Week 7 Discussion Forum Discussion Prompt This week we’re exploring causation and correlation. • Why is it a fallacy to

Week 7 Discussion Forum Discussion Prompt This week we’re exploring causation and correlation. • Why is it a fallacy to confuse causation and correlation? • Provide an example of a statement that confuses causation with correlation. In addition to your inital post, you must also post substantive responses to at least two of your classmates’ posts in this thread. Provide an analysis of your peers’ post. Build on their examples and explanations to extend meaningful discussion. =========================================================== Kickoff Post Welcome to the Week 7 Discussion Forum! A few weeks ago when we were discussing logical fallacies, we encountered the fallacies post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is, “after this, therefore because of this” – i.e. the mistaken belief that simply because phenomenon B follows phenomenon A, that means that A must have caused B, when they might both be due to some other common cause, or the association may be entirely random, such as in the image below: If you’re trying to determine the causation here – for example, “cheese consumption causes uneasy dreams, which causes people to move around a lot in bed, which can lead to people becoming tangled in their bedsheets” – I don’t blame you. The human brain is designed to identify patterns – that’s how we survived and evolved. But that function is often overactive and finds patterns that aren’t really there, such as in this case. There is no causal relationship between these two phenomena – it’s entirely random, and that’s not that big a deal since think of the infinite number of phenomena in the world – there are bound to be random patterns that happen to correspond to each other without any actual connection. Here are some other fun examples. We also encountered earlier the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“with this, therefore because of this” – i.e. the mistaken belief that because two things are frequently correlated, one must be the cause of the other, when again the association may be random, or it may instead be that they’re both caused by something else, such as in the example below). That was an early preview to a central insight in the natural and social sciences: correlation does not imply causation. Just because some behavior happens to frequently or always accompany another behavior does not in itself prove that one is the cause of the other. Causation is notoriously hard to prove, and responsible scientists recognize that, once we recognize a correlation between two discrete phenomena, a lot more work has to be done to determine if there’s any sort of causal link. So let’s hear some more good examples of mistakes that people make in confusing causation with correlation. In your responses to classmates, one approach can be to identify what steps would need to be taken in order to determine causation – i.e. not necessarily between the two phenomena named, but to determine what other thing might be causing the two things together, or if we can determine whether there’s any relationship at all (and keep in mind that your responses need to add to the conversation – it’s nice when you say nice things to each other, but don’t stop there, since that alone doesn’t add much substance to the conversation, and the goal here is to keep the conversation moving forward thoughtfully!).

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

word essay on a philosophical topic of your choice. In your essay, you must summarize the relevant philosopher’s views, express your take and raise an objection to your own point of view. Detailed instructions, grading rubric, and topic suggestions will be provided.

Please see attached for corresponding rubric. This is a list of suggested topics you may choose from: 1. Explain Plato’s theory of goodness, and of justice, as articulated in his Republic. 2. Compare and contrast Plato’s and Aristotle’s ethics. In what ways are they similar? In what ways do they differ? 3. Explain Thomas Hobbes’s nominalist theory of ethics, and show how it supports his theory of psychological egoism and consequent dim view of human nature. What draw us into conflict? Why do we need to limit our liberties to escape from the Hobbesian “state of nature”? 4. Compare Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s contrasting views of human nature, e.g. as depicted in Chapter 13 of Hobbes’s Leviathan and in Rousseau’s The Social Contract. Based on contemporary evidence, such as presented by Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate, whose view appears vindicated, and whose view appears discredited? Why? 5. Explain, with at least one example, “Hume’s guillotine”—the argument that we cannot derive “ought” from “is.” How does Kant attempt to resolve this problem? Again, give at least one example. Does Kant succeed? Why or why not? 6. What is utilitarianism? How does John Stuart Mill’s reformulation of utilitarianism rescue it from the charges of hedonism levied at Jeremy Bentham’s earlier version? Beyond this, utilitarianism attracts other criticisms; for example, that its pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number ignores or disregards individual rights. How does Mill’s essay On Liberty answer this serious allegation? 7. Illustrate comparative strengths and weaknesses of the ethical systems we have studied. Why is there apparently no perfect theory of ethics? Can there be one? 8. Summarize Anselm’s ontological argument. Do you agree with it? Why, or why not? What objections have been raised by other philosophers? Are you persuaded by any of them? 9. Do square circles exist? Why, or why not? Suppose we define a “squircle” as “an existing square circle.” Do squircles exist? Why or why not? What does it mean for something to exist? Or not to exist? Or to be named? 10. Can we reliably tell the difference between appearance and reality? Why or why not? Is this central question from Descartes resolved, or just rehearsed, in The Matrix? 11. Descartes was a rationalist; Berkeley, an empiricist. Explain the differences in their epistemologies (philosophies of knowledge). Is there any potential agreement between them on the nature of “material substance”? On God? Explain. 12. Is there any “stuff” out there? Does anything exist that lies beyond perception? How would Berkeley answer? How would Churchland answer? How would you answer? 13. What is eliminative materialism? What are Churchland’s main arguments in support of it? What objections does he raise against it, and how does he counter them? 14. What is a Turing test? What do you think Turing would say about the AI robot Sophia’s ability to pass such a test? What do you think Searle would say? Sophia has been made an honorary citizen of Saudi Arabia. Does she therefore have personhood? Why or why not? 15. Explain Searle’s allegory of the Chinese room. What is he attempting to demonstrate? Do you think he succeeds? Why or why not? 17. Can “understanding” be reducible to a complex algorithm —e.g. a computer program? Or is understanding irreducible? Contrast the answers given by Churchland’s reductionism, Turing’s functionalism, and Searle’s holism. Which (if any) position(s) do you favor, and why? 18. How does Charles Mill’s racial contract differs from the Hobbesian contract? Why does Mills differentiate his contract from the classical one? Is his theory successful at addressing racial inequality? Why or why not? 19. Should identity traits interfere with knowledge acquisition processes? Why or why not? Do such traits in fact interfere with knowledge acquisition? How relevant are phenomena such as epistemic appropriation, hermeneutical injustice and other forms of epistemic injustice? 20. Do ignorance and identity interact with each other? If so, how? If not, how what is wrong with epistemologies of ignorance? 21. Choose your own topic, find two relevant philosophical references about it, and obtain my approval before writing your essay.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Please answer each question as an answer format. you do not need to provide citation just answer he quastion

