Journal Entry #10: Science versus Religion

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that pairs of physical properties such as position and velocity can not be simultaneously known to absolute precision. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics poses the idea that particles are described by wavefunctions that determine the probability of that particle of being in a location or state of motion. However, when measured, these sets of probabilities to collapse. Thus, it is impossible to determine the state of a system prior to its observation. These two concepts, debated greatly among scientists and theologians, could refute the idea of a deterministic universe, where every event - however spontaneous it may seem - has been an inevitable outcome of the infinite events prior to it, whether they be particle vibrations, collisions, reactions and whatever else on both the micro and macro levels. The idea that we may have no free will because our existence is an infinite deterministic chain reaction of cause and effect is staggeringly alarming. However, the two concepts above aren't so cordial with this idea.

If we live in a world of uncertainty, then that gives us reason for faith and hope, and to some, poses a viable debate for the existence of a supreme omniscient entity. If we live in a world of possibility and probability where an outcome cannot be predetermined then it means that our existence, which we so often take for granted, has been the result of I don't know how many zillions of uncertain causes and uncertain effects, that have become certain through their occurrence. To many, this is a miracle in itself. We can only reap our existence because everything that has ever happened, happened exactly as it did, and this is reason enough for some to believe in God. If someone were to determine for me every event that were to occur in my life then there would be no reason for me to have hope.

Another argument that one might pose is that they don't just believe in God because of the divine miracle of their existence, but because of their ability to feel, to love, to see, to remember and to have faith in what the future holds. It takes more than a clump of matter to embody such beautiful abilities. That's one way of looking at it...

Journal Entry #9: Informal, Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

A syllogism is a logical appeal that is used in deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning combines statements to determine facts, and consists of two premises and a conclusion. For example:

All cows eat grass.
Marley is a cow.
Therefore Marley eats grass.

What is interesting about deductive reasoning is that the conclusions that are derived may not necessarily be true in practice (because one or more of the clauses are untrue), however they may still be valid, and completely plausible when interpreted without any external knowledge. For example:

All pigs can fly.
I am a pig.
Therefore I can fly.

Whilst pigs cannot actually fly, the conclusion derived by deductive reasoning is valid because it logically follows the two premises that are stated. We use deductive reasoning in everyday life, however it is very easy for us to arrive at valid, yet untrue conclusions because some of the information we have used in our premises is incorrect.

Whilst deductive reasoning goes from the general to the specific, inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general. Facts are determined from repeated observations. For example, you may notice that whenever you've dropped a pen, it's fallen towards the ground, which leads you to the conclusion that all pens fall downwards when released from a height above the ground. This form of reasoning is subject to human error and personal interpretation (as conclusions are derived from personal experiences). It can also be argued that due to uncertainties in our universe, we can not say that observations that have repeated themselves throughout our lives can be labelled as forgone conclusions. I will be talking about uncertainties in my next entry, which might help to expand on this idea.

Journal Entry #8: Politics and Debate

Having recently returned from a Model United Nations conference in Istanbul, I have begun to ponder over the nature of reasoning and arguments in politics and debate.

One strategy that is commonly used in politics is “false dilemma,” which assumes that there are only two alternatives to a situation. Politicians often deceive voters by telling them that if they are not elected then there will be grave consequences. Ostensibly, voters only have two options – voting for the politicians or suffering the ‘bad’ alternative outcome.

Another strategy that arose multiple times during the MUN debates was “loaded questions,” such as, “does your country always place its people before its power?” This type of question provoked hesitated answers, where the responder would be admitting to something. These tactics are often used in politics, when a politician targets another politician by presenting him with a black and white question that poses two extremes.

One form of informal reasoning that is particularly prominent in debate is “ad hominem” (meaning “attack the man” in Latin), which targets the person rather than the argument. A politician might argue against another politician’s personal life, his customs and religious views, rather than his political views.

What I find particularly interesting is the fact that many people have a natural tendency and desire to categorize themselves as “democrats” or “republicans” or “conservatives”. This categorization and generalization of their views often leads them towards inherently adopting other new views of their political party, with little evaluative reasoning. I suppose it’s all just politics.

Journal Entry #7: Science, Imagiation and Reasoning (String Theory)

String Theory is a modern scientific phenomenon that has stirred heated debates among physicists. On the most basic level, it is the idea that within all matter - within every tiny subatomic particle exists tiny rings of vibrating energy known as strings.

What is most striking is how scientists are capable of deriving the wildest physical theories and images from mathematical formulae. To an extent, this stimulates both their imaginative faculties and their sense of reasoning. Scientists have often jeopardized their reputation and careers by exhibiting their bizarre theories on strings to the scientific community. However, can it not be argued that all accepted scientific theories, by nature, are no different from string theory, in that we are unable to prove or disprove it? We cannot prove or disprove these theories for the simple reason that we are incapable of forecasting the future. From what I have gathered, it seems that scientists are reluctant to accept such theories as string theory due to the fact that it is too unconventional, and goes against other widely accepted theories. For our imagination, the idea of strings is too vast to fully comprehend, scientists are resistant to change the theories they have already accepted, as it will require to rethink and reconstruct the physical image in their imagination.

It is in the human nature to hold onto what we already have, but often to move forward in the field of science we must open ourselves to new theories. We should embrace new ideas (with caution).

Journal Entry #6: The Art of Connotations and Euphemisms in Language

Why is it that nowadays political figures will refer to torture as "enhanced interrogation," in particular those in favour of the practice? Since long before we were born, political correctness has always restricted people from mentioning certain things in certain ways, and thus taboos have formed in society. People are so concerned about preserving their image that they have become paranoid about maintaining a politically correct stance and avoiding controversies, whether they concern political or social opinions. Going back to the example of torture, a political candidate will never wish to utter "I am in favour of torture," but would much rather say "I am in favour of enhanced interrogation" as, for one reason or another, "enhanced interrogation" is not as bad as "torture" despite being the same thing!

What seems most confusing to me in particular is the idea of connotations (ideas that are implied or suggested) or euphemisms (inoffensive or indirect expressions that are substituted for ones that are considered offensive or too harsh) in conversation. For example, people will often refer to garbage dumps as "sanitary landfills". The term "sanitary landfill" portrays a much more hygienic image that many garbage companies will use to their advantage. Another example is referring to someone as "mentally challenged" rather than "retarded". The word "retard" simply comes from the Latin word "tardus" and refers to slow growth and development. What caused this innocent word to develop into an offensive slang term? All I can say is that human behaviour is extremely irrational, and the common idiom "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" no longer applies in our society.

Ethnologue

1. What, in your opinion, would explain the areas and countries on each map with the greatest concentration of living languages?
2. Identify those areas and countries which you think are at greatest risk of the 'death or disappearance of languages'.
3. Link your answer from question 2 to the reasons listed above for the decline in human languages: which of these factors would best explain the endangering of languages in different regions of the world and why?
   
   

1. It can be noticed that the majority of languages are condensed within the equatorial region. Factors that should be considered are the flow of migrants in and out of the countries that may have influenced languages over time, historical backgrounds (e.g. colonies) and the development of the countries. For example, a city which had very little connectivity and communication with other cities would have developed its own dialect(s). Likewise, a country that engaged in global trade and colonisation would have influenced the languages of other cities or countries. Globalisation could be a major factor which would have played a large role in the 20th and 21st centuries, over the period of techonological development and the industrial revolution.

Journal Entry #5: Thoughts and Languages

Being someone who speaks multiple languages, I have grasped the true importance of communication. The processes of evolution and global developement were greatly intensified after the introduction of literature. However, with communication comes misinterpretation. Languages are a systematic means of communicating that need to be taught, and this is evidence that humans are limited in expressing themselves. Will someone ever interpret something that you say to them in exactly the way that you intend? Would that require the person to experience the exact same sensations towards a string of words as you do?

Languages are an integral part of our existence. Particularly in a world of telecommunications and technology. Our thought processes are directly linked to the words and symbols that we call a language, and it is almost inconceivable to imagine what our world would be like without languages. A renowned philosopher named Ludwig Wittgenstein once said that "if we spoke a different language, we would perceive a different world". This is a plausible argument. With different languages come different expressions, symbols, and ultimately a different way of thinking.

Languages can work both for and against us. Often they can group abstract concepts into words, symbols or expressions such that these concepts become comprehensible to the human mind. However, other times it can lead to misinterpretation or oversimplification and generalisation. Nevertheless, I will continue to try to learn new languages, and following Wittgenstein's philosophy, it will hopefully help me to perceive the world around me in different ways.