game show and winning through cheating, Van Doren has proven that something as simple as a game show can be manipulated. This raises the question of what else is manipulated that humanity is unaware of?

To conclude, disagreement is important when looking at history. History is not set in stone, and can never fully be. Reuben Abel said that the evidence found today, determines the history. This is true as much information is still lacking from history, and certain events are still lacking cause and reason, which would be determined by the evidence. The disagreement among historians wakes up humanity. It forces us to study certain events better in order to fully understand all of its possible causes. We will be able to understand history better by viewing different possibilities.

The people present during the historical events are gone, and only psychical evidence is left over. From this, historians conclude their professional opinions. Disagreement aids in the understanding of history as it provides humanity with the possibility of variety. Bibliography BBC News. (2002, October 22). Experts hope to emulate Chinese Columbus. Retrieved September 21, 2012, from BBC News: http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2349929. stm Clark, J. (2012). Did the Chinese beat Columbus to America? Retrieved October 1, 2012, from How Stuff Works: http://history. howstuffworks. om/european-history/chinese-beat-columbus. htm Dictionary. (2012). Disagreement. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from Dictionary: http://dictionary. reference. com/browse/disagreement Dictionary. (2012). Fact. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from Dictionary: http://dictionary. reference. com/browse/fact Freudenrich, C. C. (2011). World History. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from Curiosity: http://curiosity. discovery. com/question/how-know-vikings-north-america Gavin Menzies. (2011, August 11). Australia as surveyed by Zheng He fleet voyagers before 1433 -paper delivered in Brisbane, August 2006.

Retrieved September 21, 2012, from Gavin Menzies: http://www. gavinmenzies. net/Evidence/5-australia-as-surveyed-by-zheng-he-fleet-voyagers-before-1433-paper-delivered-in-brisbane-august-2006/ Hitt, J. (2012, January 5). Goodbye, Columbus! Retrieved October 1, 2012, from New York Times: http://www. nytimes. com/2003/01/05/magazine/goodbye-columbus. html? pagewanted=all&src=pm Lovgren, S. (2005, July 6). “Guns, Germs, and Steel”: Jared Diamond on Geography as Power. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from National Geographic: http://news. nationalgeographic. com/news/2005/07/0706_050706_diamond. html Menzies, G. 2011, August 18). At the time only the Chinese had the capacity and knowledge to explore and chart the world. Retrieved September 20, 2012, from Gavin Menzies: http://www. gavinmenzies. net/Evidence/1-at-the-time-only-the-chinese-had-the-capacity-and-knowledge-to-explore-and-chart-the-world/ Merriam-Webster. (2012). Understanding. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from Merriam-Webster: http://www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/understanding Saxon, W. (1999, December 10). Fritz Fischer, 91; German Historian Blamed Germany for First War. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from New York Times: http://www. nytimes. om/1999/12/10/world/fritz-fischer-91-german-historian-blamed-germany-for-first-war. html Stanfor Solar Center. (2010). Who was Galileo? Retrieved October 3, 2012, from Stanford Solar Center: http://solar-center. stanford. edu/galileo/ The Free Dictionary. (2012). History. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from The Free Dictionary by Farlex: http://www. thefreedictionary. com/history The Telegraph. (2008, August 1). Gavin Menzies: mad as a snake- or visionary? Retrieved September 21, 2012, from The Telegraph: http://www. telegraph. co. uk/culture/books/3557568/Gavin-Menzies-mad-as-a-snake-or-a-visionary. tml Wikipedia. (2012, October 3). Jared Diamond. Retrieved October 4, 2012, from Wikipedia: http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Jared_Diamond ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Dictionary, 2012 [ 2 ]. Merriam-Webster, 2011 [ 3 ]. Free Dictionary, 2009 [ 4 ]. Dictionary, 2010 [ 5 ]. National Geography, 2005 [ 6 ]. Wikipedia, 2012 [ 7 ]. The Study of History: What is the Past, 1976 [ 8 ]. The Study of History: What is the Past, 1976 [ 9 ]. The Study of History: What is the Past, 1976 [ 10 ]. New York Times, 2003 [ 11 ]. New York Times, 2003

The Value of a Liberal Arts Education When you see the word “college”, what comes to mind? For most of you, you probably immediately think of partying, drinking, and meeting new people. Those who choose to go to college will have the opportunity to experience the social life, but what you choose to study can control your future. In “How to Get a Real Education at College” by Scott Adams and “What Do You Do with a B. A. in History” by Ken Saxon, they agree that college is worth going to but they have different outlooks on what to do with that college education.

