Bras
7 June 2004, 2:51 PM

Rain, Rain
7 June 2004, 2:24 PM

More Baby Deer Pictures!
7 June 2004, 2:02 PM

Sunday morning we looked out the breakfast nook window and saw a doe and her fawn munching grass in the front yard. I grabbed the camera and managed to get a few shots before they were startled away by a couple out for their daily walk. (The pictures are a bit grainy because they were taken through the window screen.)

A quick glance out the other windows revealed that they'd scampered off to our backyard and, lo and behold, they stopped just outside our bedroom window. They were only a few feet away from us, so we didn't dare open up the blinds too far and scare them off again. I took pictures as best as I could through the blinds.

The Friday night previous we caught glimpses of most of the herd, camping out in our backyard under the trees for shelter while a pretty powerful storm rolled through. The lightning was so bad that it was like watching them move in a strobe light.

Summer Classes Begin Today
7 June 2004, 1:44 PM

Today is the official start of Summer I which means that I'm pretty much back to the academic grind until December 17th, when I graduate. Summer I ends on a Friday and Summer II begins on a Monday. There's no break in between and I'm taking classes in both summer sessions. There is a week break between Summer II and Fall but since it's just before the semester, and that's a busy time for us folks in the IT division, it's not likely to be restful either. Whew. I'm going to be looking forward to Christmas break.

This summer session I'm taking a required course: Philosophy 1305. As a good student I've already bought the books, checked out the professor's syllabus on his web site and started reading one of the texts even before classes start. You have to be on the ball when it comes to summer sessions since they move so fast.

I am wondering if I'm going to have great difficulty with this class. Oh, not in the learning and understanding of it. That's not a problem, especially since it's such an introductory course. The thing is, I already want to argue with the supposedly fundamental principals to good arguments - at least according to "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T. Edward Damer. I'm assuming that does not bode well for me.

This was the first principle in a code of conduct for effective rational discussion:

1. The Fallibility Principle When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best, only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal hat one's own initial position is a false or indefensible one.

Okay, I have no problem with the idea that both viewpoints can be wrong. That seems like a "well, duh, that should be obvious" idea to me. It's this point that the author argues is the frequent impediment to "intellectual progress" and serious discussion. But it's the other part, the idea that only one position can be right, that bugs me. Especially when he goes on to mention that this type of reasoning is the standard principle of inquiry among scientists, philosophers and other academics, but that it's frequently neglected in discussions of politics or religion.

But scientists, philosophers and academics are often involved in subjects grounded in science, rationality and logic. They seek to make the world known. That's the perfect environment for using the rules of rational discussion, and often there is only one truth to suss out of a mountain of data or the observations of physical processes.

But politics and religion are based in human emotions. Religion in particular is highly emotionally charged and finds its origins in human beings desire to understand their place in the world, to understand the meaning of life and the unexplained world, and to feel connected to that which they can't see or understand. People don't participate in religion rationally. They participate in it emotionally and ideas of faith, magic, and awesome cosmic powers beyond us are at the heart of a lot of religions. Practice and understanding of religions change as culture changes and not only are there thousands of examples of community practiced religions but then there are the billions of personal expressions and understandings of those religions.

The same goes for politics, since each person's personal life experiences dictate what is more important to them, what they think should be more important to others and their desire for a certain outcome when it comes to overall social and cultural interactions and governance. Politics is often about making reality the way you want it to be. It just doesn't seem that this kind of scientific approach would apply very well.

It doesn't make any sense to me that there could not be multiple truths. A one-truth-fits-all just seems counter-intuitive. So, do we we have to apply principles designed for rational, logical discussion that's based on finding only one truth? Should there be an idea of intellectual discussion that allows for more than one idea to be truth? For there to be multiple truths?

*sigh*

Of course, these are just my initial reactions to the first few pages of the first Chapter of this book, so I'm obviously going off after a wild hare in my first reaction. It's extremely likely there's something I've missed. But if it's got me thinking that much already, this should be an interesting semester.