Basic empirical beliefs and its importances

Basic empirical beliefs and its importances A basic belief for most people is the idea that we believe in something which has not been corrupted by other beliefs to change the core belief we initially have about certain things. They are not inferred from other beliefs and is known better as Foundationalism. From this is the idea of a basic empirical belief, a belief that is learned by observing it using our empirical knowledge; sight, hearing, touch etc. To try and understand beliefs more clearly and to grasp what knowledge is without empirical beliefs, if it can happen, I will look at Foundationalism its counter argument Coherentism and the basic idea of empirical/sensory belief. Foundationalism considers that we need a core set of beliefs, beliefs that our other beliefs we have are built upon in order to make the original belief become more real. Most of us have a foundationalist belief structure and our basic beliefs can be justified by beliefs that link to it in order to make it more factual and the basic belief makes the beliefs which tie in with it justified. However, this doesnt mean that they themselves are justified, just that the basic belief, if true, makes the beliefs that stem from it justified. Following from having a basic belief, The Regress argument/Trilemma puts across that a belief is justified by another belief which is justified by another, then another and so on. So a) It goes on forever, b) Ends with some of the beliefs justify themselves, c) Ends with some of the beliefs having no justification. Therefore, if it went on forever it would be a vicious circle and end up having no end or beginning. It is a vicious regress, which Lewis discusses further, if you believe in the chance of something occurring or being true is small, then you dont really believe it because to have belief in something you need to b e able to justify it, if nothing can be certain then how do we know anything? But the idea of regress can be reversed if something is certain and we believe in it, so some beliefs must be certain. In Agrippas Trilemma, the 2nd option relates to Coherentism, which is an alternative argument to Foundationalism. Coherentism considers that if there could be now way to justify our empirical sense beliefs, and if the idea that beliefs can be justified by one another forever is ruled out then the beliefs can only be justified by their unique properties in relation to other beliefs and how well they fit together in order to produce a organised system of beliefs. Consistency is a requirement of coherence, but a set of beliefs do not need to have flaws to have no coherence, beliefs, which are perfectly consistent, may also have no coherence. As said in Agrippas Trilemma, beliefs justify themselves instead of going on forever, this is shown by the idea that if a belief was to be justified by another belief and so on, then empirical justification moves in a circular motion. But, Coherentism moves away from this idea and towards the idea of a linear motion and that the belief is in a line, with the order of epistemic priority at the beginning and epistemic justification at the other end of the line. The belief justifies itself then, as it does not need to have another belief to rely on it to make it justified. Moving on from this, having empirical beliefs means to have knowledge of our beliefs by gaining it through our senses. Foundationalism believed that basic beliefs were infallible, but by looking at Infallible sensory beliefs, what we believe to be seeing might not be infallible after all and most of our beliefs make us sure of our sensory beliefs. So it seems that we cannot have beliefs without our senses. For example, the belief in a religion, a God, that England are the best at Rugby, all these beliefs cannot be justified unless we have our sense to prove so. Furthermore, we cant have these beliefs to begin with unless we use our empirical knowledge to understand what we believe. If we had no sight then we could not read Holy Scriptures, which reveal religions, if we had no hearing then we could not hear classical music which you may believe to be the best music made by man and so forth. Our empirical knowledge is intertwined closely with our beliefs, and if we were unfortunate to not be able to use all our empirical senses and to have 1 of them taken away, this still hinders our chances of having a true belief in something and being able to justify it. However, a belief can make us more certain of our sensory beliefs e.g. I think I felt a spider run across my back. Later we discover it was a feather duster. Why cant other beliefs lower how sure we are of our sensory beliefs? If we are to accept the foundation of sensory beliefs, how does this relate to the belief structure? Following on from empirical beliefs is a priori knowledge. It is common to most that all the knowledge we hold comes from experience, experience we gain through using our senses. Our experience is not doubted and is gathered by using raw material of our sensible impressions, our empirical knowledge is formed by our interpretations of our own knowledge. A priori knowledge is very different from this, it does not come from experience, and it comes from innate knowledge we are born with. In example, a man who undermined the foundations of his house, that he might have known a priori that it would fall, that is, that he need not have waited for the experience of its actual falling. A priori knowledge is totally separate from experience, its opposite being posteriori, knowledge through experience. With beliefs, we adapt what we know from posteriori and a priori knowledge to justify and understand what we know about our beliefs. Before we are born are we are believed to have this previous knowledge, which Piaget talks of in relation to conscience and children. A child develops internal representations or mental and physical actions, some Schemata that are already present in a newborn, such as sucking, gripping and crying. Others develop as the child grows. The Schemata are built through 2 processes: 1. Assimilation- fitting newly acquired knowledge into what the child already knows. 2. Accommodation-as new experiences occur which do not fit into existing schemata, the child adapts them t fit, or creates new ones. This is similar to beliefs and knowledge, we can have a priori knowledge of a religion, like a blueprint in our mind of a God and we can build on our belief of this by using empirical knowledge to know more about it and by adapting what we already know and interpreting it with our senses. Overall, arguments show that mainly, if we cannot have empirical beliefs then we would find it hard to now anything. Our senses play a huge part in creating thoughts of belief, and without them it is hard to understand what beliefs can be justified if we were to for example have no sight or hearing. We would not be able to believe in a religion, except for the idea that we have a priori knowledge of a God. However, the basic belief of this is not enough to justify it and requires other beliefs to justify it, so this makes it hard for us to know anything. Or for that matter, anything true. I believe that we cannot know anything other than what we are innately born with, but this knowledge alone is not enough to create beliefs or pure knowledge, which solidifies these beliefs. Our empirical senses are key to establishing what we believe and whether we can justify them further therefore without empirical beliefs we can know nothing sufficient. Bibliography The Structure of Empirical Knowledge- Lawrence Bonjour 1986. London, Harvard University Press, ch.5 Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Immanuel Kant 1929. Norman Keep Smith, New York, St. Martins Press, 41-55 Piaget and the Foundations of Knowledge- Lynn S. Liben 1983. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, ch.6