Scott Adams believes in the concept of “B students”, which are just average students, and thinks they should study entrepreneurship because he has personal experience in this major. He is against the idea of “B students” studying liberal arts and finds this major to be useless for them in the real world. Ken Saxon has completely opposite views. Saxon believes that a liberal arts education is very valuable because with this education, you can do anything you want. He also argues that the skills you learn in these classes will help you become a better person and will prepare you for whatever you decide to do.

Although both Adams and Saxon relate to their audiences and form strong ethos through their personal examples, Adams fails to be as convincing as Saxon because Saxon uses more objective evidence, is open-minded, and uses a more inspiring tone which establishes strong pathos. In “How to Get a Real Education at College”, Scott Adams does a fair job of establishing ethos. He uses his business experience in college as the basis of his evidence. For example, he worked at the Coffee House as the minister of finance, designed a plan to become student manager of his dormitory, and even started a soccer club (Adams 528).

His anecdotes give him credibility because he has experience in the field of entrepreneurship, but he lacked objective evidence. If he included more statistics or expert testimonies, then it would make his argument more convincing and appealing to the readers. At the beginning of the article Adams stated, “I speak from experience because I majored in entrepreneurship… ” (527). This makes him seem like he knows what he is talking about, but this statement also worked against him and makes him seem one-sided.

He is biased toward an education in entrepreneurship. This is evident when he wrote “some of my peers were taking courses in art history so they’d be prepared to remember what art looked like just in case anyone asked” (528). This shows he thinks other majors, especially liberal arts, are a joke. He doesn’t think people need to study liberal arts because what you learn in these classes is common sense. Although Adams lacked objective evidence and came across as bias, he made his article very appropriate for his audience.

With his audience being college students, it is easy to persuade them because some of those students don’t really know what to study and entrepreneurship could seem more appealing after reading this article. Adams related to his audience but his sarcastic tone and snide comments were a turn off. He wrote many things that discredited the majority of students, or as he calls them, the “B students” (527). For example, at the end of the essay he said, “Remember, children are our future, and the majority are B students. If that doesn’t scare you, it probably should” (529).

Adams said this to be humorous but it can be easily misinterpreted as rude and snide. He also talked about how easy it is to become an entrepreneur and how it doesn’t even take real knowledge to be successful. When he was talking about selecting a new leader for the Coffee House he stated, “I pointed out that my friend-the soon-to-be fired bartender-was tall, good looking and so gifted at b. s. that he’d be a perfect leader” (528). This statement makes it seem like to be successful in business it’s all about being sly and tricky, making Adams appear less sincere.

Scott Adams was convincing in some ways but his sarcastic tone, lack of evidence, and bias hurt his overall appeal to his audience. Similar to Adams, in “What Do You Do with a B. A. in History? ” Ken Saxon manages to appeal to his audience in his speech by using personal experiences. His speech is for freshman students at UCSB and the evidence he uses relates specifically to this audience. He gives lots of examples of liberal arts classes and how those classes helped him develop life skills.

For example, Saxon says, “from studying philosophy, I learned that abstract theories were intellectually interesting to me, but not so satisfying. Turns out, I’m a doer, an entrepreneur” (525). Saxon also talks about qualities he looks for in people when hiring employees, these include, “initiative and leadership, work ethic, communication skills, and emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills” (523). These are skills that you don’t necessarily learn in a certain major, but you learn by experience, and Saxon learned these qualities by taking liberal arts classes.

Unlike Adams, Saxon used a variety of evidence. He uses many personal experiences and also uses objective evidence. One piece of effective objective evidence is the commencement speech by Steve Jobs. In this speech to Stanford, Jobs stated that a calligraphy class helped him create “the first computer with beautiful typography” (524). This helps make Saxon’s argument convincing because Steve Jobs was a very successful man and this example reemphasizes Saxon’s claim that we cannot predict our future, so we should take some liberal arts classes.

If Steve Jobs never took this calligraphy class, who knows if Apple would be the same as it is today. He also uses the example of his friend who went to med school to later find out he hated what he was doing so he studied business instead (522). This example shows that not giving liberal arts classes a chance, can lead to you wasting your time because you haven’t discovered what you truly want to do for your career yet. Another way that Ken Saxon is convincing in his article is by being open-minded and by using an encouraging tone that establishes strong pathos.

