Chapter 2 Question #2

First of all, I will state that I am not too much of a religious person but I do strongly believe in the existence of God. So if anything I am a little biased about this topic. But this topic itself is really conflicting to many believers of evolution and God. They both do not mix at all. I believe it is one or the other. So as Aquinas is explaining, the belief of God is more practical than the belief of evolution. But he is really one sided with this belief because he does not explain the other side of the topic. Evolution could not be highly proved because there was a lack of observation and information of the world. As for Dawkins he could have more support because he can scientifically prove the existence of evolution which is more practical than just belief itself. So I feel Dawkins would not see eye to eye with Aquinas with this topic.

Randy Alonzo.

Chapter 2 Question #1

If I had a specific strength that is noticeable when you first meet me, it probably would not be confidence to say the least. This does not mean that I am not confident at all it just takes a while to set in because I usually have to be comfortable. Communication is not a weakness as well. But as for strength it would be the desire to learn and work hard. I have the will to do anything that I am told and pick up really quick. Why is this relevant? Well I honestly think too much and rely on logical reasoning for most situations. This is a good thing because I use logical reasoning in order to process instructions given by a higher authority so many times before even learning something new, I might already know how to perform the action. As for an occupation, I can actually apply it to many things; mainly jobs that are hands on. But as for a job in particular, I would love to work as a clinical lab scientist which uses logical reasoning all the time to determine what disease may lie within a blood sample.

Randy Alonzo.

Chapter 7 Question #3

“Don’t judge a book by its cover.” A very common saying but also very true in most cases. This basically means that do not judge someone or something with just first impressions or first glance. There are plenty of generalizations, but how many of them are 100% true? It is pretty rare that generalizations are true especially in the world we live in were prejudice acts and racism have existed. Well a generalization is making conclusions off of judgment instead of in depth knowledge. I believe it could lead to false conclusions which may or may not change the way of how things may play out in decision making or life choices. For say, you might meet someone new. Maybe because by the way one looks you might not want to be friends or the way you get a first impression with someone that probably had a bad day can leave a bad impression as well. What if that person is actually a very nice person and then you have a lost opportunity of associating yourself with them. As you can see we are taught of how generalization plays a big role in everyday lives.

Randy Alonzo.

Chapter 7 Question #2

In the article, Outside the Box, Dr. Novello touches on the topic of teen smoking and how common it has become in society. As for her argument, she approaches it with cause and effect way inductive reasoning. Her main example is her introduction of statistics of the rise in number of teens who smoked after Camel was produced. She believed it was the campaign of Joe Camel which drew teens in to become smokers. I believe this is true. In my history class we would discuss the issue of Joe Camel and how the company would advertise and find ways to lure people into buying their products. They created the character, Joe Camel, and made him into this cool an appealing Camel who made smoking look cool. So if you were to smoke like Joe Camel, you then would also be cool. It’s just a little more inductive reasoning for all of you. But anyways, one of her efforts to stop this growing problem, she helped banned cigarettes in school. I believe it was a good idea and it should have helped stop the increase of teen smokers if they couldn’t do it at school. It would be less interaction between teens and fewer exposures to others so curiosity would not be generated amongst the crowd.

Randy Alonzo.

Chapter 7 Question #1

This week I figured that work has taken too much of my time that I can be using for school or a potential social life, so I created availability form for my job at the DC. As for my argument to receive less hours of work, I stated that I wanted to work 10 to 15 hours a week. I also marked down spaces of times that I cannot work due to school or other activities such as meeting for my club that I part take in. As a result of this, I do not work 20 plus hours anymore. I also do not have an opening shift anymore. So my two premises would be the statement of only wanting to work 10 to 15 hours a week and also the available time shifts that I have marked which lead to the conclusion of working less hours. I work under 20 hours a week but I still work 18 which I find ridiculous. (#firstworldproblems)

Randy Alonzo.

Chapter 8 Question #3

The concept that stuck with me is the idea of deductive reasoning. There is more to just simple statements of true or false. It can range from valid and invalid reasons, to sound and unsound. Logic plays a very big role in this topic as well. A universal understanding can simply be overturned with two premises that are valid supporting detail. With that said, the conclusion does not have to be true in a valid argument. It can be false and still be a valid argument. What got my attention was the example of Tom Cruise being tall, when obviously he is not tall but fairly short. With logic and first impression, I guarantee 9 out of 10 people will disagree to the statement of Tom Cruise being tall. The minority is only considering the people that may not have even heard of Tom Cruise. I find it very interesting that with this type of reasoning anyone can turn fact into fiction. 

Randy Alonzo.

Chapter 8 Question #2

The topic of the Death Penalty is a very controversial issue. According to Sister Helen Prejean, the Death Penalty is ruled immoral and violates the dignity and rights of all human beings. She also states that it is against the teachings of Jesus Christ. I agree with her ideals because being that I am religious and do believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, I feel like killing whatsoever is wrong. Killing in the first place is wrong and punishing someone who committed murder with death does not make us as humans better than the person who killed in the beginning. But a counter-argument to this issue is by putting yourself in the position of having someone dear to you murdered. Would you want the murdered to receive the Death Penalty? Most people or nearly everyone would want the murdered to receive the Death Penalty. But if the United States truly claims to be this so called Christian nation, then wouldn’t everyone follow in the teachings of Jesus Christ such as forgiveness? Forgiveness to those that committed wrong? I truly believe that morally we should not consider death as a solution to any problem. But it is truly impossible for all humans to agree on an idea such as this for we are instinctively born to create conflict and inflict war onto others. In realist views I believe Death Penalty will be our current solution to the act of killing because humans are stubborn to obey morals until something drastic is forced upon us. But in the end I truly support that murder and the Death Penalty is simply immoral.

Randy Alonzo.

Chapter 8 Discussion Question #1

So after reading Chapter 8, I feel as if Sherlock Holmes makes a great point of how most people that try to prove a point go off assumptions. I feel like this happens still to this day. It is like everyone that is involved with an argument does whatever it takes to be the victor of an argument no matter if he or she is actually telling the truth. I believe that most people just take offense when in the heat of the moment. For example, my brothers and I always get into arguments. One particular event that comes to mind is when my oldest brother stole money from my wallet. What he did not realize is that I happen to catch him in the act. As he put the money away I confronted him. Of course being defensive he would deny every possible accusation that came his way. The difference between our arguments is that instead of opinion based knowledge I had actual facts to back up my accusations. So he ended up giving back my money which to this day he swears that he did not take. I also believe in times like this, pride plays a big role. So Sherlock Holmes had to go through reasoning with facts to prove his points against all the reports and I feel like this obviously still occurs with everyone. If not, nobody would have found out that the horse killed Straker, and an innocent person would be in jail.

Randy Alonzo.