Please answer each question as an answer format. you do not need to provide citation just answer he quastion using your own opinion or from the e-book in which you need to login to read.

Q1: Find a news story on the Internet that illustrates one or more of the virtues such as courage, compassion, and/or gratitude, and either link to it or copy and paste it in your response. Explain what virtue(s) it is an example of, and why.

Q2:In the context of virtue, what is the epitome of misunderstanding according to Socrates?

Q3: Describe the two forms of virtue according to Aristotle

Q4: A scene in The Searchers is called a “Levinas moment” in the textbook. Which scene is it, and what is the significance of this label? Do you agree? Why or why not?

Please login to this website to find the information you need to answer the questions. This is my personal e-book and you need to find the answers in chapter 8-11.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

is below, I upload a previous paper about this topic, the red ink was my professor’s comments. you can use that for the guide line.

“Each student must submit a 1500 to 2000-word essay in response to the following prompt: What do you think best explains the ethical value of the non-human world? What implications does this understanding of the value of the non-human world have for how we ought to address climate change? Your answer should also include a discussion of competing understandings of the value of the non-human world and an explanation of why those competing views don’t convince you.”

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

interview a working person about ▪ the ethical issues that person encounters at work or sees others encounter ▪ how those issues are resolved ▪ whether your subject believes the issues are handled fairly for all concerned

You will interview a working person about ▪ the ethical issues that person encounters at work or sees others encounter ▪ how those issues are resolved ▪ whether your subject believes the issues are handled fairly for all concerned The interview description plus your comments about how this issue relates to one of the modules from this semester should total 500 to 750 words. Don’t use the interviewee’s last name or the name of their employer.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Research Paper. 4000 words. On Copying and Distributing Digital Media Digital Media Ethics, chap. 3. You will first develop

Research Paper. 4000 words. On Copying and Distributing Digital Media Digital Media Ethics, chap. 3. You will first develop a one-page prospectus outlining your plan for the organization and goals of this paper, to be approved by the instructor. A successful paper addresses a prominent specific issue about today’s journalistic or social media while synthesizing relevant information gained in the course (lectures and readings), information from a selected body of secondary literature, and the student’s academic experience.

Course Descriiption

Ethical standards for valuable communications are needed more than ever. Internet ethics is for everyone, as we have become information generators and broadcasters too. Disinformation, propaganda, and ideology are disseminated by the people more effectively than any government. How can the value of free speech be preserved in our “post truth” world, without resorting to censorship? The media ethics of journalism upholds high standards of accuracy and honesty despite social and political pressures. Fake news and faked images are proliferating, requiring digital media ethics. A new global media ethics brings spotlights upon the causes of freedom, security, and justice for all peoples.

This new course meets either a Philosophy or Humanities Core Area requirement OR a Professional Media and Communications concentration elective.

