Monday, 13. October 2008, 09:17:47
Languages, Thoughts
There are a variety of proverbs almost all English speakers are familiar with. We regard these words of wisdom with reverence, but some of these sayings look specious when weighed against each other.
Actions speak louder than words <--> The pen is mightier than the sword.
Knowledge is power. <--> Ignorance is bliss.
Look before you leap. <--> He who hesitates is lost.
A silent man is a wise one. <--> A man without words is a man without thoughts.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. <--> Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Clothes make the man. <--> Don't judge a book by its cover.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. <--> Better safe than sorry.
Money talks. <--> Talk is cheap.
The only thing constant is change. <--> The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Two heads are better than one. <--> Too many cooks spoil the soup.
Great minds think alike. <--> Fools seldom differ.
Birds of a feather flock together. <--> Opposites attract.
The bigger, the better. <--> The best things come in small packages.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder. <--> Out of sight, out of mind.
What will be, will be. <--> Life is what you make it.
Cross your bridges when you come to them. <--> Forewarned is forearmed.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. <--> One man's meat is another man's poison.
The more, the merrier. <--> Two's company; three's a crowd.
Huh?
Sunday, 12. October 2008, 15:19:04
Thoughts, Languages
For English kids, it’s natural to think that only the word ‘blue’ is a normal description when pointing to a blue object and other words and expressions are false. When a little bit grown up, they might say: “Germans might call it ‘blau’, but this usage is exclusive to things which are blue’. A kid thinks a house is a ‘house’, rose is a ‘rose’ and that’s all. He then learns that amazing people of France call a house a ‘maison’ and asks: ‘if they mean a house, why don’t they call it a house?’ Because he thinks words contain specific qualities - in this case, a house; but language is only a reflection of environmental elements.
Our mental relationship with the language we speak (while learning at an early stage) affects the way we think. In fact, it's the language that lets us develop our thoughts by pre-defining how different signs and symbols should mean:
Because we’ve already contracted on what the signs ‘+’, ‘=’, ‘2’ and ‘5’ mean, we can consider/think/argue that 2+5 = 7. Without having a tag on an item (a word), we can't discuss about it.
And as you know, languages themselves are functions of the environment they were formed in: the nature, ecology, living habits. That's why different geographical groups speak different languages and expressions (of their thoughts and feelings). For Iranians as well as other sedentary nations, it might be a surprise to hear that rural Turkmens say ‘to exit towards the city’ instead of ‘to enter the city’.
Let’s consider a fixed condition where the temperature is 10 degree Celsius. An Indian would call this temperature as ‘cold’ or 'cool' while an Eskimo from Greenland considers this as ‘warm’. Although we’re using a standard scientific scale/language about the temperature, still the langauage they use and thoughts they have about temperature differ.
Thursday, 9. October 2008, 06:20:10
Academic
The University thesis will provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate the ideas, research skills, and creative abilities you have gained during your study. In fact, it's an an argument that you have satisfactorily solved some scientific problem or have advanced scientific knowledge in some interesting way.
Here, you can find a comprehensive guide by the University of Western Australia on how to write a university thesis.
How to Write a Thesis.pdf
Tuesday, 7. October 2008, 19:01:11
Thoughts
In daily life, we say 1 caused 2 only in the case that 2 was prior to 1 and there’s a direct line of causal events from 1 to 2. If we see a footprint on the sand, we conclude that someone has walked here. It’s unwise to say the footprint caused someone to walk here.
In the same form, if 1 and 2 are the last positions of a series of causal events that refer to the same cause, we can’t say 1 caused 2. Day and night have the same cause – for instance, we can predict day in the night – but we can’t consider one of them be the reason for the other side. After taking a look at trains’ schedule, we can predict that the train X will arrive at a certain time. What is written there in the schedule is not the cause for the arrival of trains. The decision of train station manager started two different chains of event which are causally related to each other, ending to 1 and 2. By looking at trains’ schedule, we do an analysis which goes forward in one direction and backwards in the other; but still we can’t say these arrivals’ cause is the written schedule.
Now let’s focus on inertia: it says the causal structure of the world is so powerful that by having a description of the world at a certain time we can predict any event in the future (or the past) by using certain types of law. This is the mechanical theory of Newton.
But I think we have a free will and can decide. I admit every event is defined by what occurs beforehand – even before we were born. But I think we should differentiate between ‘the prediction ability’ and ‘free will’. Look at this example:
Suppose someone is poisoned. He's willing to escape the jail, but the thick wall surrounds him and the gate is locked. This is a real compulsion. Another form of compulsion is that someone’s holding a gun in his hand, and I’m stronger than him. He might not want to use it, but I force him to shot someone else. According to regulations, I’m guilty – not him.
Now, just look at this case. Every man has specific characteristics that regulate his behavior:
My friend likes Metal music. I find out that Yngwie Malmsteein is touring the country and he will perform the other day in our city. I have been invited to attend the concert with a friend of mine, so I call him to take him to the concert. But beforehand, I'm sure he would definitely come. Now, how do I anticipate this? Because I know my friend's characteristics and his personality.
Suppose now he comes with me, just as I predicted. Can we say that he is compelled to come? Of course no, he DECIDES with his free will. Someone asks him: 'are you compelled to go to this concert? Will someone, musicians or hosts, umbrage if you don't attend?' He replies: 'not at all. Nobody's pushing me. I love Metal music and was really eager to come to this concert. This is the only reason I came here for.'
Even if all the information about the universe had made it possible to predict that he would go to the concert, still we can’t assume that he was obliged to go there. We can call this an obligation only if he’s taken to concert by force.
So, although his temper and nature is a function of his environment, but this doesn’t prevent us from talking about free will. Maybe my friend likes to hike alone at nights. In this specific night, he's more eager to listen to Metal concert and with a free will, he prefers the concert.
Choice means to prefer one method to another. If we can’t predict the consequences of our deeds, how can we choose between alternatives? Without a causal order, there would be no responsibility – moral or law. Parents, teachers, the judge can’t punish a child who can’t predict outcomes of his deeds. So, an important aspect of this case is that, without a causal order – which does not necessarily mean inertia – it’s not possible to pick up a free choice.
Monday, 6. October 2008, 19:38:48
Thoughts
‘If at any time and any place, a material is in a certain condition, then another certain condition will follow the former one’ (I call it, the phrase *)
A lot of philosophers have tried to explain their purpose in usage of ‘necessity’ about laws such as causality. They say: ‘causality law requires that the second event must occur; we mean there’s a necessary relation between the even of type 1 and even of type 2.
Let’s see first about the necessity they’re talking about, and then if the words ‘necessary’ and ‘must’ belong to the cognizable part of the proposition which states the causality law.
Have a look at this proposition: ‘when iron is heated, it expands in length’. Another proposition says: ‘when iron is heated, it contracts’. There is no logical paradox in the second proposition. In fact, logically, the second phrase is just as right as the first one. But we only accept the first one, because it describes an evident system in the nature. It’s also possible to say ‘when iron is heated, the earth rotates’, but there’s no reason to believe earth rotation depends on heating an iron piece.
When a philosopher talks about necessity in causality, what does he mean you think? He might say: ‘I mean when 1 occurs, it’s impossible for 2 not to occur. 2 must occur. No other way could exist’; but sentences such as ‘must occur, no other way could exist’ is only another form of stating ‘necessity’ and therefore philosopher’s objective is not obvious. What is obvious is that he doesn’t want to reject the proposition ‘If at any time and any place, a material is in a certain condition, then another certain condition will follow the former one’. He likes to reinforce it by adding another phrase.
To clarify this, let’s say we have 2 physicists. The first one is satisfied with the phrase * while the second scientist adds:
‘If at any time and any place, a material is in a certain condition, then another certain condition will follow the former one – and the second even MUST occur’.
Is there any difference in terms of cognition potential between these two physicists’ propositions? Let’s examine them:
Suppose these physicists have both access to a meteorology station’s database about today’s weather. They can predict tomorrow’s weather conditions using the information provided. Since they both use one single kind of facts, their predictions would be the same. Is it possible for the second physicist, adding ‘and the second even MUST occur’, to give better and more precise predictions?
No. The additional expressions he gives, don’t state anything about the possible details of his prediction. The first physicist says: ‘if 1, then 2. Today 1 is right, so tomorrow we will have a rainy day’. The second one says: ‘if 1, then 2 and 2 must occur. Today 1 is right, so tomorrow we’ll have a rainy day. But not only it will rain tomorrow, but it MUST rain tomorrow’. We can wait till tomorrow to see the result. If it will rain tomorrow, both of physicists will be happy. If it will not rain, they both will say: ‘Maybe the database was wrong. Maybe one of the rules was wrong’. But is there any base by which the second physicist can do a prediction that the first one can’t? No.
The additional phrase that the second physicist adds to his has no effect on his prediction ability; but it gives him the idea that his propositions are more powerful.
This is the idea David Hume had in 18th century. I believe there is no reason to believe there is an internal ‘necessity’ in causal relations. We observe 1, and then 2. Hume said if you didn’t see any necessity, so don’t talk about it since you wouldn’t add something worthwhile to your observations.
Friday, 3. October 2008, 06:03:50
Academic, Science & Technology
As a part of an academic community, it is important that you show the reader where you have used someone else’s ideas or words. Referencing is important for reasons other than avoiding plagiarism. When you reference correctly you are demonstrating that you have read widely on a topic. You are also supporting your hypothesis with comments from expert authors.
Bournemouth University has published a guide on Harvard System of Reference which I have uploaded in this post.
Harvard Referencing Guide by Bournemouth Univ.pdf
WIDGETIZE