He isn’t forceful with his claim even though he feels strongly about his argument. He is just saying that college is a time for experimentation so, what the heck, why not just take some liberal art classes? He even says, “there will likely be no other time in your life when it will be easier to try so many interesting things” (522). He is encouraging us to just take a few liberal art classes and give it a chance. Saxon also makes some good points when he discusses the expensive price of college and feeling the pressure to choose a major in which we will get repaid in the future (522).

Saxon’s argument to this is “how can you be sure you know where the better paying fields are going to be in five years? ” (523). The point he is trying to make is if you spend all your time in college focusing in one specific major, what happens if that area in your career field goes down the drain in a couple years? In the closing paragraph Saxon says, “Think forward. In 15 or 20 years, many of you will be buried in responsibilities- work, family…this opportunity will be gone before you know it” (527). Saxon is stressing the point that college is only a few years of our lives so we might as well make the most of it.

This “can do” attitude and inspiring tone made his article more convincing and more enjoyable to read then Adam’s. All in all, Ken Saxon’s argument that we should take liberal arts classes was more convincing than Scott Adams’ claim that we should just study entrepreneurship. Both of them clearly understood their audience and use effective personal examples, but Saxon’s use of objective evidence and an inspiring tone led to his speech being more persuasive. If a group of students were to choose what to study after reading these two articles, a large portion of them would choose to take some liberal arts classes.

“If you can’t give a good reason for believing what you believe, then it’s not your belief; it’s someone else’s. ” Morality vs. Obedience How would someone tease apart this blanket statement and how would they compare it to morality and obedience in less than three pages? Well, this is how I would. First, I’d start by making clear that belief is different from knowledge. Knowledge can be defined as “a clear perception of a truth or fact, erudition; skill from practice. A belief can be defined as “an assent to anything proposed or declared, and its acceptance as fact by reason of the authority from whence it proceeds, apart from personal knowledge; faith. ” So, to be clear, knowledge is dropping a ball and knowing that it will fall to the ground because of prior experience and the perception that the existence of gravity is a fact. Belief would be dropping the ball and believing it will float because your older brother told you it would. Next, I would establish that this statement is not staking claim on any measure of truth as it relates to beliefs or knowledge.

Beliefs and knowledge are both dynamic concepts on all organizational levels of the human experience, from the individual to the global. Lets take for example the statement, “The Earth is flat. ” Five hundred years ago, this statement was knowledge. Today, it’s knowledge that this statement is false. Knowledge changes based on the information and evidence available to us at any point in time. This is also true of beliefs but in a different way. When most of us were young, we believed in the Tooth Fairy. Why? Because someone told us she was real.

However, this belief changed as we began to mature and rely more upon our own abilities to discern truth from fiction. Thus, we have established that both knowledge and belief are subjective but for different reasons. Belief requires no evidence, while knowledge requires evidence and/or experience. I would now like to make a comparative argument regarding morality and obedience. Simply put, morality is ‘doing what’s right, regardless of what anyone says’ and obedience is ‘doing what your told, regardless of what’s right. One can think of many examples regarding these concepts as they are defined but I will leave this to the reader’s imagination. There is a simple truth to defining obedience and morality in this manner that I find directly comparable to the examined quotation. Neither belief nor obedience require an individual or group to actively engage in an activity or thought process independently. There is no critical thinking involved and one must put their faith in the ‘rightness’ or ‘truth’ of another’s belief, knowledge or otherwise. Both knowledge and morality require active engagement.

One cannot possess knowledge without having evidence to back it up and one cannot act morally without understanding what it is that makes a situation right or wrong in their eyes. This is especially true when acting morally requires someone to go against social norms or established laws. The point of this paper is to shed light on the fact that we are all responsible for ourselves to the extent that we can be. No one person can know everything about everything, so belief and obedience are often useful and easy fallbacks. For example, I don’t snowboard on black diamond slopes.

This is not because I have knowledge of how hurt I will get but because I belief the sign posting and obediently board within my level to avoid possible injury. However, in every decision one makes there should be a component of knowledge and morality applied. In application to the snowboarding example, I know, from experience, that my snowboarding skills are not on par with a black diamond. I choose not to risk my health and the resources of first responders by making the moral decision to stay off of it, despite my desire to challenge myself.