Course Objectives

Students will examine ethical questions at the intersections of communications, media, internet, society, and politics, and study interdisciplinary approaches and answers to those questions.

Communication Ethics. We are all communicators, generating and repeating perspectives on what we observe and judge about other people and the world. Communication’s human function is to strengthen social community. This principle exposes how any of us can mis-use communication methods, media, and technology to instead serve selfish aims, partisan advantages, or anti-social agendas. Ethics must be built into all communication.

Internet Ethics. In this internet age when people can easily reach and influence the minds of others, motivations and agendas behind social media behavior must be scrutinized. Disinformation, propaganda, and ideology are easily and quickly spread to millions of people by the same people themselves, more effectively than any government’s own broadcasting. Can social media apply its own restraints, to filter itself better before governments impose censorship? Free speech isn’t what it used to be during a by-gone era of newspapers and podiums. What is the value of free speech in our “post truth” world, while the internet is leaving many minds less free?

Media Ethics. The role of a journalist is provide information about matters of public importance to the public in timely and understandable ways. Duties to the Public: Social Importance, Accuracy, Non-Bias, Honesty, Civility. Duties to the Profession: Treatment of Sources, Information Gathering, Conflicts of Interest.

Digital Media Ethics. On the internet, anyone can report and spread “news”, including AI and bots. Genuine journalism in the cybersphere of social media must figure out what is authentic and significant, filter out deception, fakery, and propaganda, and reach the online public with information that people can access and use.

Global Media Ethics. Traditional media objectives include (a) making government more transparent and accountable, (b) shining spotlights on suffering and injustice, and (c) covering issues important to minority and disadvantaged groups. Global objectives now add (d) reporting information needed on international and global scales, (e) exposing criminal and dangerous activities of countries that affect their citizens or their neighbors, and (f) supporting the causes of freedom, security, and justice for all peoples.

Students will additionally achieve individualized learning objectives while completing their assignments, with opportunities to:

explore how controversies over journalistic integrity have many more dimensions in our times, complicating efforts to maintain journalism as a true profession;

take multiple perspectives on the public’s engagement with media, asking whether “consumers” of media content should receive what they want to hear, or what they need to hear;

imagine how entertainment goals of social media could be more compatible with the public service aims of journalism; and

join their own voices to ongoing debates about ethical and political controversies surrounding journalism and social media by contributing their well-informed assessments for academic consideration.

Required Texts

Charles Ess. Digital Media Ethics, 3rd edn. Polity, 2019. ISBN 9781509533435

Philip Patterson et al. Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, 9th edn. Rowman and Littlefield, 2019. ISBN 9781538112588

Alexander Klimburg. The Darkening Web: The War for Cyberspace. Penguin, 2018. ISBN 9780735222830

Course Requirements

You are expected to do the readings, observe lectures, and engage with the course material in depth. Your responsibilities include completing all the assignments. Participation is essential to your success in this class. Students should spend approximately 12 hours per week on the work for each module.

Class Participation. Regular attendance at classes, participation in Discussion via Canvas, and a ten-minute presentation to the class in May about your research paper topic. 200 points possible. 20% of total grade.

Commentary Piece. 1000 words. A commentary piece, typical for a magazine or blog, offers insight and commentary on an issue of public importance, composed for a broad audience. Students will choose a current controversy related to a matter raised during the first six weeks. This commentary will either (a) support optimism about the public’s ability to protect their personal information and privacy despite all of their online activities, or the commentary will (b) support pessimism about the public losing more and more privacy no matter how much they try to mange their online activity. 100 possible points. 10% of total grade.

Analytical Essay. 2000 words. This essay will fulfill two goals: (1) first explain how the media is expected to uphold standards of fairness and ethics while covering a major story of national or international importance; and then (2) explore why it can be very difficult to meet those expected standards while also trying to fulfill the responsibility of serving the public’s best interests. 300 possible points. 30% of total grade.

Research Paper. 4000 words. On an issue of students’ choice from the course’s topics, except for issues already addressed by your previous assignments. You will first develop a one-page prospectus outlining your plan for the organization and goals of this paper, to be approved by the instructor. A successful paper addresses a prominent specific issue about today’s journalistic or social media while synthesizing relevant information gained in the course (lectures and readings), information from a selected body of secondary literature, and the student’s academic experience. 400 possible points. 40% of total grade.

Citation Style: The APA Style (APA Publication Manual 6th Edition) is used widely in SCS courses. Consult http://pitt.libguides.com/citationhelp/APA (Links to an external site.)

Class Schedule

This tentative schedule is subject to change as necessary.