Who are the real winners and losers in RJR Nabisco takeover

Most Of us looks at LOBO transactions from outs idà ©e and have completely different viewpoint how these transactions are done. Barbarians at the Gate presents a n insider's perspective. We somehow have these believe that when there is billions of dollars involved in transactions, Coo's, investors, investment bankers make their decisions based on numbers, trying g to be objective to make rational decisions and very seldom let their subjectivity such as their ego to drive thee r decisions.However after reading the book, I realize how wrong we all are. This paper focuses on what the management team did wrong that cause them to fail and who are the real winners from this transaction. Why management team lost When Ross Johnson proposed a levered buyout, he was sure he would win. H e thought that Or's directors would give him the deference due a chief executive, never realizing that the b road would have no choice legally or morally but to treat him as an outsider.The following factors h ighlights why management team lost. Remaining Equity: The board tried to keep the company as unbroken as poss. able to minimize the negative effect on employees. However the management team planned to keep only t e tobacco business and sell the entire food business after the acquisition. Employees' benefits: Management focused only on employees who would sat y and did not care about employees who would lose their jobs.Ross Johnson did a mistake during one of his interviews regarding potential layoff in the Atlanta headquarters by saying â€Å"those workers had port able jobs and could find employment elsewhere†. Loosing boards trust: Even though Johnson insisted that some portion in queue TTY would be divided among workers, only six names emerged besides his own. Too much for too few, this s what the directors thought, which shocked them. In the end, Ross Johnson lost the battle when he refuse d to guarantee the benefits of those same workers.Choice of bankers and lack of cla rity. Choosing only one banker whom Ross Joe hone's friend suggested was a big mistake. Ross Johnson did not have a clear overall approach and was cons sisterly following Shearers Salmon's advises. Why KIRK won Clear strategy: Recruit every significant player so that the other bidding group s would not be able to retain them and left the management-Shearers bidding group with only one available e player, Salomon Brothers, with significant access to capital market.Reading board's mind: Keeping its options open, KIRK did not disclose fully its Eng-term plans and tried consistently read the board's mind and to act based on it (for example, guar noted severance and other benefits for employees who would lose their jobs, or the announcement to Pl an to hire Paul Stitch as the chairman and CEO in order to mitigate the uncertainties regarding the business as, since he has been with company previously and showed due diligences in his position). Who are the real winner and losers?

Common Problems for an Extended War and the Solutions Essay

Neither the North nor the South had prepared for an extended war. Two years into the conflict, both faced common difficulties. Foremost was the lack of money and manpower. The war was expensive and both treasuries were depleted. While neither initially wanted to impose direct taxes to finance the war, they were forced by circumstances to turn to taxation though on a small-scale. The North seemed to have had more success in raising funds. With the North’s population greater than that of the South, the new tax was able to finance 21% of the war expenses while it was only 1% for the South. Both also tried borrowing. The North being more committed to the idea and was able to obtain more than $2 billion worth of bonds in loan. Another solution that was considered and eventually enforced was the printing of paper money. The Confederacy started with $100 million while the Union printed $150 million worth of â€Å"greenbacks† so called because of its color. The flooding of paper money expectedly led to inflation that resulted to food prices increasing to 80%. This led to hardships in the urban areas which were unable to produce their own food. Volunteers in the army for both sides dwindled off as disillusionment set in. The prestige of army life with its military parades and victories were gone as the harsh realities of deadly diseases, camp life boredom, loss of values, impersonal destruction and conditions of being â€Å"half-starved, half-frozen and half-drowned† were experienced. There were also desertions. To entice would-be soldiers, sign-up bonuses of $800 to $1000 were given to outsiders. Soon, they resorted to the draft despite anticipated opposition and anger by the general populace. However, instead of forcing men to serve, they encouraged those who are already in the army to re-enlist and attract volunteers. The South needed more of these draftees since the North had about 180,000 able immigrants to choose from. The allowance for substitution and exemption, however, led to even further resentments as the conditions clearly favored the rich.

Hawaiian Monk Seal Facts

Most seals live in icy waters, but the Hawaiian monk seal makes its home in the warm Pacific Ocean around Hawaii. The Hawaiian monk seal is one of only two current monk seal species. The other current species is the Mediterranean monk seal, while the Caribbean monk seal was declared extinct in 2008. Native Hawaiians call the seal ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua, which means dog that runs in rough water. The monk seals scientific name, Neomonachus schauinslandi, honors German scientist Hugo Schauinsland, who discovered a monk seal skull on Laysan Island in 1899. Fast Facts: Hawaiian Monk Seal Scientific Name: Neomonachus schauinslandi  Common Names: Hawaiian monk seal, Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua (dog that runs in rough water)Basic Animal Group: MammalSize: 7.0-7.5 feetWeight: 375-450 poundsLife Span: 25-30 yearsDiet: CarnivorousHabitat: Pacific Ocean around the Hawaiian IslandsPopulation: 1,400Conservation Status: Endangered Description The monk seal gets its common name for the short hairs on its head, which are said to resemble those of a stereotypical monk. It is earless and lacks the ability to turn its hind flippers under its body. The Hawaiian monk seal is distinguishable from the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) by its slender body, gray coat, and white belly. It also has black eyes and a short whiskered snout. Habitat and Distribution Hawaiian monk seals live in the Pacific Ocean around the Hawaiian Islands. Most of the breeding populations occur in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, although monk seals are also found in the main Hawaiian Islands. The seals spend two-thirds of their time at sea. They haul-out to rest, molt, and give birth. Diet and Behavior The Hawaiian monk seal is a reef carnivore that preys on bony fish, spiny lobster, eels, octopus, squid, shrimp, and crabs. Juveniles hunt during the day, while adults hunt at night. Monk seals usually hunt in water ranging from 60-300 feet deep, but have been known to forage below 330 meters (1000 feet). Monk seals are hunted by tiger sharks, Galapagos sharks, and great white sharks. Reproduction and Offspring Hawaiian monk seals mate in the water between June and August. In some breeding colonies, there is a much higher number of males than females, so mobbing of females occurs. Mobbing can lead to injuries or death, further skewing the sex ratio. Gestation takes about nine months. The female monk seal gives birth on the beach to a single pup. While they are solitary animals, females have been known to care for pups born to other seals. Females stop eating during nursing and remain with the pups. At the end of six weeks, the mother leaves the pup and returns to the sea to hunt. Females reach maturity around age 4. Researchers are not certain of the age at which males become mature. Hawaiian monk seals can live 25 to 30 years. While nursing, a female seal stops eating and remains with her pup. Thessa Bugay / FOAP / Getty Images Threats Hawaiian monk seals face numerous threats. Natural threats include habitat reduction and degradation, climate change, skewed gender ratios, and low juvenile survival rates. Human hunting has resulted in extremely low genetic diversity within the species. Monk seals die from entanglement in debris and fishing gear. Introduced pathogens, including toxoplasmosis from domestic cats and leptospirosis from humans, have infected some seals. Even minimal human disturbance causes seals to avoid beaches. Overfishing has led to reduced prey abundance and increased competition from other apex predators. Conservation Status The Hawaiian monk seal is a conservation-reliant endangered species. This status indicates that human intervention is essential to the monk seals survival, even if its population becomes self-sustaining. According to the IUCN Red List, only 632 mature individuals were identified on the species last assessment in 2014. In 2016, there was an estimated total of 1,400 Hawaiian monk seals. Overall, the population is in decline, but the smaller population of seals living around the main Hawaiian islands is growing. Disturbing a Hawaiian monk seal is illegal. Violators face a hefty fine. Teresa Short / Getty Images The Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal aims to save the species by increasing awareness of the seals plight and intervening on its behalf. The plan includes increased monitoring of seal population, vaccination programs, dietary supplementation, protecting pups, and relocation of some animals to better habitats. Hawaiian Monk Seals and Humans In 2008, the monk seal was designated the state mammal of Hawaii. The animals sometimes haul-out onto beaches that may be frequented by tourists. This is normal behavior. Seal and other marine mammals are protected, so while it may be tempting to get close to take a picture, this is prohibited. Take photos from a safe distance and be sure to keep dogs far away from the seal. Sources Aguirre, A.; T. Keefe; J. Reif; L. Kashinsky; P. Yochem. Infectious disease monitoring of the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 43 (2): 229–241, 2007. doi:10.7589/0090-3558-43.2.229Gilmartin, W.G. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1983.Kenyon, K.W. and D.W. Rice. Life History Of the Hawaiian Monk Seal. Pacific Science. 13, July, 1959.Perrin, William F.; Bernd Wursig; J. G. M. Thewissen. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press. p. 741, 2008. ISBN 978-0-12-373553-9.  Schultz, J. K.; Baker J; Toonen R; Bowen B Extremely Low Genetic Diversity in the Endangered Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Journal of Heredity. 1. 100 (1): 25–33, 2009. doi:10.1093/jhered/esn077