bad argument and syllogism

The assignment for this week is to go out and find a bad argument. Write it out in the form of a syllogism. Discuss whether it's true or false.

Bad argument:  Bishop Williamson denies that six million Jews were killed in the holocaust, and claims that no Jews were killed at all in gas chambers. In fact, he says, there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. The convicted holocaust-denier David Irving makes the same claims, and the bishop draws on some of the same alleged "evidence" presented in Irving's writings. In this interview, Bishop Williamson acknowledges that making this case "is against the law in Germany". 

Syllogism: "(introduction)Some believe that Jews were killed in gas chamber. (I premisis)There are studies that deny the existence of the gas chamber.(II premisis) I believe these studies to be true. (conclusion) Therefore, no Jews were killed in the gas chambers."

Although the syllogism is not technically correct, I believe this to be the reasoning behind Bishop Williamson statement. I think it makes sense from his point of view.  He's trusting historians that say that in order to work, gas chambers have to be made in a particular way and there were no such things in the concentration camps. The premises have a questionable degree of truth but they are valid, and so is the conclusion .

The real question, and the weak point in his reasoning, is: why is he trusting these studies and not all the other people, either witnesses or historians? This leads many people to assume he is anti-semitic... which is probably the case. 

It's hard to see the matter in an objective way because emotions in this case play a huge role, as so many human beings have been killed (by gas chambers or other means, it does not really matter, does it?) by other humans "in cold blood", in an accurate, systematic, premeditated way. 

[However, I don't think Europe should feel guilty towards Jews so much to be "blind" to the crimes that the state of Israel is perpetuating against the Palestinian population. In denouncing those crimes, people shouldn't feel afraid of being called "anti-semitic", because it does not mean to be against a religion or a "race", it means to be against a government. It's time to learn from the past and prevent other people from being killed, tortured and humiliated because of their religion or their race. And it's astonishing that these crimes are committed by the same people who suffered them in the first place] [btw, yes, I know this is not really relevant to the topic I should discuss]

Inductive or deductive

'Contemplation is the greatest good,' was stated by Aristotle. What do you think he was referring to? Was it inductive or deductive reasoning. How does this lead up to Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum'?

For Aristotle contemplation means the theoria, the intellectual knowledge, opposite to action or praxis. When Aristotle talk about philosophy he uses the term metaphysics, the "first philosophy", the main science that could investigate "the knowledge of immaterial being". By saying "contemplation is the greatest good" Aristotle refers to the importance of knowledge.

However, how can I tell if it was inductive or deductive reasoning? it's just a sentence! It's talking about the search of knowledge in general, without specifying which method to follow: it's both inductive and deductive, depending on the situations. 

Still, this lead up to Descartes 'cogito ergo sum': for Descartes "cogito" refers to that part of the spiritual substance that can never be doubted. It represents the foundation of the subjective certainty of being alive and the measuring unit of every other possible certainty. Descartes give to "cogito", the action of thinking, the supremacy of knowledge, which is exactly what Aristotle meant with "contemplation is the greatest good": to them, reason is the most certain way of knowing.

Optical illusions as metaphors

In the TOK book, we see that R.van de Lagemaat introduces optical illusions as metaphors to explain how we often perceive life poorly. For this blog assignment find an optical illusion on the net, post it on your blog, and explain how it acts as a metaphor on how we simply get things wrong.

Which circle is bigger, the one on the left or the one on the right?

At this point in life, I don't think someone can still be teased by questions like this one, because we all know about the existence of optical illusions and the tricks they play with our minds and our senses. Only if you're younger than a ten years old you can answer "the one on the left". Otherwise, you will probably know that the two circles have the same size, the one on the left only looks bigger because it's surrounded by little circles and, on the other hand, the one on the right looks smaller because it's surrounded by big circles.

Most perceptual illusions have to do with the sense of sight because, though it's one of the senses we most rely on, it's also the one who's most likely to be misled.

In the case of the optical illusion above, the image plays tricks on our sight and on our mind because of its context. In fact, the way we see something usually depend on the context in which we perceive it. We do often judge the size of an object by looking at its overall context. If there were no other circles surrounding the middle ones, we could have clearly seen that there are no differences in their size. 

This should teach of how sometimes is not advisable to rely on your senses, but i still think that they are the only way we can feel reality. Though I know I can't always trust one of them, the five of them together, along with the sixth, which is the ability of reasoning - my mind-, can often give me an accurate perception of reality. 

Do animals use language?

On pages 79-82 you can read a discussion between Dolly and Guy. The question of concerns is whether or not animals have language. In your blog, summarize the arguments that both make and give your own opinion on the matter. 

In the dialogue it's discussed the topic of language, communication and animals. What is the difference between language and communication? Is there a difference? Do animals use language or it's just communication?

At the beginning of the dialogue Guy say that the question is badly formulated, because the word 'animal' covers a spectrum of living beings from amoebae to apes and human beings. Since human beings are animals, and since our mean of communication is language, then is "trivially true that animals have language". But he doesn't think amoebae have a lot to say for themselves. Then the two, Guy and Dolly, discuss whether or not it can be said that some animals have a "rudimentary form of language". Dolly bring up such examples as dances bees do to "talk" about nectar, differents alarm calls vervet monkeys use, chimpanzees being taught American sign language or how to communicate through a keyboard with more than 200 symbols on it representing words; Guy main counter-arguments are that animals can exchange only information relevant to their own survival, that by teaching an animal to use a form of language you get too emotional to be objective, that no animal can talk about abstract things such as the past, the future or the meaning of life and that is because animals which are not human beings are simply not built for language.     

My opinion on this topic is that language it's surely a form of communication, but not all communication is language. Communication is an exchange of information and it can happen between things and living beings, for example when we buy something from a vending machine, but in order do be defined language, a form of communication has to be: rule-governed, intended, creative and open-ended. Animals doesn't use such thing. They can't even think of such thing as language! Even though a monkey taught by scientists can learn some words, it can teach this words to other monkeys, which proves the point that they can't understand what language is all about.I think that the people who say "how do you know that the can't talk between each other? you have no evidence to disprove it!" are just using an argument ad ignorantiam, which does not help to go far in discussions of any kind. 

I also think that scientists who spend their life with monkeys trying to teach them a language should do something more useful for the human community such as looking for cures to cancer instead of projecting human qualities into animals. They should also let animals free of living their lifes instead of making experiments on them depriving them of the joys of the jungle. 

We all need to accept that human beings are extremely different from the other beings of the animal kingdom, that if other animals could think just as similar as an human being does, they would probably have more advanced forms of society. 

Somewhere in the bible it's written "Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s". Give to animals what belongs to animals, which is communication, and give to human beings what is human beings', which is language.