Week

Topic

Readings, Events

Week 1

Jan 12

Ethical Issues in Digital Media

Digital Media Ethics, chap. 1, 6

Week 2

no class

No class on Monday Jan 17 – MLK Day

Week 3

Jan 24

Privacy in the Digital Era

Digital Media Ethics, chap. 2

Week 4

Jan 31

Copying and Distributing Digital Media

Digital Media Ethics, chap. 3

Week 5

Feb 7

Who is a Friend Online?

Digital Media Ethics, chap. 4, 5

Week 6

Feb 14

Information Ethics–We are all Journalists Now

Media Ethics, chap. 1, 2

Week 7

no class

No class on Monday Feb 21 – President’s Day

Week 8

Feb 28

Strategic Communications in Business

Media Ethics, chap. 3, 7

Feb 28: Commentary paper due

Week 9

no class

No class on March 7 – spring break

Week 10

March 14

Loyalty–Who deserves Protection and Justice?

Media Ethics, chap. 4

Week 11

March 21

Democracy–Mass Media or Individualism?

Media Ethics, chap. 5, 6

Week 12

March 28

Photo and Video Journalism, Art and Entertainment

Media Ethics, chap. 8, 10

Week 13

April 4

Information for Social Justice

Media Ethics, chap. 9, 11

Week 14

April 11

The War for Your Cyberspace

The Darkening Web, parts 1, 2, 3

Week 15

no class

No class on April 18 – Easter break

Week 16

April 25

The Global War for Cyberspace

The Darkening Web, parts 4, 5, 6
April 25: Analytical paper due

Week 17

May 2

student presentations

Week 18

May 3-10

complete Research paper

May 10: Research paper due

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

At 4:420-421, Kant argues that “when I think a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains. For

At 4:420-421, Kant argues that

“when I think a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains. For since besides the law the imperative contains only the necessity of the maxim to conform with this law, whereas the law contains no condition to which it is limited, nothing is left but the universality of a law as such, with which the maxim of the action ought to conform, and it is this conformity alone that the imperative actually represents as necessary”

Analyze and critically evaluate this argument. Why does Kant think that any moral requirement must take the form of a “categorical imperative”, and why does Kant think that the fundamental categorical imperative is that the maxim of our will should conform to a universal law? (You may want to consider how this argument relates to Kant’s earlier claim that a morally worthy will must act “from duty” and hence must act simply from “respect for the law” (4:399-400).) Discuss whether Kant’s reasoning is persuasive. If you think it is not persuasive, explain why not. If you think it is persuasive, consider and respond to at least one possible objection to Kant’s argument.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

This week, we are learning about categorical logic. Why is it important to understand categorical logic? Provide some examples of

This week, we are learning about categorical logic. Why is it important to understand categorical logic? Provide some examples of how you could apply these concepts to your personal and professional life. In addition to your initial post, post substantive responses to at least two of your classmates’ posts in this thread. Provide an analysis of your peers’ post. Build on their examples and explanations to extend meaningful discussion. =============== Kickoff Message Welcome to the Week 6 Discussion Forum! Last week we looked at fallacies in arguments, to identify ways that errors often find their way into reasoning, and the previous week we looked at rhetorical devices as a way to understand how persuasion can work on audiences separate from reasoning itself – that sometimes the ways that people put arguments matter more than the arguments themselves in persuading people. Note that I also offered some clarifications of concepts in my response posts to help make sure these concepts are being used accurately, since I know they can be a bit confusing at times, but with more practice they can become clearer so that we can recognize and identify them with more precision. This week we’re continuing our march toward precision by looking at categorical logic – that is, an examination of the concepts and categories we use to define and classify things. “Categorical logic” can sometimes seem like a scary term, but in the end it’s not that difficult – it’s no different from comparing and contrasting apples and oranges, recognizing that, while those two categories are quite different (depending on how we define them), they’re both contained in the general category of “things that grow on trees,” or within the even bigger category of “fruit,” or within the even bigger category of “food.” The logic we’ll be applying to these categories is to help us understand when something is included or excluded from a given category, to help us more clearly define that category (and note that the word “define” itself comes from “fin,” a Latin and then French word that means “end,” i.e. to put a finish line around something to define what’s on the inside and what’s on the outside of a concept – so to “define” something is basically like drawing a circle around the stuff that the word includes, and thus everything on the other side of that “defining” line is what’s not meant by that term. Ring Theory (Links to an external site.) is a particularly interesting instance of this – if you’re not familiar with it, it’s worth reading up on! A categorical proposition, as you’ll learn in the reading for this week, is simply a statement about a category – such as “All sick people have insurance,” “Some sick people have insurance,” “Some sick people do not have insurance,” or “No sick people have insurance.” Each of these statements is making a categorical proposition – that is, it’s telling you something about the category it’s referring to, and in this case making a statement about the category of “sick people” relative to them having or not having insurance. And the goal with this week’s discussion, again, is precision – That is, defining precisely what belongs in that category and, thus, what does not belong in that category, since vagueness can lead to uncertainty and confusion and mistakes – and mistakes when it comes to health care can be especially dangerous! 400 word count Apa format

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

answer the following/ Citations are needed when necessary. ( an example of the book is uploaded as a file) : Essay

answer the following/ Citations are needed when necessary. ( an example of the book is uploaded as a file) : 1. In the second half of our semester, we learned about a lot of formal reasoning (formal logic/symbolic logic): propositional logic, categorical logic, reasoning with probability, and some basics in statistical reasoning. These are more like math than philosophy, but they are very important in our daily life and are key components of critical reasoning. How do you find this part of logic related to your everyday life? Do you use formal reasoning more often now in your life? In this question, I will as you to find a particular case example of formal reasoning you encounter in your life, i.e. one of the above types of reasoning (deductive or inductive), which you find interesting or meaningful. -For example, you can find a case of interesting problems solved by deductive logic, like the puzzles we have read in the book. Or you can find a case of decision-making that is inspired by the Principle of Maximum Expected Utility, or a case of Base-rate fallacy. And there are a lot of interesting cases in statistical reasoning, such as Biased samples and cases that confuse correlation and causation. You can also create your own examples, though do try to make your example as interesting as possible. -you need to (1) clearly state your example, (2) analyze its structure, and (3) find its solution. Also, write as clearly as you can. 2. I have decided to write my own textbook for this class two years ago, and I have spent a lot of time revising it. This aims at reducing student costs on textbooks and making course materials accessible to you. I like to seek your feedback on this book, and feel free to let me know if there is anything I can improve. -In particular, tell me which aspects/topics of the book you like to keep and which aspects of the book you like to change. All suggestions are very welcome. I am especially concerned with the second part of the book. I have heard complaints about its length and complexity, so I may cut some materials and simplify it further. There are three main components in the second half of formal reasoning: propositional logic, categorical logic, and probability and statistics. If I have to cut one of them, which one you think it is the least interesting and least important? Right now I tend to add one more week on natural deduction (which you find to be more difficult than others), and maybe one more week on the logic of decision, so I need to cut off categorical logic completely. Is that something you would like? My reasons are that propositional logic really introduce the basic ideas of deductive logic, and probability and statistics are more relevant today to our life than categorical logic. What do you think? Please help me here! -How does this book compare to other textbooks you have read, especially on this topic of logic? And if you have found any mistakes in the book, please let me know. 3. This class aims at developing your critical thinking skills, and you have talked about your expectations at the beginning of the semester. Now reflecting back, what have you learned in this class? Has this class met your expectations? You may name two things that you have learned and felt particularly important about and explain why so.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

When there is a serious question about the moral good, thoughtful and thorough moral analysis is required. The moral status

When there is a serious question about the moral good, thoughtful and thorough moral analysis is required. The moral status of torture is a serious and thorny issue. Please refer to the included readings (David Sussman’s “What’s Wrong with Torture?” and Seumas Miller’s “Is Torture Ever Morally Justifiable?”) for two competing analyses of the moral status of torture. Your assignment is to carefully read each piece and write an analysis of the issue of torture. Write an essay that addresses the following issues, but write a whole, well-organized paper rather than simply a list of answers to the below. Be sure to include adequate support from the texts. Most especially, use what you have learned about moral theories in this course to inform your analysis. Questions: Do Miller and Sussman agree on the definition of torture to a great enough extent that they are talking about the same thing? (This is the sort of question that has to be asked first in any disagreement) How do Miller and Sussman differ on the relative moral wrongness of torture and killing (that is, is torture worse than killing, or is killing worse than torture?)? Why does this issue make an important difference for each account? What moral theory or theories does each make use of in order to make their case? For each writer describe one general problem with each of those moral theories and describe how that problem affects their account of torture. Which account is the better account? (more importantly) Why? (Hint: consider what makes one moral theory better or worse than another. Bonus Hint: Style or clarity has nothing to do with it. The moral status of torture does not depend on how well described an argument for it is or isn’t. If all you can say is that one theory “was explained better” or was “presented more clearly” or “had some examples with it”, then you aren’t focusing on what’s important.)

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount