Philoso-phize with us -- or even against us! but philoso-phize, friends.

Contact Dr. Harwood at 408-687-8199 & svharwood1@aol.com

image1
image2
ABOUT THE AWFUL

The awful of this website is Prof. Sterling Harwood.  He received his B.A. in Philosophy in 1980 from the University of Maryland in College Park, MD.  He received his J.D. from Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York in 1983.  He received his M.A. in Philosophy in 1986 from Cornell University.  He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1992 from Cornell University.  He has been teaching courses in Philosophy since he began in 1982 at Cornell University and currently teaches at Evergreen Valley College in San Jose, CA. 


Explore a fun radio show that Dr. Harwood produced & hosted on KLIV 1590AM in San Jose, CA, debating philosopher James Fetzer (A.B. Princeton University; Ph.D. Indiana University) about whether Neil Armstrong really landed on the moon.   Keep the following 2 questions in mind during the show.  First, why is there no US postage stamp with either Neil Armstrong's name or face on it? Second, in an age of rapidly progressing technology, why has no one landed on the moon since Dec. of 1972, almost 47 years ago? Just click the url below and then click anywhere near the center of the screen to begin playing the theme song of the show by Katy Perry and the rest of the show automatically follows.  https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040041/http://kliv.gotdns.com/kliv/paid/2013_05_02_SpirtToSpirt.mp3

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION 1: HOW CAN WE BEST USE THIS SITE?

image3

This site is organized around 23 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and at least 33 suggested keywords. Feel free to use any keywords of your own that best reflect your interests, regardless of whether they are in my list of 33 suggested keywords below. Use Control + F to find 'FAQ' & just keep hitting 'enter' to browse the 23 FAQs in order of their appearance on this site. Alternatively, use Control + F to find keywords corresponding to the questions or topics that most interest you. Suggested keywords include: 1) Guidelines A-Z; 2) Bermuda Triangle; 3) global warming; 4) abortion; 5) euthanasia; 6) gun control; 7) UFO; 8) capital punishment; 9) Loch Ness Monster; 10) Aristotle; 11) Plato; 12) Socrates; 13) Hume; 14) Kant; 15) John Stuart Mill; 16) ancient aliens; 17) affirmative action; 18) God; 19) flat earth; 20) Bigfoot; 21) New Jersey Devil; 22) Neil Armstrong; 23) moon; 24) drugs; 25) legalization; 26). execution; 27) death penalty; 28) death; 29) meaning of life; 30) mercy killing; 31) Confucius, 32) Descartes, and 33) human nature. Click 'enter' enough to reach where the answer is presented along with the FAQ or other info on the keyword (topic).


FAQ2: Have a sample paper on global warming ?


***WARNING: SAMPLE PAPERS ARE IMPERFECT PAPERS BY DR. HARWOOD'S STUDENTS.  DR. HARWOOD HAS TRIED TO TWEAK THEM.  LEARN FROM THE BEST IN THEM & DE-EMPHASIZE THE REST IN THEM.***


Is Global Warming A Hoax? Hardly!

by an Anonymous Student


1. Introduction: The Earth keeps getting warmer  


In this paper I will argue that global warming is real and argue how carbon dioxide contributes into making the Earth warmer by trapping the heat that lingers in the atmosphere. Human put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning coal, fossil fuels, and oil, making us the main cause of global warming. If the Earth keeps getting warmer, ice caps and glaciers will melt faster causing floods and consume many coast lands. Sea levels are also rising due to the melted ice and snow. There is evidence from researchers that show that the sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last decade due to global warming. “ NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Association) scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections, and concluded that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter)”- Rebecca Lindsey, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level, May 23, 2018. They were able to determine the sea levels rising by using a satellite measuring system. 


In 2C I will argue that the Earth has been getting hotter for the past 20 years. In 3C I will argue that using less fuel will help slow down climate change, but it is not the only way. In 4C I will argue that global warming is not a hoax and how the statement uses faulty logic. In 5C I will argue that growing plants does help lessen greenhouse gases, but it is not the simplest way. In 6C I will argue that weather is never normal. In 7C I will argue that most of global warming is man made and it is based on sound science. RU Section 8 concludes my paper.


2. The Earth wishes it was cool


2A. "There's no scientific analysis either. I have 4,000 scientists that tell me global warming is a hoax. The Earth has cooled for 20 years."- Robert Murray, CNBC Squawk Box, CNBC, February 17, 2017. 


2B. I disagree with the statement. 


2C. I disagree with the quote because Murray did not release any names or sources to support his claim of thousands of scientists telling him global warming is fake. Also, there is evidence that the earth has not been cooling for the last 20 years. Many scientists have released analysis on how global warming affects our planet and what the cause of it is.


“TRUTH TIP 3. Reject a claim that conflicts with the claims of another credible source unless you have resolved the question of which source should be believed (that is, which source is more credible than the other).”- Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker Critical Thinking, 5th ed., Mayfield Publishing, 1998, p. 266.

For many decades scientists have presented evidence of global warming making Murray's claim follow truth tip 3 because his claim of no scientific analysis on global warming and the earth cooling goes against other claims presented by experts that believe the earth is getting hotter. 

"...there is 'very high confidence' that human activities since 1750 have played a significant role to overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (CO2), hence retaining solar heat that would otherwise radiate away."- Global Warming, Times, 2007, pg. 15. Although the quote states "'very high confidence,'" the scientists are measuring CO2 changes from over two decades ago, which can make the date a few years off. This also shows that global warming has slowly been happening for centuries and the consequence for producing a vast amount of CO2 over the years is building up over time.


"The team observed a total rise in the ocean of 7 centimeters (2.8 inches) in 25 years of data, which aligns with the generally accepted current rate of sea level rise of about 3 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year."- Brandon Miller, https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html, April 3,2018. Besides the increase in CO2, Earth is getting warmer by the year and the rising sea levels can lead to catastrophic damage such as flash floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis.

FALLACY 3), THE FALLACY OF APPEALING TO AUTHORITY: This fallacy is invalid.

Model: X is an expert.

X believes Y

Therefore, Y is true

This fallacy is invalid because the conclusion can still be false even if all the premises are true.


"Ad verecundiam" is the Latin name for Appeal To Authority. 

This fallacy tries to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. Oftentimes it is an authority in one field who is speaking out of his or her field of expertise.

“TRUTH TIP 4. Claims that are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear require clarification before acceptance.”- Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker Critical Thinking, 5th ed., Mayfield Publishing, 1998, p. 266.


Since Murray believes the statements of scientists telling him that global warming does not exist falls into fallacy 3, the fallacy of appealing to authority because multiple scientists, who claim to be experts in their field (x), told him global warming is a hoax (y), leading him to believe that what the scientists claims are true. Murray beliefs also follow truth tip 4 because during the interview or even after, he never listed any name of scientists who stated the claims and never gave any sources as to why he does not believe in global warming. If thousands of scientists told him the same argument multiple times, he should be able to present a few names or at least one of the scientists would have come out and stated they told him global warming is a hoax, but none of that happened yet. Also, even if 4000 scientists have claimed that global warming is a hoax, there are thousands more that have peer-reviewed publication to prove otherwise.


3. There is more than one way to help the planet


3A. "The only way to slow climate change is to use less fuel."- Gregory Benford, Climate Control, Reason, November 1997, p.25.


3B. I only partially agree with the quote. 


3C. Using less fuel is not the only way to slow down climate change. New technology such as renewable energy has been created to help lessen to emission of greenhouse gases.


“TRUTH TIP 5. Claims with extreme words - watchwords - without any qualifying words (qualifiers) are more likely to be false. Watchwords include: 'never' (as in "Never say 'never'."), 'always', 'all', 'every', 'none', 'absolutely', 'exceptionless', 'impossible', 'total', 'totally', 'complete', 'completely', 'full', 'fully', 'only', 'lone', 'no', 'zero', 'perfect', 'best', 'unprecedented'. Qualifiers include: probably, possible, almost, nearly, quite, not (for example, "Not all red birds can fly well."), sometimes, somewhat, perhaps, maybe, possible, could, might, may, can.” - Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker Critical Thinking, 5th ed., Mayfield Publishing, 1998, p. 266.

I disagree with the use of the word "only" in his statement. It follows truth tip 5 because people have proved there are other ways to slow down climate change. Other methods of slowing down global warming are cutting down fuel emission, recycling, traveling less, etc.


"Every year, 33 million acres of forests are cut down. Timber harvesting in the tropics alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere. That represents 20 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions and a source that could be avoided relatively easily." - David Biello, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/10-solutions-for-climate-change/, April 10, 2018. This shows another way to decrease climate change would be to cut down less trees. Trees can consume up to 48 pounds of CO2, but by cutting millions of trees a year will cause CO2 emission to go up because there are less trees to help decrease all the CO2 that's created.

I agree that using less fuel can slow down climate change. By using less fuel, there will be a less production of CO2, thus helping with global warming. 


"Emissions data has placed transport as the new king of climate-warming pollution..." - Oliver Milman, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration, April 11, 2018. Since more people rely on fuel transportation to travel now, it has increased the rising temperature of global warming. However, if we use other methods of transportation that does not rely on gas or create more vehicles that dependent on other materials besides gas, such as electric car, then that can help slow down global warming because it would emit less greenhouse gases. 


4. Global warming is perfectly compatible with large amounts of snow


4A. "Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!"- Donald J. Trump, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/428414113463955457?lang=en, May 15, 2017. 


4B. I disagree with the statement 


4C. Trump is claiming that just because it snowed in states that usually have warmer temperatures, it means that the Earth is getting colder. However, there are evidence that point to his statement is incorrect and that global warming is does happen on Earth.


FALLACY 16), HASTY GENERALIZATION: Logicians usually consider this fallacy invalid (but below we will explore a different interpretation that would make this fallacy valid). This fallacy is committed when one fails to take enough time to collect a large enough sample or a randomized enough sample on which to extrapolate scientifically.


Model: A is a representative sample of Bs.

X is true of all Bs is sample A.

Therefore, X is true of all Bs.


I disagree with the statement because Trump shows fallacy 16 in his statement by commenting about a rare occurrence of snow in generally hot states. The snow (A) makes him believe that the Earth is only getting colder (B), which leads him to argue that global warming is not real (X). He doesn't look at the whole picture of the previous climates in the states, but only addresses the climate when it started to snow. It's true that the temperature dropped to one of the lowest in the nation, but the weather increased back to the average temperature (around 50°) of the states within a few days. Trump only focuses on how it was cold for a few days and does not look at the whole pictures of previous temperature that occurred  in the states. 

Also, I disagree with the statement of global warming being a hoax because there are evidence that disproves his statement, which follows truth tip 3. The most visible evidence of global warming is ice glaciers melting. 


"Researchers long ago predicted that the most visible impacts from a globally warmer world would occur first at high latitudes: rising air and sea temperatures, earlier snowmelt, later ice freeze-up, reductions in sea ice, thawing permafrost, more erosion, increases in storm intensity. Now all those impacts have been documented in Alaska."- Daniel Glick, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/, May 15, 2018, showing how scientists predicts rising sea levels from ice and snow melting. Global warming does exist because Alaska has been thawing over the year, meaning that if global warming was not real, Alaska would stay in its original state or be getting colder. He also shows truth tip 4 because he is being vague about why it is expensive. Trump claims that global warming is expensive but does not clarify who is paying for it. In another Tweet, he states “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” - Donald Trump, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en, May 23, 2018. His statement could mean that global warming are expensive for people who are other races, but he is being vague about his statements. 


5. Growing plants will reduce greenhouse gases

5A. "The simplest way to remove carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is to grow plants-- preferably trees, since they tie up more of the gas in cellulose, meaning it will not return to the air within a season or two."- Gregory Benford, Climate Control, Reason, November 1997, p. 26. 


5B. I only partially agree with the quote.


5C. Plants consume tons of CO2 a year and they convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. “‘An approximate value for a 50-year-old oak forest would be 30,000 pounds of carbon dioxide sequestered per acre,’”- C. Claiborne Ray, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/science/how-many-pounds-of-carbon-dioxide-does-our-forest-absorb.html, May 23, 2018. More plants will help reduce global warming because it will take the CO2 that causes heat to be trapped in the atmosphere. 

“TRUTH TIP 1. Accept a claim as true if it comes from a credible source (for example, an expert or authority) and fails to conflict with what you have observed, your background knowledge, or other credible claims.” - Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker Critical Thinking, 5th ed., Mayfield Publishing, 1998, p. 266.


I agree with the statement because  it shows truth tip 1 by having other claims support the evidence of planting plants is an efficient way to reduce carbon dioxide.

"Forests affect the climate in three different ways: by absorbing carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) to help cool the planet; by evaporating water that forms clouds, also helping to keep the planet cooler; and by absorbing sunlight with their dark leaves, which warms the Earth."- Andrea Thompson, https://www.livescience.com/4410-tropical-trees-cool-earth-effectively.html, May 15, 2018. Plants are efficient to reduce global warming because they take the CO2 that is lingering and making the Earth warmer and converts it into oxygen. Plants also help the Earth cool down a lot by evaporating water to form clouds, which leads to the sunlight getting reflected back into space. 


The quote also follows truth tip 5 because they used the word "simplest" while making their statement. Benford believes that the easiest way to slow down global warming and lessen carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to plant more plants. He compares all the other methods of decreasing carbon dioxide and thinks that the easiest way to decrease it is by having more plants. However, growing plants takes time and will take a lot of resources for it to grow before it can make an impact on carbon dioxide. People can help make an impact on global warming by recycling.

"Recycle. The EPA estimates that recycling glass, aluminum, plastic, and paper could save 582 pounds of CO2 per year, equivalent to more than 600 miles of driving."- Christina Nunez, http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/before-the-flood/articles/14-easy-ways-to-reduce-your-own-carbon-footprint/, May 15,2018. Recycling is also simple and is an everyday thing people can do. Although growing plants has a stronger impact on reducing greenhouse gases, recycling still helps reduce global warming. 


6. Weather is never normal


6A. "There is no such thing as normal weather." ~ Michael D. Lemonick, “Life in the Greenhouse,” Time, April 9, 2001, p. 18.


6B. I agree with this statement. 


6C. I agree with the quote because normal is a broad word that conforms to a standard and weather is far from normal. Lemonick follows truth tip 1 because there are credible sources that support his statement and believes weather is not normal.

"Within that bell-shaped curve, three common measures of “central tendency” are often used: the mode (most frequent value); the median (the value above and below which the same number of values exist); and the average, or arithmetic mean of all values. The latter is sometimes referred to as the “normal.” Therein lies the problem, because as a rule, when it comes to weather, the public regards “normal” as the weather to be expected." - Don Lipman, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/is-our-current-weather-normal-or-not/2011/10/07/gIQA9WHGTL_blog.html?utm_term=.ca702daf082a, May 17,2018.


People believe that normal weather correlates to the season. For example, Californians expect the weather to be hot in the summer and raining in the spring. However, the four-year drought that California had conflicts with the expectation of normal weather of rain that people had. Instead of calling it normal weather, it would be best to describe it as average weather because it fits into the consistency of the weather patterns. 


7. The Human contribution to global warming is significant


7A. "The claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science.", - Coral Davenport, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/us/politics/climate-change-denialists-in-charge.html, May 17, 2018.


7B. I disagree with this quote. 


7C. I disagree with the statement because it follows truth tip 3 by conflicting other evidence that has been found. Global warming is man made because we are the ones that burn the most carbon dioxide through factories, transportation, and so much more. Even apart from greenhouse gases human create, humans cause all sorts of heat, including everything from nukes (For example, the U.S. exploded 65 nukes in the Marshall Islands alone and two in Japan) to heat caused from the friction of tires traveling at high speed down roads, etc. 


"Scientists calculated that human contribution to warming since 1950 is between 92 percent and 123 percent. It's more than 100 percent on one end, because some natural forces — such as volcanoes and orbital cycle — are working to cool Earth, but are being overwhelmed by the effects of greenhouse gases..."- Katharine Hayhoe, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-report-contradicts-trump-team-says-global-warming-mostly-n817486, May 17, 2018. Hayhoe states how there is research and proof of humans being the cause of global warming by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The research shows that people contribute to over 90% of the greenhouse gases, meaning that less than 10% is from the Earth's emission of greenhouse gases. Also, the quote also shows truth tip 4 because they state that global warming isn't based on sound science when there are thousands of scientist dedicating their time to researching and creating solutions to slow or stop global warming. He also doesn’t clarify what he believes is sound science. He use sound science as a subjective term to undermine the credibility of scientists who actually do the research on global warming. 


8. Conclusion:  Global warming does exist!


In this paper I did argue that global warming is real and how carbon dioxide contributes into making the Earth warmer by trapping the heat that lingers in the atmosphere. Human put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning coal, fossil fuels, and oil, making us the main cause of global warming. If the Earth keeps getting warmer, ice caps and glaciers will melt faster causing floods and consume many coast lands. Sea levels are also rising due to the melted ice and snow. There is evidence from researchers that show that the sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last decade due to global warming, “NOAA scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections, and concluded that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter)”- Rebecca Lindsey, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level, May 23, 2018.  They were able to determine the sea levels rising by using a satellite measuring system.


In 2C I did argue that the Earth has not been cooling for 20 years, instead it's getting hotter. In 3C I did argue that using less fuel will help slow down climate change, but it isn't the only way. In 4C I did argue that global warming isn't a hoax and how the statement uses faulty logic. In 5C I did argue that growing plants does help lessen greenhouse gases, but it isn't the simplest way. In 6C I did argue that weather is never normal. In 7C I did argue that most of global warming is man-made and it is based on sound science.

Comng Soon

faq4: have quotes on drugs?

1. “The mind, it’s our link to consciousness, our thoughts, and as a byproduct, the expression of our soul – that free and unfettered aspect of being human that no one else has jurisdiction over. But as easily as the mind expresses the depths within, it remains easily lured into a false reality where thoughts become the object of attention, and the source becomes forgotten. It is here where some scientists and philosophers believe we have lost the true reality, and in turn, become products of our environment and culture.” ~ Narrator, “Psychedelics and Consciousness,” Psychedelica, Season 1, Episode 1, 2018, circa 0:20 and following, available from amazon.com.


2. “The Eleusinian Mysteries in Ancient Greece clearly had a psychedelic sacrament. We even know what it was now. It was a form of ergot that grows on barley [and] was used in a beverage called a kykeon that initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries drank. And then they had extraordinary and life-changing experiences in the dark halls. They were addressing setting there as well. These experiences were underwent [sic] and undergone in a place called the Telesterion, which was underground and probably dimly lit with little lamps here and there, creating a setting for the experience to unfold in. And the initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries, which included people like Plato, people like Socrates, people like Cicero, came out and afterwards reported that their lives had been utterly transformed by the [psychedelic] experience that they had undergone. They had lost their fear of death. They knew that they were immortal spirits, that they were just temporarily housed in the human body.” ~ Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods and of Supernatural, from “Shamanic Roots,” Psychedelica, Season 1, Episode 2, circa 3:16 and following, 2018, available through amazon.com.


3. “In Shamanism, when you have sickness, when you have an ill individual for any reason, you don’t do what Western medicine does and look for the causes of that illness at the level of the physical being. The causes of that illness are always at one level above. They’re at the next level, in the spiritual dimension. There is a spiritual disconnect which is the source of this illness. So, the shaman will address the spiritual problem in order to step down and solve the physical problem. In Western medicine we have no such concept because Western medicine doesn’t even believe in the spirit or soul or any such aspect of human beings. Western medicine really does regard human beings as rather clever and sophisticated meat robots. OK. But that is not, that is not the shamanistic view. The shamanistic view is that we are immersed in an incredibly complex multi-layered reality and that what is happening at other levels of that reality directly impacts what is happening at the level of reality that we inhabit.” ~ Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods and of Supernatural, from “Shamanic Roots,” Psychedelica, Season 1, Episode 2, circa 18:42 and following, 2018, available through amazon.com.

faq5: have quotations by or about rene descartes (1596-1650)

Last revised 7/1/19


1. “I think, therefore I am.” ~ Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method (1637). Note: this is sometimes translated as “I am thinking, therefore I am.” The statement is often given in Latin: Cogito ergo sum. See, Tom Sorrell, Descartes: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 1.


2. ***“There is nothing so hidden … that we cannot discover it.” ~ Rene Descartes, quoted by John Young in the film Nothing So Hidden; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xc61kv4aH0, last visited 7/1/19.  ***doublecheck the exact wording & location in the film.


3. “No doubt you know that Galileo had been convicted not long ago by the Inquisition, and that his opinion on the movement of the Earth had been condemned as heresy. Now I will tell you that … same opinion about the movement of the Earth … Nevertheless, I will not for the world stand up against the authority of the Church. ...I have the desire to live in peace and to continue on the road on which I have started.” ~ Rene Descartes, Letter to Marin Mersenne (end of Feb., 1634) as quoted by Amir Aczel, Pendulum: Leon Foucault and the Triumph of Science (2003).


4. “So blind is the curiosity by which mortals are possessed, that they often conduct their minds along unexplored routes, having no reason to hope for success, but merely being willing to risk the experiment of finding whether the truth they seek lies there.” ~ Rene Descartes, Rules for the Direction of the Mind: IV


5. “No more useful inquiry can be proposed than that which seeks to determine the nature and the scope of human knowledge. ... This investigation should be undertaken once at least in his life by anyone who has the slightest regard for truth, since in pursuing it the true instruments of knowledge and the whole method of inquiry come to light. But nothing seems to me more futile than the conduct of those who boldly dispute about the secrets of nature ... without yet having ever asked even whether human reason is adequate to the solution of these problems.” ~ Rene Descartes, Rules for the Direction of the Mind.


6. “But in my opinion, all things in nature occur mathematically.” ~ Rene Descartes, Correspondence with Mersenne.


7. “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” ~ Rene Descartes, quoted in David J. Darling, The Universal Book of Mathematics (Wiley, 2004), p. 90.


8. “René Descartes is more widely known as a philosopher than as a mathematician, although his philosophy has been controverted while his mathematics has not.” ~ Eric Temple Bell, The Development of Mathematics (1940).


9. “… Descartes was the first scientist who dared to question our common views, including even all the notions that had always seemed so primitive and obvious …” ~ Bernard d'Espagnat, "My Interaction with John Bell", in R. A. Bertimann & A. Zeilinger, Quantum [Un]speakables (2002).


10. “Thus was the Nixon Administration first exposed to the maddening diplomatic style of the North Vietnamese. It would have been impossible to find two societies less intended by fate to understand each other than the Vietnamese and the American. On the one side, Vietnamese history and Communist ideology combined to produce almost morbid suspicion and ferocious self-righteousness. This was compounded by a legacy of Cartesian logic from French colonialism that produced an infuriatingly doctrinaire technique of advocacy.” ~ Henry A. Kissinger, The White House Years.


11. “Descartes was an eminent mathematician, and it would seem that the bent of his mind led him to overestimate the value of deductive reasoning from general principles, as much as Bacon had underestimated it.” ~ Thomas Henry Huxley, The Advance of Science in the Last Half-Century (1889).


12. Robert Costa: “You wrote recently that thinking about politics in the age of Trump means relying less on the knowledge of political science and more on the probings of D.H. Lawrence, David Foster Wallace and Carl Jung.  Explain what that means.”
 

David Brooks of the New York Times: “... I do think things have deteriorated in some ways.  And mostly the social fabric has deteriorated.  There's a guy, Rusty Reno, has a phrase "a crisis of solidarity."  And to me that's what we're suffering from.  We're just less close to one another, across class, within our communities.  Our social capital is down.  And so we're more isolated in fundamental ways.  And for me that happened for philosophical reasons.  We made mistakes. ... And that's because we chose the wrong philosophers.  We should, we chose John Stuart Mill when we should have chosen Martin Buber.  What I mean by that is that Mill sees us as a series of individuals for an individualistic worldview.  Martin Buber wrote a book called I/Thou.  He sees us as a bunch of relationships.  And so we became too individualistic when we should be a little more communitarian.
    We also chose Jeremy Bentham instead of Viktor Frankl.  Jeremy Bentham thought that we were motivated by pleasure and pain.  Viktor Frankl thought we were motivated by a search for meaning, we want to lead good lives.  And so in my view our society has become too economic, too social sciency and too utilitarian and not enough moralistic.

     And then finally we chose Rene Descartes when we should have chosen St. Augustine.  And Rene Descartes thought we should think with our heads, that we are primarily cognitive, rational creatures.  Augustine thought we were primarily emotional, loathing creatures.  And so we've become too cognitive when we should be more emotional.
     And so basically we've turned into shells of ourselves.  And that's cut down on intimacy and it has had these devastating social effects.  But it's ideas that drive behavior and I think we have some of the wrong ideas.”
From Charlie Rose, PBS, first aired 3/13/2017.

FAQ6: Have quotes to ponder on Global Warming?

  

Quotes on Human-Caused Global Warming

1. “Something mysterious is happening to our weather. The climate gets steadily warmer. What’s going on? The great Sahara Desert of Africa is advancing Southward at the rate of three miles per year. In recent years something mysteriously strange has been happening in our weather – something that has many climatologists, meteorologists, physicists and just plain citizens seriously worried, if not actually alarmed. The climate of the United States – in fact of the entire continent – is getting warmer at an unprecedented rate. This phenomenon has been stepping up its pace noticeably since we first unleashed the atomic bomb and continued with the explosion of various other atomic weapons in New Mexico and Nevada. The question is being seriously asked, ‘Do these explosions produce mysterious changes in the atmosphere – perhaps in the ionized layers in the atmosphere at high altitudes – that reduce the ability of the atmosphere to reflect a high proportion of the Sun’s radiant energy and so permit more heat to reach the surface?’” ~ Edgar Price, “Why Our Climate Is Getting Warmer,” Man to Man, October 1953, pp. 30-31 & 46-47, p. 30.


2. "Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!" ~ Donald J. Trump, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/428414113463955457?lang=en, May 15, 2017.

 

3. “[Sian Proctor:] When you are constructing, you need a lot of concrete. What a lot of people don’t realize about concrete is that it actually generates a lot of heat.

[Harry Pritchett, narrator:] When water is added to cement, it causes a chemical reaction that produces heat.” ~ from “Stargate in the Jungle,” Strange Evidence, Science Channel, first aired 6/20/2019.


4. "The only way to slow climate change is to use less fuel." ~ Gregory Benford, Climate Control, Reason, November 1997, p. 25.


5. "There's no scientific analysis either. I have 4,000 scientists that tell me global warming is a hoax. The Earth has cooled for 20 years." ~ Robert Murray, CNBC Squawk Box, CNBC, February 17, 2017

.

6. "The simplest way to remove carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is to grow plants – preferably trees, since they tie up more of the gas in cellulose, meaning it will not return to the air within a season or two." ~ Gregory Benford, Climate Control, Reason, November 1997, p. 26.


7. "There is no such thing as normal weather." ~ Michael D. Lemonick, “Life in the Greenhouse,” Time, April 9, 2001, p. 18.


8. "The claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science." ~ Coral Davenport, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/us/politics/climate-change-denialists-in-charge.html, May 17, 2018.


9. "Scientists calculated that human contribution to warming since 1950 is between 92 percent and 123 percent. It's more than 100 percent on one end, because some natural forces — such as volcanoes and orbital cycle — are working to cool Earth, but are being overwhelmed by the effects of greenhouse gases..." ~ Katharine Hayhoe, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-report-contradicts-trump-team-says-global-warming-mostly-n817486, May 17, 2018

.

10. “NOAA scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections, and concluded that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter).” ~ Rebecca Lindsey, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level, May 23, 2018. Note: ‘NOAA’ means “National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.”

FAQ7: Have quotes to ponder on Abortion?

  

For all courses, what are about 61 arguments about abortion that students have the option of evaluating in term papers?

Remember, you have my permission to quote in your A-sections of your ABC sets in your term paper any controversial claim from any published source, including (but not limited to) the following 61 quotes. In the C-sections of your ABC sets, you may quote, cite or use any info from any legal source – just cite your source using Guideline O.


1. “Banning abortions will not stop abortions. It will stop safe, legal abortions. And we know what happened before Roe versus Wade: thousands of women died every year because they didn’t have access to safe, legal abortions. And we just cannot go back to that time. …  For us in Planned Parenthood this is the fight for our patients’ lives. And it’s the fight of our lives … Women in this country are paying attention. We are outraged. We know who is standing up for us and our health care and who wants to take away our rights. We know that keeping people unhealthy is a tool of oppression and that stigmatizing women’s health care is a tool of misogyny. And we will be holding all of these anti-women’s health politicians accountable.” ~ Dr. Leana Wen, President, Planned Parenthood, New Day Weekend with Victor Blackwell and Christi Paul, CNN, first aired 5/18/2019, between 512am and 521am.


2. “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don’t think so.” ~ President Donald Trump, Campaign Speech, Green Bay, Wisconsin, Saturday April 27, 2019.


3. “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother as to what would happen to that viable child.” ~ Governor Ralph Northam (Virginia), quoted by Elaina Plott, Reliable Sources, CNN, Sunday April 28, 2019.


4. "I doubt that Republicans would put someone into the White House that is pro-choice on that [the abortion issue] because there is such a strong family value among Republicans.  We look into the womb and we see two legs, two arms, two eyes, a nose, and a beating heart, unique DNA, and we say that's a person.  ... This is not anti-choice this is pro-life.  ... We see that as a child.  And we see every single child as inherent value and should have the opportunity to be able to live.  ... A pregnant woman has the same rights as everyone else does, but so does that child.  This is splitting up Americans and saying an American that is very small doesn't have the same amount of rights as an American that's taller.  That's not true.  No matter what your height is, no matter what your weight is, as an American you have unique rights and responsibilities under our Constitution.  And we want to say that we want to honor life and honor people and we don't think that's irrational." ~ Rep. James Lankford (Republican-Oklahoma), interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC TV, first aired 11/26/2012.


5. "Eagle eggs are similar to human fetuses in that both are precious. We should have laws protecting eagle eggs human destruction. Therefore, we should have laws protecting human features from abortion." Paraphrase of an argument by Steve Friend, a Pennsylvania state legislator. A version of this argument appears in The New Civil War with Peter Jennings, ABC News, 1991. Harwood's Helpful Hint: see False Analogy and ask if Steve Friend commits that fallacy here.


6. "Regarding your May 31 [2005] article about late term abortions ('A Late Decision, a Lasting Anguish'): I have a few thoughts to share. As the mother of a baby with Down syndrome, I have met hundreds of other parents of children with Down syndrome in real life and in online support groups. Rather than feelings of guild, regret and depression, the mothers who give their babies with Down syndrome a chance at life are filled with joy, hope and love. Rather than experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, they are experiencing pride at their children's accomplishments.
And right now, instead of looking at my baby's ashes on the mantle, my home is filled with shared laughter as I watch his big sister cover him with kisses.  With early intervention, many children with Down syndrome are growing up to live full and meaningful lives -- working, paying taxes, getting married and contributing to society. What a shame some families deprive themselves of the opportunity to see just how big their hearts can grow." -- Shannon Deisen, Fernandina Beach, FL, Letter to the Editor, The Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2005, p. B20, column 3.


7. "One who has voluntarily assumed no special obligation toward another person has no obligation to do anything requiring great personal cost to preserve the life of other. Often a pregnant woman has voluntarily assumed no special obligation toward the unborn child (a person), and to preserve its life by continuing to bear the unborn child would require great personal cost. Therefore a pregnant woman has no obligation to continue to bear the unborn child." -- Harry J. Gensler, argument quoted in Robert Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, The Ethics of Abortion, 3rd edition, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books 2001, p. 284.


8. "Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everybody would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide that happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed." Argument paraphrased in Judith Jarvis Thompson, “A Defense of Abortion,” in Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds., The Ethics of Abortion, 3rded. (Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 242.


9. "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." ~ Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, United States Supreme Court case, January 1973, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1.


10. "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." ~ Florynce R. Kennedy, quoted in Gloria Steinem, "The Verbal Karate of Florynce R. Kennedy, Esq.," Ms., March 1973, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1.


11. "The preservation of life seems to be rather a slogan than a genuine goal of the anti-abortion forces; what they want is control. Control over behavior: power over women. Women in the anti-choice movement want to share in male power over women, and do so by denying their own womanhood, their own rights and responsibilities." ~ Ursula K. Le Guinn, from "The Princess," address before the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Portland, Maine, January 1982, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1.


12. "How can a moral wrong be a civil right?" Bumper sticker slogan, anti-abortion position, 1990s, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1. Note: Does this quote commit the fallacy of begging the question by begging the main question at issue, whether abortion is a moral wrong or not?


13. "The cemetery of the victims of human cruelty in our century is extended to include yet another vast cemetery, that of the unborn." ~ Pope John Paul II, quoted in the British newspaper Observer, June 9, 1991, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1. Note: fixed typo ‘I’ to ‘in’ in “in our century.”


14."I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~ Ronald Reagan, televised presidential campaign debate, Baltimore, Maryland, Sept. 21, 1980, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1. Note: Is Reagan committing the ad hominem fallacy? If so, how?


15. "A woman's right to choose an abortion [is] something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. ... And when government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a full adult human being responsible for her own choices." ~ Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in Clare Cushman, ed., The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies 1789-1995 (1995), p. 535, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1.


16."I, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, strongly support lawful efforts to end abortion. As I see it, the scientific, historic, philosophical, and religious evidence points to the conclusion that life begins at conception. While the birth of an unwanted child can bring problems and difficulties, these do not compare with he tragedy of taking a life." Rep. Joe Barton, quoted in, Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press), p. 203.


17.  "Abortion has not only resulted in he death of millions of unborn children, but has also contributed to the erosion of our nation's moral fabric. When we take actions that cheapen the sanctity of life, we are contributing to an overall decline in our society's moral values. And by allowing aborting, we indirectly encourage crime, illegitimacy, and the breakdown of family." -- Former Republican Representative from California Robert Dornan, www.bobdornan.com/abortion.html, last visited 1/1/09.


18.  "Indiscriminate use of abortion is wrong because the indiscriminate taking of human life is wrong." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 343. If this argument is an enthymeme (an argument with an unstated premise), is there an unstated premise that would make the argument valid? Is this argument valid as it is currently stated by Silber?


19."I would oppose any law prohibiting abortion in the first two trimesters. ... It is very doubtful, considering past experience, that restrictive legislation would do more than make presently legal abortions illegal. Some of these abortions, involving technologies that enable laymen to perform abortions safely, would be different from current abortions only in their illegality. Others, performed with coat hangers in back alleys, will be fatal. I could not in conscience recommend legislation having these effects." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 342.


20.  "[T]his does not lead me to conclude that abortions are morally justified when the pregnancy does not threaten the life of the mother and follows from sexual intercourse in which she voluntarily participated. ... The value of the life of an infant is based on its potential to become a fulfilled human being, and that potential exists from the time of conception." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), pp. 342-343.


21. "A free society cannot maintain its unity and order unless there is toleration of diverse opinions on which consensus has not been achieved. On the issue of abortion, there is no political, philosophical, moral or religious consensus. I believe abortion is, in general, morally wrong. But I also believe the state should not enact laws to restrict abortion further. This is an issue that cries out for toleration." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 343.


22.  "The abortion issue is for many individuals a religious issue, and on such issues we should scrupulously observe the separation of church and state. ... [T]he state should not enact laws to restrict abortion further." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 343.


23. "A free society cannot maintain its unity and order unless there is toleration of diverse opinions on which consensus has not been achieved. On the issue of abortion, there is no political, philosphical, moral or religious consensus. I believe abortion is, in general, morally wrong. But I also believe the state should not enact laws to restrict abortion further. This is an issue that cries out for toleration." John R. Silber, quoted in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th edition (Belmont: CA, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 343.


24. "There are instances when the taking of human life is justifiable, legally and morally. Homicide is not equivalent to murder. Some homicides are entirely justified, especially those involving self-defense. A woman whose life is threatened by a pregnancy is justified in terminating the pregnancy that might kill or severely injure her. So, too, when a woman is raped she is under no obligation morally, and should be under no obligation legally, to accept the consequences of an act of sexual intercourse in which she did not voluntarily participate. She has a right to protect herself from the consequences of assault." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 342.


25. "If a human person is created at the moment of conception, then abortion always kills a human person. If abortion always kill a human person, then it is never justified. If a human is created at the moment of conception, then abortion is never justified." -- author unknown, argument quoted in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th edition, (Belmont, CA: Wadworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 32.


26. "A woman's right to control her own body outweighs any religious or moral burden." http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.emu/user/scotts/ftp/pro-choice/naral.position, May 21, 1995. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Consider these questions. If a woman has a "right to control her own body", where does this right come from? How strong could this right be? Could it be strong enough to make it wrong to imprison any woman for any crime? Could it be strong enough to make it wrong to use self-defense against any woman? Could it be strong enough to allow any woman to use her body (e.g., her fists or feet) to beat to death any adult she targeted?


27. "The right to life is described in the Declaration of Independence as 'unalienable' and as a right with which all men are endowed by the Creator. The constitutional amendment should restore the basic protection for this human right to the unborn, just as it is provided to all other persons in the U.S." -- Connie Paige, The Right to Lifers, (NY: Summit Books, 1993), p. 59.


28. "The constitution should express a commitment to the preservation of all human life. Therefore the prohibition against the direct and intentional taking innocent human life should be universal and without exception." Connie Page, The Right to Lifers, (NY: Summit Books, 1993), p. 59.


29. "Anything having a balance of good results (considering everyone) is morally permissible. Abortion often has a balance of good results (considering everyone). Therefore, abortion often is morally permissible." Robert Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, The Ethics of Abortion, 4th edition, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books 1993, p. 236.


30. "It's obvious to me that abortion is wrong - after all, everybody deserves a chance to be born." author unknown, quoted in Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking, 4th edition (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Press, 1992), p. 170. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Does this argument beg the question? Is this argument evaluated in the 6th edition?


31. "Andrea Keene's selective morality is once again showing through in her July 15 letter. This time she expresses her abhorrence of abortion. But how we see only what we choose to see! I wonder if any of the anti-abortionists have considered the widespread use of fertility drugs as the moral equivalent of abortion, and, if they have, why they haven't come out against them, too. The use of these drugs frequently results in multiple births, which lead to the death of one the infants, often after an agonizing struggle for survival. According to the rules of the pro-lifers, isn't this murder." Letter to the editor, North-State Record, quoted in Brooke Noel Moore & Richard Parker, Critical Thinking, 4th ed., (Mayfield Publishing Co., 1992), p. 173. Harwood's Helpful Hint: does the 6th edition evaluate this argument?


32. “Many people view the fertilized egg as a potential human life. The fertilized egg is not a complete human being; it is not simply a small body that has grown larger. It needs to develop from a single cell to a complete individual, just as an acorn has to develop into an oak tree. The human individual develops biologically in a continuous fashion. We could therefore consider the possibility that the rights of a human person might develop in the same way." ~ Carol Emmens, The Abortion Controversy, revised edition, (N.Y.: Julian Messner A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.), 1991, p. 3.


33. "Abortion is always morally wrong for the simple reason that murder is always morally wrong." author unknown, quoted in Harrison, Vital Speeches of the Day, Oct. 15, 1988, p. 8. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Is this argument an enthymeme (that is, an argument with an unstated premise)? If so, what is the unstated premise? Does any missing or unstated premise beg the question?


34. "It is obviously the case that all self-induced abortions are nothing more than murders because all abortions are willful killing of babies." author unknown, quoted in Harrison, Vital Speeches of the Day, publisher unknown, October 15, 1988, p. 530. Harwood's Helpful Hint: consider whether there is an equivocation on 'murders'. Joel Feinberg wrote an essay on being morally speaking a murderer, as distinct from being legally speaking a murderer. 'Murder' is a legal term and, since abortion is legal, the abortions that are legal aren't murder in the legal sense of murder. Murder is illegal of course. Willful killing in self-defense is not murder, but can you think of how this could apply to willful killing of fetuses? If you can imagine self-defense against fetuses, then the argument is invalid.


35. "I simply believe that childbirth can be a greater crime than abortion and, sometimes, giving life ought to be a criminal offense. 'Nice' little words such as head traumas, dehydration and oral venereal disease dress up what is actually happening to 1 million reported victims of child abuse and neglect, according to federal studies. These children are being thrown up against walls, tortured with cigarette butts, burned in scalding water and sexually abused in their cribs. Recently, a 9-week old child, born to a cocaine addict here, was brought into a hospital dead from head wounds and infections from diaper sores so bad that hospital workers cried. If birth control fails, how are torture and starvation superior to an abortion." author unknown, USA Today; September 23, 1988, quoted in Harrison, Vital Speeches of the Day, October 15, 1988, p. 498. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Ask yourself if this argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma. Are our choices limited to: 1) torture and starvation, or else 2) abortion? If not, then this argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma. Does "can be" involve a possible horrible, understating the point too much?


36. "Considering all pregnant women, only relatively few have unnatural abortions. That is, medically induced abortion is not the natural, or normal, way of terminating a pregnancy. What is unnatural, of course, falls outside the general mainstream of social action. Certainly, society ought to guard itself against what is repugnant and harmful to it. So, abortion ought to be outlawed by society." -- Harrison, quoted in Vital Speeches of the Day, Oct. 15, 1988, p. 489.


37. "[The pro-life position argues:] The fetus is a human person and thus has the same right to life as any other human person." -- Beryl Lieff Benderly, Thinking About Abortion, The Dial Press/Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1984, p. 36.


38. "[The pro-choice position argues:] The fetus -- for at least part of nine months -- is not a human person and thus has no right to life that weighs against the mother's right to control the uses made of her own body." -- Beryl Lieff Benderly, Thinking About Abortion, The Dial Press/Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1984, p. 36.


39.  "[The pro-life position argues:] Possession of a soul makes the fetus a person with a right to temporal life and a chance at salvation equal to that of all other human persons, including the woman carrying it in her body. As the rights of one human person can not override the rights of another, the life of the fetus can not be interrupted for the convenience or good of anyone else. In this argument's most extreme form, as stated by the Catholic Church, the fetus's life cannot be interrupted even to save that of the mother." -- Beryl Lieff Benderly, Thinking About Abortion, The Dial Press/Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1984, pp. 37-38.


40. "An embryo or fetus developing inside a human being is itself a human being, and an innocent one from conception onwards. It is seriously wrong to kill an innocent human being. Abortion involves killing an embryo or fetus developing inside a human mother. Therefore, abortion is wrong." -- A pro-life argument quoted in Michael Tooley, Abortion and Infanticide, (Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 61-62.


41."Other ethical arguments are based on the premise that the embryo is not a person. In other words, the embryo or fetus not attained 'personhood', and therefore the fetus does not have equal rights with the woman in whose womb the pregnancy resides." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 109.


42.  "Some ethical arguments focus on the quality of 'personhood,' affirming that life after birth is as important a consideration as the development of embryos and fetuses in the womb. These arguments assert that abortion is justified to relieve the suffering that may occur following the birth of physically or mentally deformed individuals or those who would be denied parental love and the basic financial, social and educational nurturing required to become self-sufficient adults." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 109.


43. "If a particular ethical argument is based on the premise that the embryo or fetus is a human being with full rights, then abortion is considered wrong. According to these arguments, the woman and the embryo or fetus are both subject to all the basic moral obligations of interpersonal relationships. These arguments are usually expressed in abstract allegories such as the rights and obligations of two people in a sinking boat, the justification for killing in self-defense and the dilemma inherent in rescuing a drowning man who is intent on killing someone. From analogies such as these, one can formulate theories about if and when abortion is the 'right' thing to do." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 108. Harwood's helpful hint: do these arguments by analogy commit the fallacy of false analogy?


44. "One ... theory about abortion, written by Judith Jarvis Thomason, proposes an analogy something like this: A woman wakes up one morning to find attached to her own bloodstream a violinist whose kidneys cannot function for nine months and for whom no artificial kidney is available. Without being attached to the woman, and thereby utilizing her kidneys, the violinist would surely die within a few days. Yet the woman may not want the musician to be so intimately attached to her own body. What to do? Although it might be benevolent for the woman to allow the violinist to stay, according to the ethical analogy, it would certainly not be wrong for her to refuse, even though the musician may have equal rights as a human being." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, pp. 108-109.


45. "Arguments about relative 'personhood' are usually based on the biological limitations of embryos and fetuses. Recognizing that reproduction is a continuous process from joining of sperm and egg to birth, different people select different significant points along the way at which to define 'personhood.' Their discussions of abortion can then proceed on their own particular premises. Some argue that fertilization, or conception, is the moment of the beginning of 'personhood.' Other arguments suggest the time when the nervous system starts to function, when the heart starts beating, when the fetus begins to move inside the womb or when the fetus is viable, able to live outside the womb with modern intensive care." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 109.


46. "Other ethical arguments define partial 'personhood.' They point out that although there is anatomical development, embryos and fetuses cannot walk, talk or eat, or interact with others socially. With only partial 'personhood,' goes the argument, embryos and fetuses may have rights, but not those equal to a woman's [right]. On the basis of the various ethical arguments, abortion can be condemned or approved at various times in pregnancy, depending on the basic premise [defining partial 'personhood']." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 109.


47. "Understandably, women with unwanted pregnancies may find abstract ethical arguments only minimally useful. Facing the hard[,] biological reality and the personal, social and financial upheavals of an unwanted pregnancy, a woman may find her own conscience more useful than theoretical analogies. Most women have their own beliefs about the nature and status of embryos and fetuses. More importantly, it is within their own bodies that the resolution of the question takes place. [Therefore, some would conclude, such women should have a right to choose abortion.]" -- -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, pp. 109-110.


48. "Because the mother does not want to bear this fetus, it is to the fetus' advantage that he not be born, that his life be taken by abortion." Baruch Brody, Abortion and the Sanctity of Life: A Philosophical View, (MIT Press, 1974), p. 36.


49. "The woman in question has already suffered immensely from the act of rape and the physical and or psychological after effects of the act. It would be particularly unjust, the argument runs, for her to have live through an unwanted pregnancy owing to that act of rape. Therefore, even if we are at a stage at which the fetus is a human being, the mother has the right to abort it." Baruch Brody, Abortion and the Sanctity of Life: A Philosophical View, The MIT Press, 1974, p. 37.


50. "There is a second sort of consideration that could be raised in favor of the claim that the mother occupies a special vis a vis the fetus, a status that permits abortion even if the fetus has a full right to life and even when the life of the mother is not at stake. These have to do with the idea that the fetus is an entity that owes its existence to the mother. One way of stating the argument is the following: The fetus has come into existence only because of the mother's act of intercourse, and it therefore owes its life to the mother. If so, the continued existence of the fetus can not be allowed to work a hardship upon the mother, and she has to terminate its existence by aborting it. What she once gave, she may now withdraw." -- Baruch Brody, Abortion and The Sanctity of Life, The MIT Press, 1974, p. 31.


51. "Though the fetus is innocent itself, it may pose threat to the pregnant woman's well being, life prospects or health, mental or physical. If the pregnancy presents a slight threat to her interest, it seems self defense cannot justify abortion. But if the threat is on par with serious beating or the loss of a finger, she may kill the fetus that poses such a threat, even if it is an innocent person." Jane English, in Stephen Satris, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues, 10th edition (Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2006), p. 73.


52. "The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim." Don Marquis,  in Stephen Satris, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues, 10th edition (Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2006), p. 65. 226.


53. "It's indisputable that a fetus is not a person, since it doesn't have a body of its own (a requisite of personhood)" (http://www.now.org/issue/abortion/ywabort.html, last accessed May 19, 1997). Harwood's Helpful Hint: Whether or not the fetus is a person is a different question from whether or not a pregnant woman has a right to abort. For example, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that a woman may abort even if the fetus is a person. And a utilitarian might argue against an abortion even if the fetus is not a person. These two questions, however, are certainly related to some extent.


54. "What makes me think abortion is murder? When my pediatrician refused to perform an abortion for me, she said she wouldn't be a party to murder. Babies and childbrith are her business, you know." Author unknown, quoted in Nancy Cavender and Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric (Belmont: CA, Wadsworth Publishing Co., circa 2000), p. 58.


55. "The end never justifies the means if the means are evil. In other words, no matter how difficult the alternatives, they cannot justifiy the killing of an innocent human being." Connor, Information Plus, date unknown, p. 98. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Consider the old saying "Never say never." Use your imagination to try to develop a counterargument where the end might justify using somewhat evil means. Does utilitarianism or the philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli agree with "The end justifies the means"?


56. “Abortion's direct attack on innocent human life is precisely the kind of violent act that can never be justified. Because victims of abortion are the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family, it is imperative that we, as Christians called to serve the least among us, give urgent attention and priority to this issue of justice. Our concern is intensified by the realization that a policy and practice allowing over one and a half million abortions annually cannot but diminish respect for life in other areas.” ~ Fr. Frank Pavone, Fr. Richard Hogan, Fr. Peter West, and Fr. Denis G. Wilde, http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/fundamentalissue.htm, retrieved 12/16/10. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Consider the truth tip about watchwords like 'never' and the aphorism "Never say 'never'" and use your imagination to try to create a counterexample.


57. "Is it true what people are saying, that abortion is killing babies? Is it true? Then I thought about all these poor children who I've seen parked in front of just dives-hungry, dirty, neglected and abused, their families inside boozing it up. And I thought I did the right thing." -- Norma McCorvey, unknown publication, unknown publisher, unknown date, p. 70. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Norma McCorvey is also known as Jane Roe of the famous or infamous United States Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, January, 1973.


58. "Legal abortion helps parents limit their families to the number of children they want and can afford, both financially and emotionally. Anti-abortion laws create new families consisting of a child and her child, living at the lowest levels of society. Pro-Choice is definitely Pro-Family." ~ author unknown, http:/www.wcla.org(articleprocon.html), last visited May 1, 2006.

59. "Re Michael Ramirez's May 28 cartoon: I have no problem with a young girl getting an abortion without parental consent because the alternative may be to force her to give birth to a child without her consent -- a particularly onerous form of child labor -- or to seek an illegal abortion.  Pro-lifers don't get it. Abortions will take place if unwanted pregnancies occur. Giving birth to a child is a big deal -- physically, emotionally and financially. So much so that free women and girls will rarely choose to give birth to unwanted children, regardless of the self-rightous, hypocritical lip service to the contrary." -- Laura J. Rift, Canoga Park, CA, Letter to the Editor, The Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2005, p. B20, column 3.


60. "Your article ["A Late Decision, a Lasting Anguish"] kicked me right in the gut -- especially Paige, who aborted her 25-week-old fetus, Emma, because she could not bear to imagine surgeons cutting open Emma's tiny chest to rebuild her heart. In the 1950s, my mama lovingly raised a child with an inoperable heart defect. And she and my daddy bore it when surgeons finally knew how to cut open my adult-sized chest, twice, to rebuild my heart. I'm glad I got the chance at life that Paige denied her daughter." -- Nancy J. Doman, Garden Grove, CA, Letter to the Editor, The Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2005, p. B20, column 3.


61."If you are consistent and think that abortion is normally permissible, then you will consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances. You do not consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances. Therefore, if you are consistent then you will not think that abortion is normally permissible." -- from "An Appeal for Consistency," Quoted in Robert Baird and Stuart Rosenbaum, eds., The Ethics of Abortion, 3rd ed., Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001, p. 103.

FAQ8: Have Quotes to Ponder on Euthanasia?

  

QUOTES ON EUTHANASIA

LAST REVISED 11/2/19

Note: students should explore the idea of adding controversial quotes from the book Stay by Jennifer Michael Hecht (2015).


1. "For the Christian, life is God's gift and its end is to be determined by Him. God is sovereign over life and death: we have no jurisdiction in this area; therefore, we have no mandate to end our lives. We trust the Author of life to allow only what ultimately benefits us to be fall us. God's providence." Dr. Robert C. Pankratz and Dr. Richard M. Welsh, "A Christian Response to Euthanasia," http://www.tkc.com/resources/resources-pages/euthanasia.html, last visited 12/28/2009. Dr. Harwood makes this quote an exception to his usual rule that an A-section quote may not be from an Internet source only.


2. “[Patient:] I just want to die with a little dignity. [Dr. Gregory House:] There’s no such thing. Our bodies break down, sometimes when we’re 90, sometimes before we’re even born, but it always happens and there’s never any dignity in it. I don’t care if you can walk, see, wipe your own ass, it’s always ugly – always. We live with dignity; we can’t die with it.” ~ from “Pilot,” House, first aired circa 11/16/2004.


3. "If we did not have effective means of controlling and alleviating severe pain, then active euthanasia (mercy-killing) would be morally acceptable. But through medical advances we now have very effective methods of controlling and alleviating even themost severe pain. So, obviously, active euthanasia is not morally acceptable." Author unknown; argument presented in Bruce Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998), pp. 105-106.


4. “[N]obody who has experienced both higher and lower pleasures would be willing to swap a life filled with the former for a life filled with the latter.” ~ from Barry Loewer, ed., 30-Second Philosophies, Fall River Press, 2009, p. 90, describing the view of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).


5. “No intelligent human being would consent to be a fool … even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs.” ~ John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), quoted in Barry Loewer, ed., 30-Second Philosophies, Fall River Press, 2009, p. 90.


6. "The philosophers rightly observe that existing law against assisted suicide reflect and entrench certain views about what gives life meaning. But the same would be true were the court to declare, in the name of autonomy, a right to assisted suicide. The challenge is to find a way to honor these claims that preserves the moral burden of hastening death, and that retains the reverence for life as something we cherish, not something we choose. Michael J. Sandel, Staff Writer, "Last Rights", The New Republic, April 14, 1997, Vol. 216, Issue 15, p. 27.


7. “The things we make turn around and make us; and just as the Pill helped transform our ideas about sexual freedom, so will the obitioner (a physician who practices assisted VE [voluntary euthasia]) change the way we regard aging. How often, in the assisted-suicide future, will someone look at an elderly person and thing, consciously or semiconsciously, 'Gee, guess it's about time, huh? I'm thinking of the way we treat people in wheelchairs, people who can't feed themselves whose bodies don't look or work 'right'. Societies that drift in this direction, as Germany did under the Nazis, instill in their citizens a visceral sense of the handicapped as a drain or drag on the healthy body of the rest of us. Such attitudes are not spontaneous manifestations of evil. You have to train people to feel this way; but if you do, they will." Rand Richards Cooper, author, "The Dignity of Helplessness: What Sort of Society Would Euthanasia Create?", Commonwealth Magazine, Vol. 123, 10/25/1996, p. 12.


8. "I've been thinking a lot this week about mother's death two years ago: about the family's arguments regarding whether her dialysis should be discontinued as she slipped further into end-stage diabetes and an increasing state sleep and hallucination. She hung on for months until her body gave out on its own. Yeller's death was shorter and less anguished. Yeller was an animal, not a person. Putting him " to sleep" was the right thing to do. We don't put animals through the same ropes, trying to maintain life when it's obviously untenable. I wonder if we are being kinder to them than to ourselves." Richard Scheinin, Religion and Ethics writer, "A Loved Pet Dies with Dignity Without Prolonging the Inevitable – Don’t Humans Deserve the Same Peace?", San Jose Mercury News, 5/4/1996, p. 1E.


9. "[The goal] of society should be to encourage people to live rather than to make it easier for them to die. Our ability to overcome medical or emotional adversity is immeasurably enhanced if society's ethic is that we should try to carry on, that our courage in not giving up will give others courage when a crisis hits them. Given the underside of human nature, we will have all too many cases where relatives will want to hasten the end for selfish reason." Malcom Forbes Jr., Tycoon, "Encouraging the Living to Live," Forbes Magazine, Vol. 157, 4/22/1996, p. 24.


10. "There is reason to believe that many religious groups will end up endorsing death with dignity, because religions have a habit of changing. Although the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has been emphatic in its opposition to euthanasia, spending millions to defeat such propositions at the polls, there are respected voices raised within that church in support of physician - assisted death. A Gallup poll, reported in American Demographics magazine four years ago, indicated that 65 percent of the American public favored allowing doctors to help the terminally ill end their suffering if the patient and his or her family request it. Many of those people will want the comfort of knowing that, if they so choose, a physician will be ready, willing, and able to help them escape agonizing pain and the humiliation of helplessness by offering a death with dignity and the churches blessing." William H. Carr, Staff Writer, "A Right to Die," Saturday Evening Post, Vol. 267, Sept.-Oct. 1995, p. 50.


11. "A few hospice leaders claim that their care is so perfect that there absolutely no need for anyone to consider euthanasia. While I have no wish to criticize them, they are wrong to claim perfection. Most, but not all, terminal pain can today be controlled with the sophisticated use of drugs, but the point these leaders miss is that personal quality of life is vital to some people. If one's body has been so destroyed by disease that it is not worth living in, that is an intensely individual decision which should not be thwarted. In some cases of the final days in hospice care, when the pain is very serious, the patient is drugged into unconsciousness. If that way is acceptable to the patient, fine. But some people do not wish their final hours to be in that fashion." Derek Humphry, "Why I Believe in Voluntary Euthanasia," (1995), p. 5.


12. "One objection to assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia is that they involve killing, and all killing is morally wrong. This principle may be based on religious views (e.g., the sixth commandment) or maintained on purely secular grounds. But whatever its basis, we cannot appeal to this unqualified principle to condemn the practices in question unless we are prepared to condemn, for example, the killing of steers for food, fish for sport, trees for paper, weeds to beautify a garden, mosquitoes for comfort, and so forth." Alister Browne, Ph.D., Division of Biomedical Ethics, UBC, "Assisted Suicide and Active Voluntary Euthanasia", Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. II, No. 1, January 1989, p.3.


13. "The category of the hopelessly ill provides the possibility of even worse abuse. Embedded in a social policy, it would give society or its representatives the authority to eliminate all those who might be considered too 'ill' to function normally any longer. The dangers of euthanasia are too great to all to run the risk of approving it in any form. The first slippery step may well lead to a serious and harmful fall." J. Gay-Williams, "The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia," in Joseph Grcic, ed., Moral Choice: Ethical Theories and Problems, West Publishing Co., 1989, p. 308.


14."The maintenance of life by artificial means is, in such cases, sadly pointless, and if all available means of prolonging life were always used, the hospitals would be quickly filled with living corpses while ordinary patients could find no beds. Thus, virtually everyone who has thought seriously about the matter agrees that it is morally acceptable, at some point, to cease treatment and allow such people to die." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


15. "If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights. Therefore, in at least some cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


16."If a person prefers and even begs for death as the only alternative to lingering on in this kind of torment, only to die anyway after a while, then surely, it is not immoral to help this person die sooner." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


17. "Moreover, as Bentham's famous follower John Stuart Mill put it, the individual is sovereign over his own body and mind; where one's own interests are concerned, there is no other authority. Therefore, if one wants to die quickly rather than lingering in pain, that is strictly a personal affair, and the government has no business intruding." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


18. "For the utilitarian, the question was simply this ' Does it increase or decrease human happiness to provide a quick, painless death for those who are dying n agony?' Clearly, they reasoned, the only consequences of such actions will be to decrease the amount of misery in the world; therefore, euthanasia must be morally right." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


19.“Once a certain practice is accepted, from a logical point of view we are committed to accepting certain other practices as well, since there are no good reasons for not going on to accept the additional practices once we have taken the all important first step." James Rachels quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 61.


20. "Suffering is a part of life; God has ordained that we must suffer as part of His Divine plan. Therefore if we were to kill people to 'put them out of their misery,' we would be interfering with God's plan." James Rachels, in Tom Regan, ed., Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 53.


21.  “Our second theological argument starts from the principle that "The life of a man is solely under the dominion of God." It is for God alone to decide when people shall live and when they shall die; therefore, we have no right to 'play God' and arrogate this decision unto ourselves. So euthanasia is forbidden." James Rachels, in Tom Regan, ed., Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 53.


22. "VE [voluntary euthanasia] as an individual choice is entirely distinct from murdering people who are judged (by others) to have no worth. The "right" view of morality indicates that if we have a right to live, we have a right to give up that life... religious arguments cannot apply to anyone who does not share that belief. A wish to exercise personal autonomy and a desire to avoid unwanted suffering are the twin foundation stones of the case for VE." Dr. Robert L. Gandling, Family Physician, "The Case for Voluntary Euthanasia", [date unknown], pp. 1-2.


23.  "Man is called to fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists of sharing the very life of God. Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery the Word of God who was made flesh, is entrusted to the maternal care of the Church. Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful destruction... all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator." Pope John Paul II, "On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life," [date unknown], pp. 6-7.


24. "It is naive to imagine that a policy and a law permitting euthanasia will not lead to insensitive, inhumane, and intolerable abuse simply because those who designed the law were governed by pure motives and noble purpose. The position in favor of legalizing VE [Voluntary Euthanasia] rests upon an assumption of ideal hospitals, doctors, nurses and families. But we do not live in an ideal world. The issue is whether we should try this social experiment. I believe we should not." David J. Roy, Director, Center of Bioethics, Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, "When the Dying Demand Death: A Position Paper on Euthanasia," [date unknown], pp. 10-11. Dr. Harwood makes a rare exception to allow students to use this quotation and partial citation in an A-section of an ABC set in the student’s term paper even though this citation lacks the date.

faq9: have quotes from socrates & plato?

  

Note: The first 10 quotes are from this vinyl LP: POITIER MEETS PLATO: TRANSCRIPT of the LP Record released in the 1960s as Warner Brothers 1561


TRACK 1: THE PHILOSOPHER-KING MUST RULE

Who are to be the rulers and who their subjects? The best rulers will be those who most have the character of philosopher guardians. To this end they ought to be wise and efficient. There must be a selection. Let us note, then, those among us who in their whole life show the greatest eagerness to do what is for the good of their country, and the greatest repugnance to do what is against its interests. They will have to be watched at every age, from youth upwards, in order to see whether they preserve their resolution and never under the influence either of force or enchantment forget or cast off their sense of duty. We must make them perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or to be deceived, since only he who remembers and is not affected by pleasures, pains or terrors are to be selected. Such a one is more thoroughly pure than gold in the refiner’s furnace. He will always bear himself nobly for he has a rhythmical and harmonious nature. He shall be honored in life and in death with the greatest memorials of honor that we have to give. But he who fails must be rejected.


I think that there might be a reform of our state if only one change were made. This change, though possible, is not easy. Yet the word shall be spoken. Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, until political greatness and wisdom meet in one ruler and those commoner natures who pursue either attribute to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from evils. No, nor the human race. Then, only then, will our state have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.


TRACK 2: THIS I KNOW – THAT I KNOW NOTHING

I went to a politician who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him. But as I talked with him I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many and wiser still by himself. I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise but was not really wise. The consequence was that he hated me. And his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left, saying to myself, well although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he, for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows while I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. After this I went to one man after another, being unconscious of the enmity I provoked. I went to the poets, and would you believe me I am almost ashamed to speak of this, for it showed to me it is not by wisdom that the poets write but by a sort of genius and inspiration. Nonetheless, upon the strength of their poetry they believe themselves to be the wisest of men. At last I went to the artisans, being sure they knew more than I. I observed, however, that the good artisans, because they were good workmen, thought that they also knew all sorts of matters. This defect in them overshadowed their wisdom. The result of my Herculean labors, as I may call them, was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish. Therefore, I asked myself whether I would like to be, as I am, neither having their sort of knowledge nor their ignorance or be like them in both. I made answer that I am better off as I am. As a result of this discovery, I am called wise, for in here is imagined that I find the wisdom I find wanting in others. But the truth is that God alone is wise. So I go my way obedient to the God within, making inquiry into the wisdom of anyone who appears to be wise. If he is not wise, then in vindication of truth I show him that he is not wise, so that he may know all that I know. For this I know … that I know nothing.


TRACK 3: CONTRIBUTION OF MUSIC AND GYMNASTICS

The true function of the two arts of music and gymnastics must be made clear. It is not that the one is for the training of the soul while the other is for the training of the body. Both improve the soul and each is of value in this work only when employed in the proper proportion and harmony. And the harmonious soul is both temperate and courageous, while the inharmonious is cowardly and boorish. It is good for a man to allow music to play upon him and in the first stage of this process to pour into his soul sweet and soft melancholy airs. In this way the passion or spirited element in him is tempered, like iron, and made useful instead of brittle and useless. If, however, in the second stage he still carries on this softening and soothing process, he begins to melt, and may waste away his spirit until he has cut out the sinews of his soul. Then he becomes a feeble warrior.


In gymnastics, if a man takes violent exercise and is a great eater, being the reverse of a proficient student of music and philosophy, at first the high condition of his body fills him with pride and spirit. He becomes twice the man he was. Then what happens? If he does nothing else and holds no converse with the muses, then even that intelligence which there may be in him grows feeble. He becomes dull and blind through a lack of any sort of inquiry or culture. His mind never wakes up or receives nourishment. His senses are never purged of their mists. Finally, he ends up by becoming a hater of philosopher and, uncivilized, he never uses the weapon of persuasion. Like a wild beast, violent and ferocious, he knows no other way of dealing. He lives in ignorance and evil conditions, and has no sense of propriety and grace.

Thus, there are two principles of human nature, one philosophical and the other spirited, which correspond to music and gymnastics. He who mingles them in the fairest proportions, best tempering them to his soul, may rightly be called the true musician and harmonist in a far higher sense than the tuner of strings. Such a presiding genius as this will always be required if we are to last…if we are to last…if we are to last.


TRACK 4: IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL

Consider this proof of immortality. Are not all things which have opposites generated out of their opposites? I mean such things as good and evil. And does not this hold universally of all opposites? There is, for instance, an opposite of life, which is death, as being awake is the opposite of being asleep. These are generated the one from the other. Let us, then, analyze life and death.


Is not death opposed to life, and therefore generated from life? And is not life in a similar manner generated from death? One of the processes, the act of dying, is visible, the other is invisible. But it may be inferred that the complement of dying is living and that birth is the revival of the dead into this world of the living. For nature must not be supposed to go about on one leg. Surely the inference is that our souls do exist in the other world.

My favorite doctrine, that knowledge is simply recollection, also necessarily implies immortality as well as a previous existence in which the soul learned what it now recollects. And what a man recollects must have been known by him at some former time. Previous to the time when we first saw material objects we must have known absolute ideas. Furthermore, if we acquired this knowledge before we were born, we were born with it. Thus it must be that we knew all ideas before we were born. This knowledge was lost at birth but may be recovered by the use of the senses. So learning is really an act of recovering by recollection. And our souls existed without bodies before they were in the form of man and must have had intelligence.


But, my friends, what is the nature of this recollection? We see material things such as pieces of wood and stone and from them gather the idea of other things, which are different from them. Now whenever from seeing one thing we conceive of another there is surely an act of recollection. Moreover, anyone who looks at an object, perceiving that it aims at being something better but falls short of attaining its ideal, must have had a previous idea and knowledge of that ideal.


I now want to share with you the nature of ideas as causes, for this has long occupied my thoughts. To do this I shall assume, first of all, that there is an absolute idea of beauty, goodness, greatness, and of life. Grant me this and I hope to be able to show the nature of cause and to further prove the immortality of the soul. I think, for instance, that if there is anything beautiful other than absolute beauty, it can be beautiful only insofar as it partakes of absolute beauty. I know nothing and can understand nothing of those other wise causes which are alleged. If a person says to me that the bloom of color or form or anything else of that sort is a source of beauty, it only confuses me. As to the manner, I am uncertain. Still I stoutly contend that by beauty all beautiful things become beautiful. This I shall say of everything, for all things exist only insofar as they participate in some idea. So we live because our life partakes of the eternal idea of life. And thus our souls are eternal. To this I cling, persuaded that I shall never be overthrown.


TRACK 5: THE GREEKS HAD A WORD FOR IT

If there was a knowledge which was able to make men immortal without giving them knowledge of the way to use that immortality, there would be no use in it.


The best man is he who most tries to perfect himself. And the happiest man is he who most feels that he is perfecting himself.

To a man who has any sense at all, no question can be more serious than the meaning of human life.


To be curious about that which is not one’s concern while still in ignorance of oneself is ridiculous.


Wealth and poverty are both evils, the one is ferent of luxury and indolence, the other of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent.


When he who asks waits to hear the answer, he demonstrates a very rare gift.

I have one singularly good quality, which is my salvation. I am not ashamed to learn. I ask and inquire and am indeed grateful to those who answer me.


A calm and happy nature will hardly feel the pressure of age but to the opposite disposition youth and age alike are equally a burden.

The mask which an actor wears is apt to become his face.

The unexamined life is not worth living.


 Like a good-for-nothing cock, without having won the victory, some people walk away from an argument and crow.


“Know thyself” and “Nothing too much.”


Oh, my friends, if the soul is really immortal what care should be taken of her not only in respect to the portion of time that is called life but of eternity?


TRACK 6: OUR WORLD IS A CAVE

Let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened -- or unenlightened. Behold, human beings living in an underground cave, which has a mouth open toward the light. Here they have been from their childhood, and are chained so they can see only what is in front of them. Behind them a fire is blazing and they are not allowed to turn their heads. So, like ourselves, they see only their own shadows, the shadows of one another or of objects they possess, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave. Further, this prison has an echo, which is heard from people on the outside. The prisoners within have always fancied when one of the passersby spoke that the voice came from a passing shadow. To them the truth is literally nothing but shadows. Of true images they know nothing.


Look again now. You see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are set free and so come to realize their error. At first when one of them is liberated and suddenly compelled to turn his head and look toward the light he will suffer sharp pains. The glare will distress him. He will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state of illusion he saw only the shadows. He will at first fancy that the shadows he formerly saw are truer than the real objects which are now revealed to him. He will be required to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. At first he will see the shadows best. Last of all he will be able see the sun in its own proper place and not merely its reflections. He will then understand that the sun is what gives the seasons, and in a certain way causes all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold.

When he remembers his old habitation and the wisdom of the cave and of his fellow prisoners, he will pity them. And if the inhabitants of the cave have been in the habit of conferring honors among themselves, he will no longer care for such honors or envy the possessors of them. He will endure anything rather than think as they do and live after their manner. And if such a one were suddenly to come back out of the sun and place himself back in his old situation, he would be certain to have his eyes will be full of darkness. ***It would be very bad for him if there were a contest and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave. In such an instance, the men of the cave would say of him: he went up, and down he came without his eyes. They will maintain that it is better not even to think of ascending. Hence, if anyone tried to loose another prisoner from the cave and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender and they would put him to death.


TRACK 7: WOMAN’S PLACE IN SOCIETY


Women are to have the same duties as men. Thus they must have the same nurture and education. They will be taught music, gymnastics and the art of war, which they must practice like the men. I expect that to some people our proposals may appear ridiculous. Most ridiculous of all will be the sight of naked women exercising in the Pelastra[?] with men, especially when they are no longer young. Our opponents will say, “Socrates, no adversary need convict you, for at the foundation of the state you admitted that everybody was to do the one work best suited to his own nature.” We would have to reply that such an admission was made. Further, they would say, “Do not the natures of men and women differ very much indeed?” And we would say “Of course they do.” Then we shall be asked, “In that case, should not the tasks assigned to men and to women be different?” “Certainly they should,” we shall answer. They will conclude: “But if so, have you not fallen into a serious inconsistency in saying that men and women, whose natures are different, ought to perform the same actions?”


What defense should we make against these objections? When a man is out of his depth, whether he has fallen into a little, swimming bath or into mid-ocean he has to swim all the same. Can any way of escape be found? We have acknowledged that different natures ought to have different pursuits. And that the natures of men and women are different. And now we are accused of saying that different natures ought to have the same pursuits. This is the inconsistency charged to us.


However, we never considered what was meant by sameness or difference of nature. If the difference consists only in the fact that women bear and men beget children, then we must maintain that this does not amount to a proof that woman differs essentially from man in respect to the sort of education she should receive. Therefore, we shall continue to hold that men and women ought to have the same pursuits. Next we shall ask our opponent, how in reference to any of the pursuits or arts of civic life the nature of a woman differs from that of a man? Let us say to him there is no special faculty in the administration of a state which a woman has because she is a woman or that a man has by virtue of his sex. The gifts of nature are diffused alike in them. So the pursuits of men might be the pursuits of women except that woman is weaker than man. Are we therefore to impose all our enactments on men and none of them on women? No, for men and women alike possess the qualities which make good guardians of the state. This must be the law; for it is agreeable to nature, and therefore not an impossibility, while the contrary practice, prevailing at present, is in reality a violation of nature.


TRACK 8: DISCOVERY OF THE GOOD LIFE


Let us offer up a prayer; for we are the cupbearers and here at our side are two fountains flowing. One, which is wisdom, is a sober draught in which no wine mingles. It is temperate and healthful. The other, which is pleasure, may be likened to a fountain of honey. Out of these, the fairest of all possible mixtures must be sought. Tell me, is the good life most likely to be found if every sort of wisdom is mingled with every sort of pleasure? I, for my part, should be afraid of the risk and suggest a safer plan; for one science is more certain than another and one pleasure more pure than another. If, then, we consider the subdivisions of wisdom and of pleasure which are most pure and mingle them, will the union suffice to give us the best of lives? Imagine a man who has an understanding of the true nature of things. Will he have enough wisdom if he is acquainted only with pure geometry and knows nothing of our human circles and spheres? Surely not. We must mix into the good life the practical part of geometry which uses the imperfect circle, as does the builder; that is, if any of us is ever to find his way home.

The time has come to decide about the pleasures. Can we in like manner admit them all or only the pure ones? First, mix the pure ones. That would be the sounder course. And now if there are any other pleasures as there were practical sciences, they must be mingled in. Let us ask the daughters of pleasure themselves. They would certainly answer that for any class to be alone in perfect solitude is not good nor altogether possible. Let us now interrogate the daughters of wisdom, asking them if in addition to the pure pleasures, they wish to have the most vehement pleasures for their companions. They will say “How can we, seeing that they are the source of ten thousand hindrances to us? They trouble the souls of men, which are our habitations, with their madness. They prevent our ideas, our children, from coming to birth, and are the ruin of them when they do come to birth. But the pure pleasures of which you spoke, know these to be of our kindred. These pleasures which accompany health and temperance are the handmaidens and inseparable attendants of wisdom. Mingle these but not the others. Anyone who wishes to devise the highest good for man would show a great lack of sense to allow the pleasures which are always in the company of folly and vice to mingle with might.”


There is yet something more that must be added to our formula of the good life; for unless truth enters into the composition, nothing can be worthy. And now we are close to that which is the cause of every good and universally beloved. I mean symmetry, which renders every mixture of the highest value. Let us ask if in the order of the universe symmetry is more akin to wisdom or to pleasure. Every reasonable man knows that any want of symmetry in any mixture must of necessity be fatal both to the elements and to the mixture. Thus, the nature of all good things has retired into the region of the beautiful; for symmetry or measure everywhere passes into beauty. The elements of the good life have now been found. And we must proclaim everywhere, sending messengers of these tidings far and wide, that pleasure is not the first of possessions nor yet the second. Symmetry stands in first place, with the beautiful in the second. And, if I divine aright, we must reckon truth in the third class. Finally, wisdom takes fourth place with the pure pleasures taking the fifth. This is true even if all the animals of the world in their pursuit of enjoyment should affirm differently.


TRACK 9: ONLY THE WISE ARE BRAVE


There is a saying that every man is good in that in which he is wise, but bad in that in which he is unwise. Thus, if the brave man is good, he must also be wise and all courage will entail a sort of wisdom, a judging power that makes it possible to avoid the extremes of courage, which are cowardice and rashness. And, as I believe, every man may acquire this kind of knowledge. We cannot, however, allow that any wild beast is courageous, for animals have no fear of dangers, because they are ignorant of them. Again, do you imagine I should call little children courageous who fear no dangers because they know none. I am of the opinion that thoughtful courage is a quality possessed by only a few, whereas cowardice and rashness, which have no forethought, are common qualities possessed by many men, children and animals. Men usually call actions courageous that which I call cowardice or rashness; for according to my belief, courageous acts are wise acts.


TRACK 10: THE PENALTY IS DEATH


“So, you condemn me to death. If you had waited a little while your desire would have been fulfilled in the course of nature. I am far advanced in years, as you may perceive, and not far from death. But I would rather die having spoken after my manner than speak in your manner and live. And now I depart hence, condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death while my accusers go their way, condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong. I must abide by my award and they must abide by theirs. Let us reflect and we shall see why there is hope that death is a good. One of two things is true: death is a either a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or as men say there is a migration of the soul from this world to the other. Now if you suppose there is no consciousness but merely a sleep, I say that to die is a gain, since eternity is then only a single night. If death is the journey to another place and there all the dead are, what good all my friends and judges can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment in that other world, and is privileged to examine the wise poets and heroes. If this be true, let me die again and again. There I shall find out who is wise and who pretends to be wise but is not. What would not a man give to examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition or numberless others? What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking questions? In that world I shall be able to continue my search into the nature of true and false knowledge. And besides being happier there than here, men will be immortal if what is said is true. I see clearly that to die and be released is better for me. The hour of departure has arrived. We go our ways -- I to die, you to live. Which is the better, God only knows."


11. "Plato said all learning has some emotional basis, and he may be right." ~ Carolyn Gregoire, "How Emotionally Intelligent Are You? Here's How to Tell," The Huffington Post, posted 12/05/2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/are-you-emotionally-intel_n_4371920.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing13%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D415893, last visited 12/07/2013:


* * * FAQ10: HAVE ANY QUOTES TO PONDER ON THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE? * * *

Last revised 11/2/2019

  

Note: The mystery of The Bermuda Triangle is relevant to philosophy because logic is a major part of philosophy and the issue with The Bermuda Triangle is: What is the most logical explanation of the large number of disappearances in the triangle formed by Miami, Bermuda, and Puerto Rico? Many of these disappearances involve the complete absence of may-day calls or involve disappearance without a trace -- without any wreckage being found.

 
 

1. “In the last 10 years, eleven hundred people have lost their lives in these waters [of the Bermuda Triangle], more than in any other coastal area.” ~ Narrator, Bermuda Triangle: New Evidence, Discovery Channel, aired 8/25/2019, Episode 48, https://www.discovery.com/shows/curiosity/episodes/bermuda-triangle-new-evidence.

 
 

2. “No, insurance companies do not charge any more for trips into the Bermuda Triangle. But that might be because, as my now-deceased source inside the insurance industry informed me, someone is paying them off.” ~ Mike Bara, author & convention speaker, in response to a question face-to-face from Sterling Harwood (“Do insurance companies charge more for trips into the Bermuda Triangle?”), Ancient Alien Con, June 2019, Los Angeles, CA.

 
 

3. “We proved that a methane eruption is an unlikely explanation for why boats disappear [in the Bermuda Triangle].”~ Narrator, Bermuda Triangle: New Evidence, Discovery Channel, aired 8/25/2019, Episode 48, https://www.discovery.com/shows/curiosity/episodes/bermuda-triangle-new-evidence.

 
 

4. “But for the first time, our experiments reveal that rogue waves could be sending boats to the bottom of the sea [in the Bermuda Triangle].” ~ Narrator, Bermuda Triangle: New Evidence, Discovery Channel, aired 8/25/2019, Episode 48, https://www.discovery.com/shows/curiosity/episodes/bermuda-triangle-new-evidence.

 
 

5. “And the most extreme forms of lighting [in the Bermuda Triangle] can destroy an airplane.” ~ Narrator, Bermuda Triangle: New Evidence, Discovery Channel, aired 8/25/2019, Episode 48, https://www.discovery.com/shows/curiosity/episodes/bermuda-triangle-new-evidence.

 
 

6. "Ships and planes that go through the Bermuda Triangle often experience equipment failures inside the area." ~ Leonard Nimoy, narrator & anchor/host, Ancient Mysteries, FilmRoos, first aired 1994.

 
 

7. Billionaire Christopher Cline, a coal tycoon, was among 7 people killed in a helicopter crash on 7/4/2019 in The Bahamas. The helicopter went down shortly after taking off from Grand Cay Island. Cline died one day before his 61st birthday (7/5/1958). He founded Forsyth Energy of St. Louis, one of America’s biggest coal companies, and was associated with Pioneer Fuel. Source: America’s Newsroom, Fox News Channel, 7/5/19. Note: This seems to have occurred in The Bermuda Triangle.

 
 

8. “I flew through clouds which resembled a tunnel and formed a spiral when I went inside. It was a wormhole.” ~ Bruce Gernon, Ancient Mysteries, FilmRoos, first aired 1994

.

9. "No trace of any of the squadron planes [of Flight 19 from December 1945 in Florida] was ever found." ~ Gian Quasar, Into the Bermuda Triangle (International Marine/Ragged Mountain Press, February 7 2005), p. 48.

 
 

10. "If pirates had raided these ships and murdered the crews there would be evidence.” ~ Richard Winer, The Devil’s Triangle (New York: Bantam Books, 1974), p. 76.

 
 

11. "The Cyclops was another ship that disappeared without a trace in the [Bermuda] Triangle.” ~ Leonard Nimoy, narrator & anchor/host, Ancient Mysteries, Filmroos, first aired 1994.

 
 

12. "The Marine Sulfur vanished off without any evidence as to what happened." ~ Richard Winer, The Devil’s Triangle, (New York: Bantom Books, 1974), p. 56. ***Double check if there’s a missing word after ‘off.’ Double check if the full name is “Marine Sulfur Queen.” 13. "The ocean floor of the Bermuda Triangle is bubbling with electro-magnetic energy which causes malfunctions." ~ Leonard Nimoy, narrator & anchor/host, Ancient Mysteries, Filmroos, first aired 1994.

 
 

14.“In today’s sophisticated society, many people tend to dismiss the so-called mystery of The Bermuda Triangle in the same way they would a superstition or a fairy tale. But unlike harmless fairy tales, the strange happenings in The Bermuda Triangle, often result in loss of life, not to mention the enormous property losses. Given the growing body of evidence that something sinister, something well beyond our understanding, is going on there, it seems the better part of wisdom to try to discover the truth behind the so-called legends of The Bermuda Triangle.” ~ Narrator, “Bermuda Triangle: Sinister Site or Suspicious Seamanship?,” World’s Greatest Mysteries, Season 1, Episode 11, 2016, writer: Susan Horwitz, streaming on amazon.com, last visited 11/24/18.

 
 

15. “Believe it or not, the first written record of strange happenings in The Bermuda Triangle can be found in the ship’s log of Christopher Columbus. Lying becalmed in the Sargasso Sea, Columbus and his men witnessed strange lights dancing above and below the surface of the water. Little did they know that that would be among the most harmless of the events that would terrorize vessels in The Bermuda Triangle.” ~ Narrator, “Bermuda Triangle: Sinister Site or Suspicious Seamanship?,” World’s Greatest Mysteries, Season 1, Episode 11, 2016, writer: Susan Horwitz, streaming on amazon.com, last visited 11/24/18.

 
 

16.“The Mary Celeste was found floating adrift on the open sea. The vessel seemed to be in perfect condition, but the passengers and crew had disappeared without a trace.” ~ Narrator, “Bermuda Triangle: Sinister Site or Suspicious Seamanship?,” World’s Greatest Mysteries, Season 1, Episode 11, 2016, writer: Susan Horwitz, streaming on amazon.com, last visited 11/24/18.

 
 

17. “According to those who study the mysteries of The Bermuda Triangle, there have been over 1,000 vanishings of everything from huge naval vessels to private boats [and] from small planes to [planes of] commercial airlines since 1945 alone. And, of course, not only the craft disappear forever, but all the people onboard them as well.” ~ Narrator, “Bermuda Triangle: Sinister Site or Suspicious Seamanship?,” World’s Greatest Mysteries, Season 1, Episode 11, 2016, writer: Susan Horwitz, streaming on amazon.com, last visited 11/24/18.


* * * FAQ11: HAVE A SAMPLE PAPER  ON GUN CONTROL? * * *


  

***WARNING: SAMPLE PAPERS ARE IMPERFECT PAPERS BY ANONYMOUS STUDENTS. DR. HARWOOD HAS TRIED TO TWEAK THEM. LEARN FROM THE BEST IN THEM AND DE-EMPHASIZE THE REST IN THEM.***

 
 

Reject Greater Gun Control But Accept Greater Safety

by an Anonymous Student

 
 

1. Introduction - Gun Control Should Avoid Hurting Innocent Gun Owners 

 
 

In this paper, I will argue that gun control in America is immoral by using the five moral principles in chapter four of Sterling Harwood’s book, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual.Limiting the ownership of firearms poses a risk to those who use them for self defense. The focus on gun control is to regulate the criminal use of firearms; however, there are flaws when it comes to controlling gun ownership. Gun control affects innocent gun owners as well as criminals. Furthermore, gun control fails to stop the illegal sales of firearms through the black market.


For my argument, I will be using the moral principle of egalitarianism to treat different cases differently. In addition, I will use the prima facie principle of nonmaleficence to avoid pain and suffering to lawful gun owners. Also, I will be using the moral principle of virtue to show the unkindness towards gun owners. GF Furthermore, I will be using utilitarianism principle to show equal representation to those opposing gun control. GF Finally, I will be using the moral principle of libertarianism to maximize individual freedoms by limiting government control.

 
 

In 2C, I will argue that innocent people should not be taxed alongside criminals and that law abiding citizens should keep the right to protect themselves with handguns. RU BLUE LINE: HYPHENATE In 3C, I will also argue that innocent people should have the right to protect themselves. In 4C, I will argue that guns are different from cigarettes and cars. In 5C, I will argue that criminals will have an advantage against the innocent. In 6C, I will argue that the government should have a limited role in gun ownership. In 7C, I will argue that there are many different factors such as firearms training.

 
 

2. Taxing handguns heavily is a tempting way to interrupt the criminal use of guns.

 
 

2A. “One tempting way to intervene between the manufacturer and the criminal end-use is to raise the price of weapons entering the market, perhaps by taxing handguns heavily.” James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, “The Great American Gun War: Some Policy Implications of the Felon Study,” in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 113.

 
 

2B. I disagree with the quote.

 
 

2C. I disagree with the quote 2A. The moral principle of Egalitarianism supports my claim. Egalitarianism is defined as as follows: 

“1. Treat relevantly similar cases similarly, and relevantly different cases differently.

2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly 

similar cases similarly or failing to treat relevantly different cases differently.

3. We should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of their own.

4. Exploitation - taking unfair advantage of an innocent person's predicament - is wrong.

5. We should regularly give significant amounts to charity.

6. No one should profit from his or her own wrong.

7. The punishment should fit (be proportional to) the crime.

8. Promises should be kept.

9. Merit should be rewarded.

10. Reciprocity is important.

11. Gratitude is important.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). 

 
 

Egalitarianism number three supports my disagreement on 2A because “we should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of their own.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF IF The tax would involve criminals and innocent gun owners together in the same tax when the focus of the tax is mainly for criminal use. GF Furthermore, increasing tax on handguns will not drastically change the criminal use of handguns. In addition, there are many other ways to acquire handguns illegally. IF For example, “Victims report to the Victim Survey that handguns were stolen in 53% of the thefts of guns. The FBI's stolen gun file's 2 million reports include information on 1.26 million handguns (almost 60%) 470,000 rifles (22%) 356,000 shotguns (17%).” (Source: Zawitz, Marianne. “Guns Used In Crime.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 1995. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF, last visited May 22, 2019). OF

My claim in 2B is also backed up my the moral principle of the prima facie principles. The definition of prima facie is as follows: SU BLUE LINE

“PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #1. Fidelity: Avoid breaking promises.

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #2. Veracity: Avoid telling lies.

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #3. Fair play: Avoid exploiting, cheating, or freeloading.

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #4. Gratitude: Return favors and appreciate the good others do for you.

 
 

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #5. Nonmaleficence: Avoid causing pain or suffering. Note: this is not the same as nonmalevolence, which concerns only motivation rather than causation.

 
 

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #6. Beneficence: Benefit others and cause them to be happier. Note: this is not the same as benevolence, which concerns only motivation rather than causation.

 
 

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #7. Reparation: Right your wrongs; repair the damage that is your fault.

 
 

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #8. Avoid killing except when necessary to defend against an immoral attack.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). 

 
 

Prima facie principle of nonmaleficence helps my disagreement because its purpose is to avoid pain and suffering. Raising the tax will prevent people from affording handguns, which prevents people from being able to protect their themselves and their families. Many handgun owners own guns for protection. RU BLUE LINE On a survey from gallup.com, it shows that 60% of people claim to own firearms for protection. (Source: Swift, Art. “Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today: Second Amendment rights, job with police or military are lower on list.”Gallup October 28,2013. https://news.gallup.com/poll/165605/personal-safety-top-reason-americans-own-guns-today.aspx, last visited May 22, 2019). OF

Preventing people from owning handguns will cause for pain and suffering to those who can not afford handguns and need them for protection

.

The principle of utilitarianism also supports my claim in 2B. The definition of utilitarianism is as follows: 

 
 

UTILITARIAN SLOGAN #1) Promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

 
 

UTILITARIAN SLOGAN #2) Each person counts for one and only one in calculating the maximum amount of happiness. (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). 

 
 

Utilitarian slogan number two helps my claim in 2B because in any society, people have different opinions on matters. Using a simple tally system for public policy does not show equal representation of a large section of society. Gun control is split between two political spectrums and simply having a minor majority does not equal greater happiness. 

 
 

The moral principle virtue number three defends my point against heavy taxes on handguns. CU ECONOMISTS ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD INTERNALIZE THE EXTERNALITIES OF ANY ACTIVITY, SUCH AS SELLING GUNS OR MANUFACTURING GUNS. WOULD YOU ALLOW THAT? WHY OR WHY NOT? The definition of the moral principle virtue is as follows.

“VIRTUE #1. Courage is a virtue and cowardice is a vice.

VIRTUE #2. Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.

VIRTUE #3. Kindness is a virtue and unkindness is a vice.

VIRTUE #4. Loyalty is a virtue and disloyalty is a vice.

VIRTUE #5. Gratitude is a virtue and ingratitude is a vice.

VIRTUE #6. Charity is a virtue and uncharitableness is a vice.

VIRTUE #7. Being forgiving exhibits a virtue and being unforgiving exhibits a vice.”(Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). 

 
 

The sub-principle number three in virtue supports my claim in 2B because the taxes will affect those who lawfully own guns. The purpose of the tax is to target criminal use of handguns; GF however, it is going to force innocent people to pay a tax for something they have not SU done. It is not kind to tax innocent people trying to express their Second Amendment rights.

The moral principle of libertarianism backs up my claim on 2B. The definition of libertarianism is as follows: 

“1.Anything RU BLUE LINE between consenting adults is morally permissible. Note that this does not mean that doing some things to an adult without his consent (for example, punishment) is immoral.

2. Laissez faire capitalism is morally required. This includes caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) rather than government safety or health regulations. In a libertarian nation, there would be no welfare state or government food stamps to save the poor. Private property is important.

3. Coercion (the deprivation of liberty) is wrong except to punish criminals, to defend against an immoral attack, and to supervise the mentally incompetent (for example, children, the senile, the retarded, and the insane). Paternalism against mentally competent adults is wrong. The definition of paternalism is restricting the freedom of another person allegedly for his/her own good.

4. Everyone must keep his/her promises. Fraud is wrong.

5. Government should be minimal. Government should be only a night watchperson limited to peacekeeping functions (for example, the police and the military), enforcing principles 1-4 above with as little force as possible.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4).OF FF

I disagree with the quote on 2A using libertarianism subprinciple number one because the government has not right to intervene when two consenting adults agree to buy and sell firearms. Libertarianism focuses on limited government and controlling what people buy is immoral. 

 
 

3. Using a handgun as self-defense will increase the likelihood of a fatality. 

 
 

3A. “The availability of a handgun and taking of a self-defense measure during an aggravated assault dramatically increased the likelihood of a fatality.” Matthew G. Yeager with Joseph D. Alviani and Nancy Loving, “How Well Does the Handgun Protect You and Your Family?” in Lee Nisbet, ed, The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 215. 

 
 

3B. I disagree with the quote. 

 
 

3C. I disagree with the quote stated in 3A, and the moral principle of egalitarianism number 1 supports my stance. IF FF Egalitarianism number 1 states; “Treat relevantly similar cases similarly, and relevantly different cases differently.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF The quote stated in 3A violates this egalitarian principle because IF it misrepresents the situation found within these criminal cases. Although it may be PU true that fatalities do increase when firearms are present, some of these fatalities are caused when the victim uses the weapon for self defense purposes. RU BLUE LINE In this case, the increased number of fatalities should not SU TU USE THE ACTIVE VOICE; SEE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY FOR THE ACTIVE VOICE be seen as a negative aspect of firearms, as the fatality was someone who actively sought to harm another person. Firearms give people the opportunity to protect themselves and their families from harm.


I disagree with the quote on 3A because IF it violates prima facie subprinciple eight. IF According to prima facie subprinciple eight, it is entirely justified for IF someone to kill in order to protect themselves and innocent bystanders. While it is tragic that some people may have to die, citizens must have a means to end a direct threat. If the handguns were taken away from society, the only people who would end up dying would be the victims. Handguns allow victims to fight back IU ADD: MORE EFFECTIVELY. While this may PU increase the number of fatalities overall, this number is meaningless because IF the people being killed are the ones disturbing the peace within society.

 
 

Utilitarianism number 1 supports the claim I IF make on 3B because IF allowing people to protect themselves brings about the most happiness within society. Utilitarianism number 1 states; “Promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF If citizens do not have a means of protecting themselves, then they will constantly become victim to various attacks within society. These crimes will continue because the criminals know that they have an inherent advantage over their defenseless victims. Arming citizens will increase the fatality count, but only among those wishing to inflict harm. It will ensure the maximum happiness for society because crimes will drop, as the risk for committing crimes will increase, citizens PU: ARE MORE APT TO FIGHT BACK EFFECTIVELY can fight back, and criminals are removed from society. 

 
 

A counter argument for the quote on 3A can be made by using the moral principle number four, “ Loyalty is a virtue and disloyalty is a vice.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF If citizens put their trust and loyalty to the law, then citizens should not be afraid of attacks; however, there are individuals that do not follow the law. Loyalty to the law is great, but it can not stop all of those who do not follow them. 

 
 

Libertarianism number three IF supports my claim on 3B because IF it is morally wrong to disarm a citizen of their right “to defend against an immoral attack.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF IF The quote is trying to advocate against the use of handguns for self-defense. The quote claims that the availability of a handgun will increase the likelihood of a fatality; however, the victim should have the right to defend themselves rather than letting the aggravated assault to take place. GF In addition, the availability to a handgun grants the user the ability to prevent an aggravated assault without taking a shot.

 
 

4. Using Handguns is Like Smoking Cigarettes & Driving Drunk

 
 

4A. “Public health campaigns have changed the way Americans look at cigarette smoking and drunk driving and can do the same for handguns.” Josh Sugarman “The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns,’ in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Duskin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 270. 

 
 

4B. I disagree with this quote. 

 
 

4C. Egalitarianism subprinciple number two supports my claim on 3B because it is discriminating against people who own and want to own handguns. Furthermore, the quote on 4A is violates egalitarianism subprinciple number one because the quote does not view the case differently. The quote on 4A is claiming that handguns are like smoking and drunk driving. handguns are equally harmful to the person who owns them. The quote on 4A cannot conflate these two items because cigarettes have been proven to damage a person's life while guns can be.

 
 

I disagree with the quote on 4A because it violates the subprinciple of prima facie number five which avoids causing “pain or suffering.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). There are laws already restricting gun ownership. Adding more restrictions causes unnecessary risk to those owning and them for self defense. 

 
 

Some argue that we should view handguns the same as cigarettes by using utilitarianism subprinciple number one promoting “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF Having safety commercials and informative advertising can raise awareness on how guns are used. Keeping the population informed will benefit many amounts of people.

A counter argument to the quote on 4A can be PU made with the moral principle virtue number two “Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF Having the ability to see the statistics of how guns are used is valuable information the the public. Seeing the numbers helps people push the government to make changes where it seems fit; however it will also show the defensive usage of handguns. The bad part about this is that both pro-gun and pro-gun control have the ability to cherry pick items to their political favor. 

The moral principle libertarianism number five supports my statement on 4B because government involvement should be minimal. Government should not have the ability to see what gun owners are doing with their firearms. There are background checks and records of each purchase of a firearm, so the government should not violate people’s right to privacy. 

 
 

5. Gun control has not proved to work and it removes the ability for the victims to use guns for RF:self-defense. Punishing the weapon instead of the person using the weapon defeats the reason for gun control. 

 
 

5A. "Gun control has proved to be a grievous failure, a means of disarming honest citizens without limiting firepower available to those who prey on the law-abiding. Attempting to use the legal system to punish the weapon rather than the person misusing the weapon is similarly doomed to fail." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 102. 

 
 

5B. I agree with this quote 

 
 

5C. I agree with this quote because it argues that gun control violates the third moral principle of libertarianism. The third principle states; “Coercion (the deprivation of liberty) is wrong except to punish criminals, to defend against an immoral attack, and to supervise the mentally incompetent (for example, children, the senile, the retarded, and the insane). Paternalism against mentally competent adults is wrong. The definition of paternalism is restricting the freedom of another person allegedly for his/her own good” (Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167.). Taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will do nothing to stop those who wish to inflict harm on others. Although killing others is wrong, people do have a right to self defense according to libertarian philosophy. The government should have no authority to restrict this fundamental right.

 
 

Taking away firearms from the hands of the public also violates egalitarian principle number 3. This principle states; “We should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of their own” (Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167.). Firearms are owned by civilians because they want an effective means of self defense. Crime will continue to play a role within society, and it is impossible for police to prevent all criminal activity from occurring. Denying people the right to protect themselves is counterproductive to their safety because they will always be vulnerable to an attack. This unnecessary suffering can be prevented through a decrease in overall gun control in America. 

 
 

I agree with the quote 5A because it argues gun control violates prima facie 3. This prima facie states; “Fair play: Avoid exploiting, cheating, or freeloading” (Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167.). If it is true that gun control only takes away guns from law abiding citizens, then criminals will have an advantage over their victims. This will then give the criminals the ability to exploit others without fear of retaliation. 

 
 

I agree with the quote of 5A because it violates the moral principle utilitarian slogan number two, “Each person counts for one and only one in calculating the maximum amount of happiness.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Restricting firearms from every citizen prevents those who want to own firearms. To give the maximum amount of happiness, government should let the citizens choose whether or not they want to own firearms. This gives every citizen an equal chance to be happy with or without firearms. 

 
 

The moral principle virtue number three, “Kindness is a virtue and unkindness is a vice,” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). supports my statement on 5B because gun control focuses citizens being kind to each other. The flaw in that is wishful thinking. Thinking that gun control will stop violence is not realistic. No matter how hard people fight for peace, there will be no true peace in this world. Yes there will be peaceful times; however, people will always fight for the things they believe in and not every mind is the same. Trying to be kind restrices RU REDLINE the people their right to protect themselves with handguns against those who are unkind. 

 
 

6. Gun control’s purpose is to disarm the people from rebelling from tyrannical governments. 

 
 

6A. "Gun control proponents, intent on disarming the American people, ignore history that reveals the greatest crimes against humanity occur when ruthless governments disarm and then kill powerless civilians." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167. 

 
 

6B. I agree with this quote. 

 
 

6C. I agree with the quote in 6A because it argues for the 5th principle of libertarianism. This principle states; “Government should be minimal. Government should be only a night watchperson limited to peacekeeping functions (for example, the police and the military), enforcing principles 1-4 above with as little force as possible” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). The Founding Fathers sought to create a free and open republic because they understood the terrors of living under a tyrannical government. A government can only abuse its people if they do not have a means of self defense, so the founding fathers ensured that the personal right to keep and bear arms would not be infringed by the federal government. Allowing the citizens to own guns will ensure that the government continues to perform its assigned duties, and will safeguard against any unwarranted power grabs. 

 
 

The quote in 6A also keeps the government honest, which coincides with virtue number 2. This virtue states; “Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Firearms will keep a government honest because they will keep the government accountable for its actions. According to social contract theory, the people have the right to overthrow a government if it begins to abuse its power. The problem begins when the people are not given a means to overthrow the government. If the people possess weapons of their own, then the government will always be wary of their actions, as any misstep might PU spell revolution. Firearms keep the government honest and within control of the people instead of the elite. 

 
 

Prima facie number eight supports my agreement on 6B by stating that citizens have the right to defend themselves from an immoral attack. In America’s history, American citizens used their guns to fight off the British. The reason we won the war was because we had the ability to bear arms. The right to bear arms no only keeps us safe from invading countries, but it also keeps our own government in check by limiting their power. In addition, It gives the citizens the right to fight back when our rights are in danger. 

 
 

Egalitarianism number four “Exploitation - taking unfair advantage of an innocent person's predicament - is wrong,” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). supports my agreement on 6B because this type of situation happens throughout history in many occasions. Not only did it happen during the Revolutionary War in America, it also happened in WWII Germany. Many civilians in WWII could not defend themselves against the oppressive government that was in power in Germany. Those who disagree with the quote on 6B believe that the American government today would not do such a thing; however, government will attain more power if the citizens keep giving them the power to write more laws. 

 
 

I agree with the quote on 6A by using the moral principle utilitarian slogan number two which states “ Each person counts for one and only one in calculating the maximum amount of happiness.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). To achieve maximum happiness, people should have the right to choose whether they want to own firearms or not. During the American Revolutionary War, there were two factions consisting of the patriots and the loyalists. Both had the decision on whether to fight the British or not. The ability to choose for oneself brings maximum happiness for individuals. 

 
 

7. There are no reliable statistics on how often guns are used to wound or scare away intruders. A handgun-toting civilian is likely to be killed or lose the handgun to a criminal than using the gun as self defense. 

 
 

7A. "How often are guns used merely to wound or scare away intruders? No reliable statistics are available, but most police officials agree that in a criminal confrontation on the street, the handgun-toting civilian is far more likely to be killed or lose his handgun to a criminal than successfully use the weapon in self-defense." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (F:RDushkin publishing Group, 1991), p. 268. 

7B. I disagree with this quote. 

 
 

7C. I disagree with this quote because it violates the first principle of egalitarianism. This principle states; “Treat relevantly similar cases similarly, and relevantly different cases differently.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Although the majority of civilians place themselves in further danger during tense situations, this is mainly due to a lack of firearm training instead of the firearm itself. There are plenty of scenarios in which a civilian with proper training and practice can easily diffuse a tense situation. The problem of civilian deaths can be alleviated with an increase in firearm awareness and training. These programs will ensure that firearms owners are responsible with their weapons, and can reliably use them for self defense. 

 
 

I disagree with this quote because it violates the first principle of libertarian, which states; “Anything between consenting adults is morally permissible. Note that this does not mean that doing some things to an adult without his consent (for example, punishment) is immoral.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Even if guns are extremely harmful for adults, they should be given the right to own one. It is not the government’s place to regulate what an adult chooses to do with his life. 

 
 

A counter argument to the quote in 7A uses the prima facie subprinciple number 5 to “avoid causing pain or suffering” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). If the citizen is untrained, then it is easy for the criminal to steal it from the owner and use the firearm against them. The absence of a gun will lower the chances of the criminal from obtaining a firearm. 

 
 

I disagree with the quote on 7A by using the moral principle of utilitarian slogan number two which states, “Each person counts for one and only one in calculating the maximum amount of happiness.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Many factors affect the outcomes of criminal confrontations. Firearm training is one of them; however people should choose whether or not they want to own a firearms for RF:self-defense. People get to choose whether or not to run or stand their ground. No matter what people choose, it maximizes the happiness in individuals because of the right to choose. Banning firearms will deprive a person of those choices.

 
 

I disagree with the quote on 7A by using the moral principle virtue number two that states “Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.” The quote on 7A states that the are no reliable statistics. The quote also assumes that most police officials agree that citizens are more likely to be killed if they owned a firearm. The quote is unreliable based on those two statements. 

 
 

8. Conclusion: Why Gun Control Should Avoid Harming Innocent Gun Owners 

 
 

In this paper, I will argued that gun control in America is immoral by using the five moral principles in chapter four of Sterling Harwood’s book, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual.I argued that limiting the ownership of firearms poses a risk to those who use them for self defense. :In addition, I argued that the focus on gun control is to regulate the criminal use of firearms; however, there are flaws when it comes to controlling gun ownership. Additionally, I argued that gun control affects innocent gun owners as well as criminals. Furthermore, I argued that gun control fails to stop the illegal sales of firearms through the black market. 

 
 

For my arguments, I used the moral principle of egalitarianism to treat different cases differently. In addition, I used the prima facie principle of nonmaleficence to avoid pain and suffering to lawful gun owners. Also, I used the moral principle of virtue to show the unkindness towards gun owners. Furthermore, used utilitarianism principle to show equal representation to those opposing gun control. Finally, used the moral principle of libertarianism to maximize individual freedoms by limiting government control. 

 
 

In 2C, I argued that innocent people should not be taxed alongside criminals and that law-abiding citizens should keep the right to protect themselves with handguns. 3C, I also argued that innocent people should have the right to protect themselves. In 4C, I argued that guns are different from cigarettes and cars. In 5C, I argued that criminals will have an advantage against the innocent. In 6C, I argued that the government should have a limited role in gun ownership. Finally, in 7C, I argued that there are many different factors such as firearms training. In conclusion, gun control is counterproductive because it affects law abiding citizens more than it affects criminals. 


* * * FAQ12: HAVE DOZENS OF QUOTES BY OR ABOUT CONFUCIUS (551-479 BC)?


  

1. “To see what is right, and not do it, is want of courage, or of principle.” ~ Confucius, quoted in Donald O. Bolander, Dolores D. Varner, Gary B. Wright, and Stephanie H. Greene, eds., Instant Quotation Dictionary (New York: Dell Publishing, 1972), p. 227.
 

2. “Honeyed words and flattering looks seldom speak of love.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), hereinafter abbreviated ‘SOC’, p. 1.
 

3. “Of a gentleman who is frivolous none stand in awe, nor can his learning be sound. Make faithfulness and truth thy masters: have no friends unlike thyself; be not ashamed to mend they faults.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 2. Compare: "Opposites attract" and "Birds of a feather flock together." Compare "Variety is the spice of life" & admiration for diversity & inclusion.
 

4. “A gentleman who is not a greedy eater, nor a lover of ease at home, who is earnest in deed and careful of speech who seeks the righteous and profits by them, may be called fond of learning.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 3.
 

5. “Not to be known should not grieve you; grieve that ye know not men.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 4. Compare the old saying: “It’s not what you know but who you know that counts.” Further, compare the counter-saying: “It’s not who you know that counts but who knows you.”
 

6. “Guide the people by law, subdue them by punishment; they may shun crime, but will be void of shame. Guide them by example, subdue them by courtesy; they will learn shame, and come to be good.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 5.
 

7. “At fifteen, I was bent on study; at thirty, I cold stand; at forty, doubts ceased; at fifty, I understood the laws of Heaven; at sixty, my ears obeyed me; at seventy, I could do as my heart lusted, and never swerve from right.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 5.
 

8. “If I talk all day to Hui [Confucius’s favorite disciple], like a dullard, he never stops me. But when he is gone, if I pry into his life, I find he can do what I say. No, Hui is no dullard.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

9. “Look at a man’s acts; watch his motives; find out what pleases him; can the man evade you? Can the man evade you?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

10. “He [a gentleman] is broad and fair; the vulgar are biassed [sic, biased] and petty.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

11. “Work on strange doctrines does harm.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

12. “Listen much, keep silent when in doubt, and always take heed of the tongue; thou wilt make few mistakes. See much, beware of pitfalls, and always give heed to thy walk; thou wilt have little to rue. If thy words are seldom wrong, they deeds leave little to rue, pay will follow.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 8.
 

13. Confucius, to a questioner, on why he is not in power: “What does the book say of a good son? ‘An always dutiful son, who is a friend to his brothers, showeth the way to rule.’ This also is to rule. What need to be in power?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, 1994), p. 8
 

14. “Without truth I know not how man can live. A cart without a crosspole, a carriage without harness, how could they be moved?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 9.
 

15. Confucius, to the questioner Tzu-chang, on whether we can know what is to be ten generations hence: “The Yin inherited the manners of the Hsia; the harm and the good that they wrought them is known. The Chou inherited the manners of the Yin; the harm and the good that they wrought them is known. And we may know what is to be, even an hundred generations hence, when others follow Chou.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 9.
 

16. “A friend to love, a foe to evil, I have yet to meet. A friend to love will set nothing higher. In love’s service, a foe to evil will let no evil touch him. Were a man to give himself to love, but for one day, I have seen no one whose strength would fail him. Such men there may be, but I have not seen one.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

17. “A scholar in search of truth who is ashamed of poor clothes and poor food it is idle talking to.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

18. “The chase of gain is rich in hate.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

19. “Be not concerned at want of place; be concerned that thou stand thyself. Sorrow not at being unknown, but seek to be worthy of note.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

20. “One thread, Shen [a particular disciple of Confucius], runs through all my teaching.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

21. “A gentleman considers what is right; the vulgar consider what will pay.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

22. “Who contains himself goes seldom wrong.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 20.
 

23. “A gentleman wishes to be slow to speak and quick to act.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, 1994), p. 20.
 

24. “The Master’s teaching all hangs on faithfulness and fellow-feeling.” ~ Tseng-tzu, quoted in SOC, p. 19.


Privacy Policy coming soon

faq13: have a sample paper on ancient aliens?

***WARNING: SAMPLE PAPERS ARE IMPERFECT PAPERS. EVEN THOUGH DR. HARWOOD HAS SPENT SOME TIME IMPROVING THESE PAPERS, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY ACTUAL PAPERS FROM ACTUAL STUDENTS THAT ACTUALLY MAKE ACTUAL MISTAKES. FOLLOW THE GOOD PARTS OF THEM & REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE BAD PARTS OF THEM. REFUSE TO FOLLOW THEM SLAVISHLY. TO TELL THE GOOD PARTS FROM THE BAD PARTS, SEE THE GUIDELINES A-Z COMING SOON TO THIS SITE AND THEN SEE DR. HARWOOD EARLY & OFTEN FOR MORE GUIDANCE AS YOU NEED IT.***

 
 

ANCIENT ALIEN THEORY IS TRUE: EXTRATERRESTRIALS HAVE VISITED EARTH

by an Anonymous Student

 
 

1. Introduction: Ancient aliens have visited earth in the past & have helped to shape our history 

 
 

In this paper, I will argue that ancient alien and astronaut theory is true and our ancestors have been visited by extraterrestrials from the past. Ancient alien theory is the hypothesis that at one time, extraterrestrial beings influenced our human culture, technology, and religion though being in contact with them.

GF Furthermore, I will argue that ancient aliens have once come down and have given us knowledge that our ancestors have used and replicated in the form of artifacts and relics. GF Also, I will argue our lore and legends of what we consider Gods were in fact in the image of these ancient aliens. I will be using the truth tips to help support the evidence and claims of the ancient alien theorist.

The counter-arguments in this paper will try to prove that ancient alien theory is invalid through the use of mockery, references to animals, impractical use of items, and experiments. However, I will argue that these counter-arguments are flawed due to the violation of the fallacies and the 7 truth tips I discuss below.

 
 

In 2C I will argue that humans are the cause for war rather than aliens. In 3C I will argue that the figurines of Tolima are depictions that aliens used flight to arrive to Earth. In 4C I will argue that the Nazca lines were a tribute for ancient astronauts to return. In 5C I will argue that the ancient astronauts are the Gods in our sacred text. In 6C I will argue that cave paintings and sculptures are depictions of ancient aliens. In 7C I will argue that ancient aliens have mapped our earth before humans. In 8C I will argue that ancient aliens created the Moai statues on Easter Island. In 9C I will argue that ancient astronauts were at the Egyptian sites where the pyramids were created. In 10C I will argue that astronomy was the gift given from humans to ancient astronauts. In 11C I will argue that Ancient aliens used the Bermuda triangle to as a star gate. 

 
 

2. Ancient aliens that visited the Earth are more friend than foe

 
 

2A. “Bramley’s thesis thus comes in two parts: First, the conspiracy to keep humankind enslaved. How? By continuously having us fight each other and making sure we are constantly either living in fear and/or slaves to something.” ~ Philip Coppens, The Ancient Alien Question, The Career Press Inc, 2012, p. 45.

 
 

2B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

2C. William Bramley’s counter argument consists of there being a hidden hand that consistently is stirring the pot to create war. He argues there is one organization that is globally telling every group that they are superior to another. GF Furthermore, he proclaims that it's strange humans are divided through skin color and race when humans proclaim to have similar spiritual souls within.

 
 

War has been a part of humanity since the beginning of time. There are many reasons that humans will fight each other without the need of alien persuasion. Wars have been started over territory, economy, slavery, and even religion. War happens often whether it's organized or disorganized. In the case of the Parthian war, the need to pillage and take the spoils of war was more than enough of a reason to fight. “One can picture the Parthian invasion not as an organized campaign but as a multipronged swarm of steppe warriors year after year chopping a swath through the center of the former Persian Empire. After taking one town and absorbing its resources, they would soon move on to the next.”(Stephen Tanner, Afghanistan, Da Capo Press, 2002, p. 57).

 
 

There are so many sites around the world where alien intervention is the answer. Many wondrous places such as Egypt show that alien technology assisted in creating beautiful structures and monuments that were too heavy to complete in a short timeframe. Even pyramids of Mexico are placed in a sense that shows signs of knowledge in astrology at a time where the solar system was difficult to understand. The Moai statues in Easter Islands were carved at a time where completion would be difficult to achieve. Ancient aliens have assisted humankind of friendship rather than antagonism.

 
 

3. The Tolima figurines of Columbia are depictions of space jets

.

3A. "Don't you think that alien technology that is capable of travelling from another star would look more exotic than modern day fighter jets? In my mind, no matter how I look at it, the idea behind the Tolima fighter jets is just plain silly." ~ Vernon Macdonald, Ancient Aliens Exposed: Debunking UFO's, Ancient Astronauts and Other Unexplained Mysteries, CreateSpace publishing, 2013, p. 82.

 
 

3B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

3C. Macdonald’s argument is invalid due to breaking truth tip 4. This states that any claims that are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear require clarification before acceptance. The issue with his claim is that it’s based on pure speculation and lacks any evidence to back his statement. The use the word silly is just too vague. GF Furthermore, it is premature to assume that the jets and crafts of extraterrestrial would not look similar to human shuttles based on aliens being advanced lacks reason

.

Ancient alien theorists explain their reasoning in why the Tolima figurines resemble fighter jets. Giorgio Tsoukalos argues, "Many of those figurines looked like insects and fish. However, out of those 100s that they found, they also found about a dozen that are eerily reminiscent of modern-day fighter jets." (Giorgio Tsoukalos, Ancient Aliens: The Evidence, History Channel, April 20, 2010) These figures must resemble jets. The figurine contains a cockpit, wings, elevator, horizontal and vertical stabilizer. It is agreed upon ancient alien theorists that since many of these figurines are animals, the other dozen must be a figure of a flying aircraft considering that there is no insect or bird with a vertical wing such as a vertical stabilizer. This was the Colombian natives’ way of depicting how the ancient astronauts arrived on this planet.

Since birds and insects are ruled out, there is another animal that could have been replicated in this fashion. Ancient aliens debunker Chris White believes that this could be a portrayal of a fish. He argues that it is reminiscent of the a type of catfish. RU FIX THE REDLINING "One fish that the Tolima would have been familiar with is the sucker mouth catfish." (Chris White, Ancient Aliens Debunked, Independent film, 2012.) He claims that the characteristics of the catfish explain the fins and eyes. Furthermore, he also states that the Tolima had an artistic style, so many of the figurines are going to be a bit off in comparison to the animal it was inspired from. The counter argument to this claim is that the Tolima fish figurines all have a dorsal fin in common. Sucker mouth catfish have dorsal fins on their back. There is little reason that the natives would forget to add a dorsal fin to a figurine when they have done so to the others that resemble fish.

 
 

In an experiment, one of the Tolima figurines was created five times its size with a working motor to test its flight capabilities. The experiment was a success explaining that the creators of the figurines had some knowledge in aerodynamics. Likewise, across the world, a similar artifact found in Egypt also existed. The Saqqara bird was a sleek figurine with a rudder where a tail would normally fit. After testing, the conclusion was that the Saqqara bird was capable of flight. Algund Eenboom states, "Tests show that the Saqqara bird is a highly developed glider." (Dr. Algund Eenboom, Ancient Aliens: The Evidence, History Channel, April 20, 2010) In two different places, two models were shown with shapes of a modern jet, were capable of flight

.

4. The Nazca lines were created by Nazca people to catch the attention of ancient aliens, a way to navigate them, and even a way to land their crafts

 
 

4A. "Just because it looks like and airstrip doesn't mean it's an airstrip. This idea simply lacks any kind of common sense. Of course that's never stopped the Ancient Alien crew. They've built an entire show on it!" ~ Vernon Macdonald, Ancient Aliens Exposed: Debunking UFOs Ancient Astronauts And Other Unexplained Mysteries, CreateSpace Publishing, 2013, p. 66.

 
 

4B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

4C. This argument is invalid and defective under the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Vernon Macdonald’s argument is unclear and vague in his statement while attacks the ancient alien theorist by commenting on their common sense. The Nazca line is a 200 square mile area that is dated in 500 BC. The lines consist of designs of animals, intricate mathematical diagrams as well as hundreds of straight runway lines that stretch for many miles. It is clear that these lines and designs are difficult to visually be seen when on the ground, but they become very clear displays when viewed from the air.

 
 

Flight has been an idea that eluded man for quite for centuries. The first hot air balloon was created by Joseph Michael and Jacques Etienne Montgolfier in 1783. Meanwhile, the Wright brothers success to flight was in the early 1900’s.

At the time of the Nazca natives, flight has yet to be invented. For a group of people to have created designs and that must be seen in full when in the air, one must conclude that the people of Nazca created the Nazca lines for someone with advanced technology. Ancient aliens theory fits this so well. The theory is that the ancient aliens landed in this area, been in contact with the Nazca, and returned to space. The Nazca people would then have seen the technology and even receive goods such as food and consider the extraterrestrial as Gods. In hope that they would return, the Nazca people created the Nazca lines not only as way to pay tribute, but also as a landmark, a navigational marker, and even a landing strip for the ancient aliens to see and land when they return in the area.

The counter argument to this theory is typically focused on the soil of the Nazca plateau. It is well known that the actual terrain is too soft to support landing from the wheels of an airplane. Furthermore, Chris White argues by stating that an advanced spacecraft would hardly need such long airstrips to take off. When referring to the 15 mile Nazca line he explains, "It would be a pretty ineffective spacecraft if it took 15 miles for it to take off, or in an alternate explanation, it would need to drag on the ground for 15 miles before it stopped." (Chris White, Ancient Aliens Debunked, Independent film, 2012.) This argument is only valid if the people of Nazca understood the laws of flight as well as the knowledge of landing a craft. However, as mentioned earlier, the success of flight was in the 1700’s well after the time of the Nazca line creation. The Nazca people would have witnessed a flying craft land and would assume they needed room to land, but was unable to understand how much room is needed. Furthermore, they must have seen the landing tracks in the same fashion as we see from the Mars rover tracks on Mars today. The Nazca natives used this example to build a mock runway. There have been similar experiences when humans from an advanced world of technology met another who were still fairly primitive away from civilization

.

There have been past experience that indeed explains this theory. During World War II, some American airbases were operated on Vanuatu, an island in the South Pacific Ocean. The Americans landed on the island where they would set up bases and in return for the use of land, they supplied crates of food to the natives of Tanna who lived there. They were shared with some of the natives who received their first glimpse of advanced technology. Some of the items were washer machines, radios, and treats such as candy. Being a pre-industrial colony, the only explanation the people of Tanna have come up with was that the American soldiers were gods. To see a group of people coming from an UFO makes perfect sense that they would be mistaken for a higher being. When the Americans departed, the natives decided built mock airplanes and airstrips as a way to appease and entice the gods so they can PU bring more goods to them. David Childress explains that this is how the cargo cult religion was created. “The islanders scratched their head and they all said to themselves 'wow wasn't it great when all these planes came out of the sky and gave us free cans of corn beef and stuff. We really liked that cargo.' Entire religions sprung up from this where priest actually said yes you know that was our dead ancestors sending us cargo.” (David Childress, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009.) The Nazca natives would react in a similar fashion when the ancient aliens landed. Here we have Ancient aliens coming down to Peru, meeting with the people of Nazca, showing them their technological advances, and then vanishing before their very eyes. Following the departure, the people of Nazca create airways to assist the Ancient aliens to land as well as designs of animals large enough to gather the attention of the aliens.

 
 

5. The Ancient aliens that visited the earth are the Gods that were written about throughout religious text and scriptures

5A. " Why is so absurd for aliens to come when it's completely acceptable for God to intervene in human history? The difference is Von Daniken's arguing that aliens came and gave technologies to people to advance those cultures. So basically they gave objects, they gave new ideas, and technologies and those cultures advanced because of that. Whereas, at least in the Bible it's not like God gave humankind a magic watch or a new missile that they can use to defeat their enemies. God gives instructions, at least the bible records, that god gives instructions on how to live but not how to build new devices that further or advance a specific culture." ~ Robert R. Cargill, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009.

 
 

5B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

5C. Cargill’s argument breaks the fallacy of failing to follow Occam’s Razor. On one hand, the ancient alien theory states that humans on earth have learned or witnessed technology from extraterrestrial intervention. There are many cases to be made from the craftsmanship of the statues of Easter Island to the precision of the Saksaywaman walls that modern technology would struggle to replicate today. On the other hand, the theory of Bible states that God came down to give humans guidance to a way of life, the promise of the spirit to live for an eternity after death and spiritual gifts. When two theories are conflicting, Occam's Razor suggest to choose the simpler of the two theories. Ancient alien theory would be the simplest explanation considering there are physical evidence in comparison to just having faith in believing burning and snakes that speak.

 
 

In the Bible, the scriptures were based on what people have seen or witnessed. There would be claims that God came down to give his wisdom. In this case, they would witness an extraterrestrial descending down from the skies in a flying contraption and mistaken them as the gods of this planet. In the case of Ezekiel, the prophet saw beings coming down on a flying machine with the roars of thunder. For a time that would not have understood advanced technology, the roars of thunder or waterfall would describe the sound the main engine. Ezekiel talks about a wheel within a wheel which better describes advanced aerial technology in comparison to the super natural. In fact, Nasa created an omni wheel, a wheel that can drive and slide in multiple directions, that is patented by once Nasa employee J.F. Blumrich. This device was created based off the interpretation of the wheel within a wheel from Ezekiel's description.

 
 

Most religions have similar descriptions of how their god arrived. The Sanskrit of India also describe similar chariots in the air called Vimanas. The common descriptions of Vimanas are flying machines that are created out of metal. In two different religions, we have vehicles coming down from sky. Often they are written in a sense of arrival in a spectacular fashion, giving orders to the people on how to live, and vanishing into the skies while promising to return one day. If we take that concept in a literal sense, it’s apparent that ancient aliens came down and communicated with us before flying back to what many of would consider the heavens at that time.

 
 

One of the main counter arguments is that the context of the scriptures are taken too literal. Ilia Delio argues interpretation needs to be taken metaphorically. “The ancients use myth, metaphor, and images to describe their experience to God. I think what we don't want to want to fall to is a type of fundamental literalism.” (Sister Ilia Delio, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009.) This was at a time where writing was a new skill. The ancient people must have written down exactly they saw because of the importance of that moment. They would want to document what they saw knowing that it would be important to our history.

 
 

6. Ancient cave galleries and sculptures show aliens traveled to earth in similar astronaut suits that we use today.

 
 

6A. “There exist ‘rock art galleries’ in caves in Australia that contain pictographs of what appear to be humanoid beings dressed in garb that is very similar to modern spacesuits. More often than not, these beings are pictures with flying objects either above them or in the background.” ~ Vincenzo J. Macrino, Humanity -- The Alien Project: an Ancient Astronaut Theory, Bridger House Publishers, 2013, p. 254.

 
 

6B. I agree with this quote.

 
 

6C. Many artifacts that are considered as religious are often sculpted in the image of what the person saw. In the case of the rock gallery in Australia, the drawings of are creatures that look humanoid with a type of barrier around them that would symbolize a space suit. Furthermore, in Sego Canyon there are petroglyphs that show humanoid characters with helmets and even antennae attached. Also, there is one particular drawing of four humans looking up as one taller figure is ascending into the sky. In Italy, some drawings in cave show a person with a spherical object around their head depicting a space helmet as one is angled to be floating next to his fellow astronaut. In three different areas on the world, there very similar drawings of astronaut helmets of each other depicting other worldly beings.

There are sculptures around the world that are carved in what ancient astronaut theorists believe in the image of aliens in astronaut suits. One sculpture in Tikal, the ruins of Guatemala City is carved in a way that depicts a man in what appears to be a space suit. GF Furthermore, there is a helmet, controls near the hands and a breathing apparatus where the mouth would be. It is very compelling considering there are many other sculptures of what looks to be astronauts or space shuttles from different periods of time in countries that would have very little contact with each other hundreds of years ago.

 
 

One of the most famous sculptures Palenque is the sarcophagus of Lord Pakal. Many archeologists see this depicting King Pakal descending into the underworld. They also agree that the three main symbols being the vision serpent, celestial bird, and the world tree are depicted. My argument against this theory is the fact that the vision serpent in this case is depicted in a way that would be uncommon. The vision serpent is typically depicted as a creature with snake body and a human head. In fact, the human head often resembles the same face that was sculpted on Lord Pakal in this very carving. Lord Pakal’s face is on the opposite side of the theorized vision serpent.

 
 

Ancient astronaut theorist have another explanation in comparison to the underworld theory. Tsoukalos gives a description of this theory. "We have maintained for a very long time that the depiction here is king Pakal sitting in some kind of spacecraft. He is at an angle like modern-day astronauts upon lift-off" (Giorgio Tsoukalos, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009) When looking closely at the sarcophagus, one will see Pacal with a assisted breathing, both hands working the control board and the flames from the main engines in the back.

 
 

7. Ancient aliens have mapped the Earth 

 
 

7A. "A spaceship hovers high above Cairo and points its camera straight downward. When the film is developed, the following picture would emerge: Everything that is in a radius of about 5,000 miles of Cairo is reproduced correctly, because it lies directly below the lens." ~ Erich von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods, The Berkeley Publishing Group, 1999, pp. 18-19.)

 
 

7B. I agree with this quote.

 
 

7C. The famous Piri Reis map is unlike any other map of its time. In comparison the map is much more detailed in the way it looks as well as the land itself. In fact, there are land masses that have yet to be discovered. The Piri Reis map was compiled in 1513 where Antarctica was rumored to be first seen in the early 1800's. GF Furthermore, the coast of Antarctica on the map was illustrated of the actual land mass that is under the ice. In other words, the knowledge of the contents on the map must have been known at such a time before Antarctica contained ice. When cartographers laid the map onto modern maps, the illustration fit precisely enough to make them wonder how such an old map from centuries earlier could have mapped rivers and land formations before they were even discovered by any human.

 
 

8. Ancient Aliens created the Moai statues when stranded on Easter Island

 
 

8A. "A small group of intelligent beings was stranded on Easter Island owing to a technical hitch. The stranded group had a great store of knowledge, very advanced weapons, and a method of working stone unknown to us, of which there are many examples around the world." ~ Erich von Daniken, Gods From Outer Space, Bantam Books, 2000, p. 118.

 
 

8B. I agree with this quote.

.

8C. Easter Island is a Chilean Island that is very remote and for the most part uninhabited. Ancient alien theorists argue that a group of aliens were stranded and demonstrated to the indigenous group on creating structures. Once the aliens were saved, they left with just a few statues complete while the people of Easter Island tried to replicate and complete the unfinished statues only to fail due to the difficulty of transport of the stone.

 
 

Archeologist agree and counter argue with two main points. The first being the Moai were carved by man with simple tools. The second point being that the Moai were moved with wooden rollers and rope. In terms of the first point, stone carving tools have been discovered on Easter Island around the year 2012. Many of them were found in the quarry where the Moai were sculpted. I agree with this considering there is evidence of tools being near and capable of sculpting volcanic rock.

With the second point, it is accepted that the statues were moved to their location due to the volcanic rock used to create the Moai are in a different location of the island. Most archeologist accept the principle and counter argument that the people of Easter Island moved the Moai with wooden rollers and rope. The ancient alien counterargument is the Islanders had scarce food, resources, and the manpower to really move and create over eight hundred stones standing nearly thirty feet tall. Easter Island at one point had trees when archeologist comfirmed using pollen analysis. Chris white, an ancient alien debunk theorist, explains that replicated experiments have been successful. "It seems they are aware that there have been successful experiments moving Moai with wooden sleds and minimal workers. So, ancient aliens have to do what they do best, create a false dilemma." (Chris White, Ancient Aliens Debunked, Independent film, 2012.) While the first part of his statement is true, I would give the counter argument of the conditions of these experiments. In the example where ropes are tied to Moai, the people tug in a heave-ho rhythm that walks the statue forward on a perfectly flat dirt road. Likewise, the example of the wooden rollers, the wood lain upon a flat bed of rocks to help the wood glide when the heavy statue was placed upon them. Easter Island is quite the opposite. The terrain is quite rough with large rocks lain everywhere as well as many slopes due to the hills. The use of this method would be rather difficult to use for the wooden rollers to travel through tall grass, rocks, and uneven dirt. The heave-ho technique would have been proven useless on anything but flat land.

 
 

In terms of Daniken's theory, the scenario would play out this this fashion. A group of ancient aliens were stranded on Easter Island. There they meet the natives and show them their technological advances by creating Moai and moving them to the outskirts of the island. Once rescued, the aliens left with their knowledge and tools. The natives try to replicate this and even carve out a few stones, but failed during the transport. On the Island there are Moai that have been destroyed completely or simply broken at the neck. This would be due to the attempt to transport them with wooden rollers.

 
 

9. The Egyptians received a hand in ancient astronaut technology to build the pyramids

 
 

9A. "The pyramids were also built in a rock quarry for the likely purpose of cutting down on the distance the stones had to be moved. The evidence for anti-gravity beams or other such exotic technology being used is zero." ~ Vernon Macdonald, Ancient Aliens Exposed: Debunking UFOs Ancient Astronauts And Other Unexplained Mysteries, CreateSpace Publishing, 2013, p. 49.

 
 

9B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

9C. Macdonald breaks truth tip 5. The truth tip states claims using extreme words, such as zero, without a qualifying word is likely false. Macdonald claims that anti-gravity or other advanced techniques were absent, but the math and statistics support that it would have taken much longer than twenty two years to complete by primitive tactics. In terms of creating the Pyramid of Giza in 22 years, Giorgio Tsoukalos supports this theory that the Egyptians would have had to work at an amazing pace. "Logistically speaking you would have to cut, transport and put into place one stone every nine seconds." (Giorgio Tsoukalos, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009). It is common belief among the archeologist that the pyramids were either created in or near a quarry. This is due to the efficiency of working near the source material being so close thus removing the harsh effort of moving heavy stones to great distances. That much is agreed upon. French scientist, Jason Davidovits, who through chemical analysis has discovered that many parts of the pyramids in Egypt are actually unnatural geopolymer. In fact, when studying three pyramids (that is, Cheops, Teti, and Sneferu) the quarry samples shown a difference in material. The Sneferu samples were roughly 96% calcite while the Teti and Cheops were composed of 85%. Furthermore, many of the stones that are assumed to be geopolymer consisted of Opal CT and silico-aluminate while the natural quarries failed to contain such material.

 
 

If the quarry are of different composition, why do archeologist believe it to be of same material as the natural stone? Advanced alchemy must have played a role through higher technology. If natural stone was quarried and placed with other materials, there would be a chemical reaction that would create what we would consider a type of mortar. With this, it would create a geopolymer with the physical consistency of natural quarry. Furthermore, this mortar has proven to be more superior than modern cement. The cement used to restore Egyptian monuments which had already started to degrade only after half of a century. This also explains how accurate each stone is placed upon each other so precise where there is little to no space in between one placed stone onto another

.

10. Ancient aliens gave humans Knowledge of Early Astronomy

 
 

10A "It was a known fact back then already that the Sun was the center of our solar system which western science did not find out until much much later." ~ Giorgio Tsoukalos, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009. 

 
 

10B. I agree with quote.

 
 

10C. There are common sites around the world that have structures that align with the model of our solar system. In the Teotihuacan avenue of the dead in Mexico, the pyramids align in perfectly modeling the orbit of our solar system. Furthermore, the temple of Sun is positioned in a way that represents the Sun. The smaller pyramids are modeling the orbit around the temple of the Sun. Likewise at Stonehenge, one would see that they line up in perfect orbiting circles when seen from an aerial view. Those circles also represent the orbit with the planets in our solar system. The main counter argument is simply it's just a coincidence, but there are other sites that have similar evidence that these structures were built with a purpose in astronomy. The stone temples of Tikal have a layout that is in the shape of the Pleiades portion in the Orion constellation. Also a cluster of land on mars is in the same pattern.

11. Extraterrestrials are using the Bermuda triangle as a gateway.

 
 

11A. “Anytime you have energy generated at all especially from a higher plane a higher dimension, it’s going to be rotation by spin that allows that energy through, so by definition such energy emissions are going to be vortexes. So vortex and gateway are the same thing.” (Michael Bara, Ancient Aliens: Mysterious Places, History Channel, October 28 2010). 

 
 

11B. I agree with this quote.

 
 

11C. On earth we have areas where earth’s magnetic field are higher than average. The Bermuda triangle is the area that covers within the three points of Miami, Puerto Rico, and Bermuda. From planes mysteriously disappearing to the compass of Christopher Columbus, the Bermuda triangle is an area that interferes with our technology. Many planes and crew members have been reported missing, but one pilot that experienced such technical difficulties lived to tell his story. Pilot Bruce Gernon was piloting through the Bermuda when his plane started to malfunction. He claims going through a vortex of fog and strange lights. "The tunnel was huge at first but then it started getting smaller rapidly. When I penetrated through the tunnel and incredible thing happened. These lines instantly formed. It was like looking through a rifle barrel." (Bruce Gernon, Ancient aliens: Mysterious Places, History Channel, October 28th, 2010) Furthermore, when he exited the vortex and contact Miami air traffic control, they could not locate his plane on the radar until three minutes later. Gernon arrived from the Bahamas to Florida in thirty minutes when the average flight is about one hour. In terms of Einstein's theory of relativity, bending space to create a wormhole to decrease the time of travel. This would be the ideal choice for extraterrestrials.

In Mexico, the zone of silence is an area where technology tends to fail. Strange occurrences happen here. David Childress argues it is an abnormal place. "It's completely bizarre. There's strange rocks everywhere, there's strange animals living in the area. You feel a strange tingling when you're there." (David Childress Ancient Aliens: Mysterious Places, History Channel, October 28 2010) Pilot Francisco Sarabia first discovered the abnormalities when flying over and his radio malfunctioned. This area has also attracted a missile from Utah that was meant to hit another part of Mexico. In this practice launch, the missile overflew its target and landed into the zone of silence. This zone has some relation with the Bermuda triangle and its magnetism. Furthermore, it's also considered Mexico's Bermuda triangle since it shares the same latitude plane as certain portions of the Bermuda triangle.

 
 

12. Conclusion: Ancient alien theory is true

In conclusion, there are numerous reasons to believe that ancient astronauts have come down to Earth at one point in our time. I have provided evidence that supports the ancient astronaut theory. I have used the fallacies and truth tips to counter argue those who continue to attempt to debunk ancient alien theory. Ancient astronauts have come down to Earth and have had an impact in our technology. Furthermore, they have shaped our religious beliefs in many lands to where they are today. There will always be skeptics ready to disprove with evidence and even sometimes slander and insults, but the truth is out there to see. With ancient alien theory, the world makes a bit more sense to understand.


* * * FAQ14: HAVE QUOTES BY OR ABOUT ARISTOTLE? * * *


For more, see the very powerful quotes about Aristotle (& Plato) from Carl Sagan’s book Cosmos, around page 100.


1. “[I]n everything natural there is something marvelous.” ~ Aristotle, quoted in Creating Foundations, History International Channel (HINT), first aired 12/27/2007.


2. "We will have an economy that works for you. Let us declare that we will call upon bold thinking to address the disparity of income in America, which is at the root of the crisis of confidence felt by so many Americans. As Justice Brandeis said: ‘We may have democracy or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’ We must end that injustice and restore the public’s faith in a better future for themselves and their children. We must be champions of the middle class, and all those who aspire to it, because the middle class is the backbone of our democracy. It has been since the birth … It has been since the birth of our democracy. Aristotle said: ‘It is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class in which the middle class is large and stronger than any of the other classes.’ We must fight for the middle class that is fair and fiscally sound, protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security." ~ Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, 1/3/19.


3. “All would acknowledge, then, that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior.” ~ Aristotle, quoted in Creating Foundations, History International Channel (HINT), first aired 12/27/2007.


4. "For Aristotle, life with Philip's Pages may not have been so harmonious.  He later wrote penetratingly on the trusting and emotional nature of the young, who prefer the noble to the useful.  'Their errors are on the grand scale, born of excess ... unlike the old they think they know it all [al]ready.'  Equally, they 'do not keep quiet of their own accord,' wrote Aristotle, but 'education serves as a rattle to distract the older children.'...” ~ Robin Lane Fox, The Search for Alexander (Little, Brown and Company, 1980), pp. 66-68.


5. “The riddle [of where birds go in winter] has befuddled some of the world’s greatest minds for hundreds of years. In the fourth century BC, Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher and scientist, hypothesized that birds transformed from one species to another.” ~ Don Wildman, Narrator and Host, “Arrow Stork, Terror in the Sky and Feuding Astors,” Mysteries at the Museum, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 7/22/2016.

faq15: dr. harwood on rocket science & a moon hoax?

  Last Revised 7/20/19


For the record, Dr. Harwood thinks Neil Armstrong probably landed on the moon but that this is getting less likely with each passing year in which: 1) there is no US postage stamp honoring Neil Armstrong with either his name or face on it; and 2) in an age of rapidly progressing technology and massive amounts of lying, there is no one else who even dares to claim he or she landed on the moon after December 1972, almost 47 years ago.  Dr. Harwood knows that, by law, only the dead may be honored on a US postage stamp.  But he also knows that Neil Armstrong joined the ranks of the dead on August 25, 2012, more than 7 years ago.


THE MOON LANDING HOAX? NIXON’S THE ONE 


Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D., Evergreen Valley College


“We are the nation that dug out the Panama Canal, won two World Wars, put a man on the Moon, and defeated Communism. We can do anything.”

—President Donald Trump, campaign speech, Phoenix, Arizona, 22 August 2017.


“Don’t let anyone tell you we’re going to get on rocket ships and live on Mars. We couldn’t even evacuate the city of New Orleans. This [Earth] is our home.”

—Former Vice President Al Gore, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” (2017).


I. Introduction: 20% of Americans Doubt the U.S. Landed Men on the Moon


Time magazine reports that 6% of Americans believe the U.S. never landed men on the Moon and another 5% of Americans have enough doubts that they are undecided on the issue.

(http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860871_1860876_1860992,00.html, Time, 2009, last retrieved 26 October 2014.)


That’s a total of 11% of Americans, essentially one in every nine. So, with an average jury of our peers, you would be unable to get a unanimous jury of 12 to oppose the conspiracy theory that the Moon landings were faked. 

MythBusters, a famous television show on the Discovery and Science channels, reported in their show entirely devoted to the subject that 20% of Americans doubt the U.S. landed men on the Moon.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz7cUP4o-ZQ, “NASA Moon Landing Hoax,” first aired 27 August 2008; posted 27 November 2011; MythBusters, last retrieved 7 February 2015.)


Assuming Americans are less likely to doubt American achievement than others are, what are we to make of this fifth of humanity who doubts the American achievement of the Moon landings? Have all these people, over one billion of them, taken leave of their senses?


What is the weirdest thing that just might surprise us by turning out to be true? It would be that at least some of the Moon landings, especially Apollo 11, were hoaxes. What is the most unlikely conspiracy theory that still has a surprising amount of evidence for its bizarre claims? It is the theory that no human has ever landed on the Moon. There are at least 27 reasons to question President Richard Nixon’s claim that all six landings of men on the Moon in history occurred from July 1969 to December 1972 during the first term of his abbreviated presidency. I will detail all 27 reasons below.

Why should we start to have any doubt at all about President Nixon’s claim that he is the only person in history who has commanded men who landed on the Moon? The short answer is that some reasonable doubt, some healthy skepticism, about even our most fundamental beliefs is logically required by critical thinking. Critical thinking in philosophy requires us to question, and question seriously, even our most fundamental beliefs, such as whether the God billions of us believe in even exists, whether there really is any kind of afterlife at all, and whether we really have the freedom of action that we all feel we have. Given how deep philosophers and critical thinkers are used to questioning, questioning the claims of a notorious politician, the only President and Commander in Chief to resign in American history, is really not a stretch.


It is much easier to question the Moon landings now than it was in 1969, when the first Moon landing allegedly occurred. For the last 50 years or so have seen President Kennedy’s assassination and the deeply unconvincing governmental explanations of how he was murdered, the lies of thePentagon Papers exposed about the conduct of the Vietnam War, the governmental lies about Watergate exposed (including the classic governmental statement that all previous statements about the Watergate crimes were now inoperative), the lies of the Iran-Contra scandal of trading arms to terrorists, the sexual lies of President Clinton leading up to his impeachment, and the lies about 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, and how war would go, all leading us to war in Iraq. [See, generally, Alterman (2004)]


True, by July of 1969, the month of the first alleged Moon landing, we had years of experience with lies about President Kennedy’s assassination, but the Pentagon Papers became public knowledge only in 1971. [Sheehan, Smith, Kenworthy, Butterfield & Ellsberg (1971)] But it is still easier now to disbelieve government than it was in 1969 to disbelieve government. The U.S. had yet to lose the Vietnam War; it had yet to see an American president resign, yet to see an American president impeached in the 20th century, etc. Let’s turn to the 27 reasons for some healthy skepticism about Nixon’s claim, undeterred by the fact that we are flying in the face of public opinion. After all, billions believe in God, and yet it is completely legitimate to ask whether God exists and how we could know such a fundamental truth. Philosophers, logicians, and critical thinkers are familiar with the argumentum ad populum fallacy, which says it is a logical mistake to assume that what most people believe—or even what everyone believes—must therefore be true.


We proceed with an open mind. It should be a “slam dunk” to show that America landed men on the Moon. But even National Basketball Association players sometimes miss slam dunks and we’ve heard Central Intelligence Agency directors falsely tell our leaders that it is was a slam dunk that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq when America invaded under President George W. Bush. Nixon and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have some things in common. Some of its critics joke that “NASA” doesn’t stand for “National Aeronautics and Space Administration” but instead stands for “Never A Straight Answer.” That reputation fits with Nixon’s reputation as “Tricky Dick.” So here are the 27 questions I would like answered to eliminate reasonable doubts that Nixon landed men on the Moon six times. After all, we want to have an open mind, but not a mind so open our brains fall out. We should question authority and demand answers, answers that are well-supported enough by evidence to withstand rational, critical scrutiny.


II.  26 Reasons to Start to Doubt that Men Ever Landed on the Moon


1. Is it likely that the only six alleged Moon landings in human history all happened during the shortened presidency of Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon, who was so dishonest and corrupt that he’s the only President of the United States ever to resign from the office? What was on the 18-minute gap of tape that was supposedly accidentally erased? Did the tape contain secrets of Watergate? Did the tape have secrets of President Kennedy’s assassination? Did the tape include secrets of the lunar landings? We will probably never know the contents of the 18-minute gap. It does seem statistically unlikely, given a random distribution of technology and ego/ambition that all the right stuff for a Moon landing would wind up only in America and only from 1969 to 1972. That’s a suspiciously narrow range in history headed by a known crook who infamously needed to say from the President’s bully pulpit, “I am not a crook!” before having to resign anyway. What a disgrace!


2. Is it likely that no other nation would land on the Moon for more than 44 years if the technology to do so existed as early as 1969? The Soviets landed some laser reflectors on the Moon many years ago. [Ranen (2005)] Some Apollo missions supposedly orbited the Moon before Apollo 11. The Chinese, Japanese, Germans, British, French and others have technological prowess that could be turned to manned lunar landings. Even North Korea has nuclear technology and serious rocket technology. It is hard to believe that not a single dictator or other leader would try to distract or bolster his or her countrymen and women with a manned Moon shot to the lunar surface, especially given how lobbyists would love to pressure the leaders to fund such adventures. [Kaiser (2010) and Leech (2013)] It was an uncharacteristically egregious error for the MythBusters to close their discussion in 2008 with the argument that we must have landed men on the Moon because there is an American laser reflector there. This show, “NASA Moon Landing Hoax,” simply ignores Aron Ranen’s film from about three years before, which documented that the Soviets had landed a laser reflector on the Moon, yet the Soviets have never claimed to have landed a man on the Moon. Indeed, some scientists were reflecting lasers back from the Moon—with or without man-made laser reflectors—as early as 1962. Thomas Meloy wrote:


Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment.[Meloy (1966), p. 876, comma added after ‘ago.’]


3. Is it likely that the United States would never return to the Moon, especially now when more than 44 years of technological improvement has made it cheaper, easier and safer to go? I find this one of the most convincing considerations moving me closer to doubting Nixon. Lobbyists and military pressures to put a base on the Moon would seem to be irresistible over time. A 44-year record of consecutive failure to lobby for a return to the Moon is just statistically unlikely.


4. Why were no animals sent to the Moon before humans, given that animals were sent into earth orbit before humans were? I doubt this step was omitted on behalf of the animals. Possible explanations are that it would have undermined morale and support for NASA if the anticlimactic step were taken of sending a man to the Moon after a chimp or a dog were sent months before.


5. Was our technology in 1969 good enough to go? Just look at all those crashes and even the crashes today, yet no Apollo Moon landing mission had a crash or a fatality. Apollo 13 did have an explosion but no crash or fatality. The official story seems just a little too rosy to believe. The crash of the lunar lander piloted by Neil Armstrong on Earth in a trial that ended with him parachuting out makes me doubt whether 1969 technology was up to the task. Is it possible that Apollo 11 was a hoax but that the other Moon shots really did land men on the Moon? This would be a compromise position, which still involves a serious conspiracy.


6. Was Apollo 13 “made dangerous” to renew interest and prevent the ho-hum attitude after Apollo 11 and 12 landed so well; or did Apollo 13 show no Moon landing could be done with technology at the time?This conspiracy theory suggested in this question has a hoax within a hoax. As such, “Occam’s Razor,” named after excommunicated Franciscan Friar William of Occam (also known as Ockham), discourages us from accepting this scenario, since it appears to be more complex than the data requires. We ought to expect imperfections in the Apollo program. There are a lot of moving parts traveling at high speed over many miles with fallible humans in command.


7. Why are virtually no stars seen in lunar photos even though the Moon has no atmosphere to block their light? It would be hard to create a fake yet realistic pattern of stars and easy to detect such fakery. Is that the reason NASA astronauts, failing to live up to their name as astronauts (‘astro’meaning star, of course), failed to show any interest in the stars and did not set up a telescope to take pictures of stars almost a quarter million miles closer to them than any telescope on earth?


Some claim that stars are too faint to be captured with the shorter exposure settings the astronauts used, but that invites the question of why the astronauts used such short settings rather than longer ones readily available in the first place. Some answer that the brightness of the lunar surface would make photographing stars too hard anyway, but that begs the question of why NASA failed to use flanges to block out the surface light or develop another camera that could photograph stars better. Some photos do show at least one star, but billions ought to have been visible.


8. Are the lunar photos too high in quality given the difficulty of photographing with a helmet and thick gloves in a vacuum? Possible explanations include the level of training and the level of editing the photos released. Crummy photos, of course, could have been discarded or simply not released. But it would make more sense—some would say, much more sense—if they had been staged and framed instead, especially since the cameras were positioned on the front of their space suits and could not be focused or precisely framed.


9. How did the flag allegedly planted on the Moon wave without an atmosphere or wind? The official story is that the astronauts brushed up against the flagpole or flag and that this motion caused the flag to wave more than one would expect because there was no drag from air pressure to slow down the flag. One must look at each instance and decide for themselves if there was an astronaut brushing up against the flagpole or the flag every time a flag waves. I have seen some of the flags wave when this alleged brushing by an astronaut is unclear. It does have plausible deniability, though. I doubt this is among the strongest factors against manned lunar landings. MythBusters does its best trying to explain away the waving flag—but many of us remain unconvinced.


10. Did Apollo astronauts die mysteriously in single-vehicle accidents—and three others die on the launch-pad of Apollo 1—to keep them quiet? Apollo 1’s accident (1967) happened only two years before Apollo 11 (1969). There were no Moon landings of humans or animals in between the fatal accident of Apollo 1 and the supposedly successful Apollo 11 Moon landing. I lack the inside information to allege murder or a cover-up. But these deaths are certainly suspicious. [On Apollo whistleblowers generally, see Bennett and Percy (2001), but even they admit from the start: “Yes, our claims in this book do border on the incredible.” p. 1]


11. Why are the Apollo astronauts so tight-lipped when we need them as role models for young scientists and when they could make so much money telling their story? Neil Armstrong cooperated with an authorized biography called First Man. Note that it is not entitled, First Man on the Moon. In fact, I have never seen any press conference or speech in which Neil Armstrong introduces himself or allows himself to be introduced as the first man on the Moon. He butchered his first line allegedly delivered from the Moon: “That’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” Under the Jesuit doctrine of mental reservation, “One giant leap for mankind” could easily be intended as an incomplete sentence, lacking a verb, and so commits the speaker to no lie or false claim, since it lacks any claim at all. Further, is the leap Neil Armstrong refers to in that famous line merely a leap of faith? The most eerie part of a press conference he gave was where he refused to take any credit for being the first man on the Moon and instead admitted at his speech at the White House: “We have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of Truth’s protective layers.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1vFEwAJZQY, posted 20 June 1994, last retrieved 7 February 2015.)


12. Why did astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to set foot on the Moon, punch a guy who just asked him to explain some photos? Buzz is not the first celebrity to have an altercation with the paparazzi or fans, so I am inclined to put this consideration among the weakest of the reasons to deny manned lunar landings. One can see the incident on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU) and decide for oneself how seriously to take the affair. I avoid taking it seriously. He was called, to his face, a liar and a coward. People have fought over far less provocation. I once saw a fight in a bar start when one guy said to another, “Your mother sleeps with sailors for nickels.”


13. What should be made of the Fox News Channel video, “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,” showing images of Earth that were doctored shots out a porthole of the command module? This is hard for me to assess without access to the original film to search for signs of doctoring or editing. Still, that a mainstream news channel would question whether we landed men on the Moon must count as somewhat serious evidence against the veracity of the lunar landings. Undermining confidence in government is something in line with the political beliefs of those who founded, own and manage Fox News, however. On that basis we might discount this evidence somewhat. But it would be the fallacy of ad hominem argument to dismiss this evidence entirely because of purported political or anti-government bias at Fox.


14. Is it human nature or American nature to explore a new land and then never return for more than 44 years? I suspect not, but possible explanations include that manned Moon landings are inefficient. Machines can do more with less. I doubt this explanation, since lobbyists and ego of foreign leaders to match our accomplishment would probably send at least one manned probe to the lunar surface in 44 years, especially given the improvements in technology that have subsequently taken place.


15. Was too much dust left undisturbed by the supposed lunar landing? Would a genuine lunar landing have disturbed much more of the lunar surface? Some videos show a vacuum cleaner disturbing more dust than the dust disturbed when the Eagle landed. Does the lunar dust, which scientists call regolith have special properties? I have yet to see a definitive debate by the experts. It is suspicious in the meantime. But one possible explanation is that meteorites and micrometeorites slam into the lunar surface with such speed and frequency that dust is vaporized, kicked out into space, or melted together into the regolith that covers the lunar surface. But if there was enough dust to make boot prints, there should have been displacement when the lander landed.


16. Does the letter “C” on a rock show that the Moon rock was a mere prop on a stage rather than on the Moon? Some explain this away by saying the “C” is really just a small, curly hair and they produce another version of the photograph without the “C” to try to prove this. It is common enough for hairs to creep into prints. If one believes the “good enough for government” work ethic, then it is easier to believe that a hair did creep in on one photo out of all the many photos. Further, the famous magicians and entertainers Penn and Teller did a television show on conspiracy theories and discussed this “C” rock. They simply asked their prop man if he had ever heard of a prop being labeled with a letter and he emphatically answered in the negative, using profanity to emphasize his denial. Did Penn and Teller show that their prop man was a representative sample of prop men? No, so we should avoid the fallacy of hasty generalization by overreliance on this one piece of testimonial evidence. But it was an expert opinion—and probably true. We should avoid appealing to the authority of one prop man, regardless of how experienced and knowledgeable he is. But where is the systematic survey of prop men and women that would shed more light on this point? Still, I find the “C” rock to be one of the least persuasive bits of evidence against the manned Moon landings.


17. Is slow-motion to half-speed the real explanation for the purported 1/6 gravity effects in the motion of the astronauts in “the lunar videos”? The film, Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the Moon? does a good job with this. But MythBusters (2008) have argued that the match is not precise enough to be the best explanation of the 1/6 gravity effects seen in the lunar videos. So this factor stands, for now, as at best a minor reason to doubt the lunar landings.


18. Is it likely that NASA would pass up using a telescope on the Moon with no atmosphere to block it and with the furthest reach for a starting point for telescopic investigation? I find it extremely difficult to believe that NASA would send six pairs of men to the Moon and none of them would set up a telescope. Possible explanations are the “optics” that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin discussed in a press conference when describing looking at the stars from the Moon. Perhaps these “optics” were telescopes of some sort. But this explanation is vague and in the next paragraph we shall see that no telescopes were left behind on the moon. But why is there no photograph from them or better description of the optics? Were they just glorified binoculars or filters on lenses of cameras? Another possible explanation is that even the existence of the telescopes is classified for national security, though I see no serious reason to keep the mere existence of telescopes classified.


As I noted above, there should be a premium for putting telescopes on the moon, since the Moon lacks an atmosphere, so the conditions for observing the stars would be ideal in that respect. One needn’t take my word for it. Consider this excellent observation that NASA astrophysicist Kimberly Ennico Smith recently made: “Actually, having a telescope on the moon in general would be wonderful because we don’t have the atmosphere in the way. And the atmosphere prevents us from seeing a lot of light. In fact, telescopes on the ground are really restricted to two wavelengths, the visible that our eyes can see and also the radio that can transmit through our atmosphere.  And having a telescope anywhere on the moon would allow us to see a whole range of light. Now if you were in the permanently shadowed part, you would have to, you know, deal with the technicalities of how you keep everything warm because it is also very cold there. And from using a telescope to look at things in the universe, you just have to stay away from having when the moon comes into your, sorry, when the earth comes into your field of view. It’s a nice, bright reflective ball because of the sunlight reflecting off the earth. And, of course, you don’t want to look at the sun.  But you can look at the universe from there or anywhere on the moon.” [NASA TV Programming, NASA Channel, recorded Sunday, October 22, 2018 at 630pm PT., also available at www.twitch.tv/nasa and available on demand on NASA TV.]

Others have also sung the praises of starting to put telescopes of various types on the moon. For example, “But the fact that the moon’s far side is well-shielded from earth makes it a good location for a large radio telescope. It would also be favorable to an array of optical telescopes because the moon has no atmosphere.” (David O’Brien, Narrator, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired Tuesday 6/19/2018.)  Further, consider the view that “If you go to the far side of the moon, you have the advantage [that] you are in the shadow of the moon concerning our radiation coming from the earth. You can, you have a stable surface, so you can build a huge installation using moon materials and then you can have a deep view to the universe. And, therefore, to go on the far side of the moon with a radio telescope is for scientists already a very impressive and inspiring activity.” (Johann-Dietrich Worner, Director General of the European Space Agency, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.) The improbability that NASA would pass up such impressive and inspiring activities on six trips to the moon raises the probability that NASA was never in position during any of the six alleged manned lunar landings to engage in such activities in the first place. The same holds true for Apollo 8, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10, since each of those NASA missions to the moon failed even to try to place any telescope on the moon.


19. Are oddly timed resignations of some NASA leaders right before Apollo 11’s blastoff a cover-up or whistleblowers protesting of deception? I have no inside information but the point is raised by Bennett and Percy (2001). Of course, coincidences do occur all the time; however, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously observed, “In politics, there are no coincidences.” And the Moon landing project was overwhelmingly political.


20. Isn’t NASA contradicting the official story of the Moon flights by admitting only recently that it has no way to dispose of any astronaut’s poop? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/29/can-help-nasa-solve-space-poop-problem)


21. Wouldn’t lobbyists pressure us back to the Moon to make money for corporations, if we could go to the Moon? More people could track a Moon shot today than could track one before 1973 (the last landing was in December 1972), which means it would be harder to fake today. I give this argument considerable credence, since the weight of the influence of lobbying firms on K Street in Washington, D.C. is immense. [Kaiser (2010) and Leech (2013)]


22. NASA keeps destroying evidence as if it is trying to cover up some fraud. (http://newstarget.com/2017-07-27-why-did-nasa-just-destroy-apollo-tape-recordings-found-in-a-basement.html) And Mission Control itself, which should be a museum, is deliberately being allowed to disintegrate as time marches on, to the point where it is now a basket case and a charity case. Houston, we have a financial problem! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4726452/NASA-Kickstarter-restore-Apollo-Mission-control.html)


23. Is the most “rock-solid” evidence, the so-called Moon rocks themselves, real, and if they are, were they transported by Apollo spacecraft or were they retrieved from Antarctica, which Wernher von Braun visited just two years before Apollo 11? The Moon rocks the astronauts allegedly collected are “amazingly similar” to Earth rocks. “Between 1969 and 1972 six [sic, seven, since Apollo 13 blasted off, too] missions blasted off to the Moon. Only 12 humans have ever walked on the Moon. But these astronauts did more than just rewrite history. They also returned with samples of lunar rock. These Moon rocks are amazingly similar to earth rocks. But they contain far less iron. This seemingly small difference offers a huge clue as to how the Moon was created.” (Narrator, Moon Mysteries, National Geographic Channel, first aired 19 December 2005).  Astronomer Michelle Thaller states: “One of the intriguing things about moon rocks is how similar they are chemically to rocks on earth.” (“Riddles of Our Solar System,” The Planets and Beyond, Season 2, Episode 22, Science Channel, first aired August 27, 2018.) Further, “Our moon forms in under a year. Its crust is almost chemically identical to earth because they share a common origin.” (Erik Todd Dellums, Narrator, “The Moon: Earth’s Guardian Angel,” The Planets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 10 October 2017.) The only difference National Geographic noted between the Moon rocks and Earth rocks was what it called a “seemingly small” difference that the Moon rocks contained far less iron.  The Narrator of the Science program “Riddles of Our Solar System” gives more details: “The moon is identical to material from earth, except it is missing heavy elements, iron and nickel found in earth’s core. Instead, it mainly contains lighter, rocky elements found in earth’s crust and mantle.” So even the missing elements are replaced by elements found on earth. Erik Asphaug, a planetary scientist interviewed on the same program, emphasizes: “It [moon rock] has the same geochemical fingerprints, the oxygen isotopes of the earth, and all the other chemical isotopes of the earth. It looks just like earth rock … It looks like you took a blob of the earth’s mantle and just put it into space around the earth.” This great similarity between moon rock and earth rock makes it too unconvincing or impossible to show – based only on the chemical composition of a rock – that it came from the moon rather than from some part or other of the earth. 


But even if moon rocks and earth rocks were clearly distinct chemically, which the previous paragraph denies, NASA could have obtained moon rocks without landing anyone on the moon. The head of NASA, Wernher von Braun, traveled to Antarctica in 1967, well before the launch of Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969, and when it was known that Antarctica was one of the best sites to find Moon rocks on Earth. (Ranen (2005).)  I know no other reason for the head of NASA to have traveled to faraway Antarctica before the first of the Moon landings (in July 1969). Moreover, unmanned vehicles could also have brought back the Moon rocks, so all Moon rocks—whatever their level of iron or whatever their composition—are compatible with there never having been any human on the Moon. The best evidence of the Moon landings thus turns out to be weak evidence and no evidence at all for manned Moon landings compared to the rival theory of unmanned vehicles returning to earth with Moon rocks.


24. Wouldn’t having twelve astronauts on the lunar surface for so long probably have involved some hazardous incident, though no such incident was recorded? Consider: “[Underground] Lava tubes on the moon would offer protection from the severe hazards of the lunar surface – frequent meteorite impacts, cosmic radiation and extreme temperature variations.” (David O’Brien, Narrator, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.) Further, consider: “If you’re on the surface, you’re exposed to solar-particle radiation, which is dangerous for our physiology, the temperature extremes which can be 300 degrees Centigrade between the dark and the light, and you also have micrometeorites, which are much faster – much faster – than speeding bullets – and they shower.” (Madhu Thangavelu, Professor of Astronautical Engineering, University of Southern California, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.)


25. Wouldn’t the lunar dust, made of charged regolith, have prevented astronauts from exploring the lunar surface within just a few minutes on the lunar surface? It seems so. Consider: “Lunar dust is very, very difficult. Lunar dust is microns in diameters made over billions of years of of these micrometeorite impacts on the moon that geologists call ‘gardening.’ It’s called ‘gardening.’ It’s a geological phenomenon. And so, when this powder is charged by the solar wind, it becomes electrostatically active. So, when you wear a nice, astronaut garment and step out on the lunar soil, the dust climbs up into your body. It goes between the seals of your gloves and it scratches your visors. And just a few minutes after any kind of work on the lunar surface, your suit is completely smudged, the thermodynamics is completely messed up. You start to have problems because you cannot see. And so, dust is a problem. NASA knows this because of Apollo.” (Madhu Thangavelu, Professor of Astronautical Engineering, University of Southern California, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.)


26. Isn’t NASA’s contradiction about the Van Allen radiation belts being a barrier to space flight fatal to NASA’s claim to have landed on the Moon six times and returning all six sets of astronauts, 18 in total, safely to Earth? The astronomer for whom the belt is named says that it is no barrier. However, it would be a fallacious appeal to authority simply to take Dr. Van Allen’s word for it. He may have been subjected to political pressure to support the official story for all we know. And insulating the capsule with lead or water would seem to make the craft dangerously heavy for liftoff. Fatal for NASA, remarkably, is its recent admission that the Van Allen radiation belts, the same belts Apollo astronauts NASA says passed through unharmed, are a bar to space travel. (https://ronabbass.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/Moon-landing-hoax-nasa-unwittingly-reveals-van-allen-radiation-belts-prohibit-human-spaceflight-2min-vid-incl). Further, the danger of radiation persists even if the astronauts somehow get beyond the Van Allen radiation belts. Consider: “If we want to have astronauts over there [on the lunar surface], then we have to do something for radiation shielding.” (Johann-Dietrich Worner, Director General of the European Space Agency, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.) 


III. Astrophysicists Led by L. J. Wilcox: Insufficient Lift Prevented the Moon Flights


My 27th and final argument comes from the most remarkable publication I have read that denies the Moon landings. It was authored by Professor L. J. Wilcox, an astrophysicist. This publication is remarkable for appearing so soon after Apollo 11 returned to Earth on 24 July 1969. Wilcox’s article denying the Moon landing appeared on 14 November 1969 in the Los Angeles Free Press, a radical newspaper unafraid to think outside the box.


That means Wilcox’s article, titled “The Moon Flights Never Happened,” appeared only 113 days after Apollo 11’s splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. Wilcox’s publication is “an outline of a paper presented to last week’s meeting of the Society of American Physicists, Western Division, at Salt Lake City, by Professor L. J. Wilcox of the Department of Astrophysics, University of Colorado.” So, remarkably, this is a mainstream astrophysicist who claims to have discovered early on that the Moon flights were hoaxes.

What is Wilcox’s substantive argument? Wilcox himself explains: “the Apollo 11 craft was unable to overcome the Earth—Moon potential barrier and therefore, on energetic grounds alone, the flight could not have taken place.” [Wilcox (1969), p. 4, emphasis in original] In simpler terms, Apollo 11 had insufficient lift to reach the Moon. Wilcox explains his point with about half a column of formal equations and three scientific diagrams. The bottom line for Wilcox is that Apollo 11 was unable to reach escape velocity, since it lacked the energy for thrust that would make the craft speedy enough.


Wilcox is, remarkably again, joined by several other mainstream scientists who formed a committee to state their case in layman’s terms. Wilcox’s publication gives a press release by “the Special Committee on Lunar Flights, an emergency committee of the International Institute for Space Studies at Berne, Switzerland.” Here is the first part of the press release:

Meeting in emergency sessions over the past two weeks, the Committee—on reviewing the recent work of Professor L. J. Wilcox of the University of Colorado, Professor S. S. Alpert of the University of Sidney, Dr. M. R. Kotowsky of the Lick Observatory, and Professor H. Bundel of the Belgian Academy of Sciences—is of the opinion that, given the present propulsion capacities of the two nations, the American and Soviet lunar flights during the last year and a half were not physically possible. [Wilcox (1969), p. 5]


The rest of the press release states that the committee transmitted its findings to “the governments of both nations and is now awaiting their” respective responses. [Wilcox (1969), p. 5] The release states, most impressively, that:


the survey performed by teams of researchers under the direction of the above scientists was begun more than a year ago, when preliminary investigations revealed remarkable discrepancies between elementary theoretical considerations and the highly dubious empirical data emanating from both the Soviet and American agencies responsible for space exploration. [Wilcox (1969), p. 5]


As far as I have seen in the literature, we are all still awaiting any response to the survey in question that denies the Moon flights based on insufficient speed from the propulsion used. 


IV. Conclusion: No Critical Thinker Can Accept NASA’s Contradictory Story


Perhaps I am overly influenced by my patriotic feelings for America, but I have yet to reach a final conclusion that humans never landed on the Moon. I must also guard against my personal and political dislike and distrust of President Richard M. Nixon. To make his mere involvement decisive, no matter how tricky, criminal, dishonest or disgusting Nixon was, would be to commit the ad hominem fallacy and hence would simply be too illogical to accept.  Still, I would expect more whistleblowers to have come forward, especially former Soviet astronomers or spies who monitored the American space program from 1969 to 1972. I am intellectually offended and dissatisfied by the current state of affairs, however, and believe that with each passing day without a 21st century landing of humans on the Moon, the case against a 1969 Moon landing by Apollo 11 gets stronger. The case against the manned lunar landings gets stronger every day.


There was a strong motive, even a patriotic one, to lie about Apollo 11. America wanted to win the famous space race. America doubted itself after all of the losses in the Tet Offensive in the year before the Apollo 11 Moon landing. How could over 1,000 cities and towns in Vietnam be overrun by the enemy and how could the enemy have kept such a massive operation so secret for so long? Landing men on the Moon would certainly be expected to boost America’s morale. The claim we landed men on the Moon as early as 1969 strikes me as being somewhat like the claims that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Chupacabra exist and even more like the much more prevalent belief in the Second Coming of Jesus, a claim that more than a billion believe.

Don’t these claims get less convincing with each passing day or year when no further evidence arrives to convince us? Won’t the case for Bigfoot, Nessie and Chupacabra be weaker 100 years from now if there is no better evidence than what we have now? Won’t it be harder to convert intellectually a nonbeliever in the year 3014 to believe in the Second Coming of Christ if there is no better evidence for that then than we have now? How about in 5014 or 10,014 or 100,014 or even further in the future? Isn’t it just a matter of time before the argument and evidence for the reappearance of a mysterious creature or Christ wear too thin, stretch too far into the future to have enough credence to convince an open-minded agnostic?


Analogously, if we had the technology in 1969 to land men on the Moon, where are the technologies of other nations to go there or go even further than the Moon, on to Mars, for example? Technology seems to proceed rapidly generally but, suspiciously, not when it comes to the technology to take a human to the Moon. My patriotic faith in America being the first and only nation to land men on the Moon is fading with each passing day of inactivity of humans returning to the Moon, however great my patriotic faith in America remains in all other respects. As a critical thinker, I require more evidence to support my patriotic feelings that America would of course be the first nation to land men on the Moon. I want to avoid the illogic of simply relying on patriotic faith when it comes to a matter of science and technology such as landing men on the Moon.


I have no doubt that both Americans and the Soviets had and used the technology to land machines on the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s; for even conspiracy theorists such as Aron Ranen have documented on film the placement of American and Soviet technology on the Moon. But if manned Moon landings occurred, we should by now have much more evidence for them than we do. For example, Ranen’s film documents how the telemetry for Apollo 11 is simply missing! It is a scandal that an achievement so momentous is so poorly documented and the science so poorly replicated.

If we are serious about taking credit for landing men on the Moon, it is strange that America has never issued any stamp, any coin or any currency with the image and name of Neil Armstrong on it. I therefore call for the issuing of these tributes to Neil Armstrong, since he is by all official evidence the greatest explorer in history. The government needs to get its story straight and to honor the greatest American explorer of all time, Neil Armstrong. Until then, it is somewhat reasonable—more reasonable than it should be—to join President Bill Clinton in wondering whether those who doubt the authenticity of the Moon landings are ahead of their time. [Bill Clinton (2004), p. 156.] Indeed, especially damaging are recent developments such as NASA admitting the problem with the Van Allen radiation belts, the poop problem, and the continued erasing of historic tapes and eroding of Mission Control into a charity case. It has been enough time without the U.S. government honoring the late Neil Armstrong by name as the first man on the Moon, without anyone returning to the Moon, and most notably with the emergence of NASA contradicting itself on the Van Allen radiation belts, etc., that any critical thinker—including me—must reject NASA’s story as self-contradictory. It simply is irrational to believe in a contradiction and NASA has contradicted itself. If NASA one day changes its story to avoid all self-contradiction, then we may reconsider the question in light of some later consistent story NASA wants us to believe. The ball is in NASA’s court.


My thanks go to Dr. James Fetzer for his appearance on my KLIV (1590 AM) radio show “Spirit to Spirit” in San Jose, California to discuss this controversial subject with me. I also gladly extend my thanks to Asher P. Robertson for our many discussions, for his brief YouTube film on this subject, and for his recommendation to me of the many MoonFaker films of Jarrah White. Any errors of omission or commission are entirely my responsibility. I dedicate this essay to my oldest daughter, Heather, given her admiration for science which has led her to become a Corpsman in the United States Navy.


Selected Bibliography


Alterman, Eric, When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences (Penguin, 23 September 2004).

Bartlett, John & O’Brien, Geoffrey, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 18th edition (Little, Brown & Co., 6 November 2012).

Bennett, Mary & Percy, David, Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2 April 2001).

Clinton, Bill, My Life, (Knopf, 22 June 2004), 1008pp.

Harwood, Sterling, Spirit to Spirit, Interview of Dr. Jim Fetzer, KLIV 1590AM radio, first aired 2 May 2013, http://kliv.gotdns.com/kliv/paid/2013_05_02_SpirtToSpirt.mp3, last retrieved 26 October 2014.

Hoagland, Richard C. & Mike Bara, Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA, revised edition (Feral House, 1 September 2009), 680pp.

Kaiser, Robert G., So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government (Vintage, 9 February 2010), 432pp.

Kaysing, Bill & Randy Reid, We Never Went to the Moon(Mokelumne Hill Press, June 1976), 87pp.

Leech, Beth L., Lobbyists at Work (Apress, 24 April 2013).

Lovegood, Xenophilius, http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003u.htm, last retrieved 7 February 2015.

Meloy, Thomas, “The Laser’s Bright Magic,” National Geographic, December 1966, p. 876.

National Geographic, Moon Mysteries, National Geographic Channel, original air date 19 December 2005.

Penn & Teller, Bullshit!, “Conspiracy Theories,” Episode 3 of Season 3 (Showtime, originally aired 9 May 2005); http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0672525, last retrieved 7 February 2015.

Plait, Philip C., Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing “Hoax,” (Wiley, 1 March 2002), 288pp.

Ranen, Aron, Did We Go?, documentary film (2005).

Redfern, Nick, The NASA Conspiracies: The Truth Behind the Moon Landings, Censored Photos, and the Face on Mars (December 20, 2010), 240pp.

Rene, Ralph, NASA Mooned America (self-published, 1994), 176pp.

Savage, Adam & Hyneman, Jamie, MythBusters, episode 104, “NASA Moon Landing Hoax,” first aired 27 August 2008; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz7cUP4o-ZQ, posted November 28, 2011; last retrieved 7 February 2015.)

Sheehan, Neil, Smith, Hedrick, Kenworthy, E.W., Butterfield, Fox & Ellsberg, Daniel, eds., The Pentagon Papers: The Secret History of the Vietnam War (Bantam Books, 1 July 1971), 678pp.

Sibrel, Bart, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, documentary film (18 January 2001), 47 minutes.

Thomas, Steven, The Moon Landing Hoax: The Eagle that Never Landed (Swordworks Publishing, 9 June 2010), 120pp.

weneverwenttotheMoon.com, last retrieved 7 February 2015.

White, Jarrah, 126 YouTube videos listed under the series MoonFaker, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qjRP_w2rhk&list=PLC643B524ED1DC46B), starting from 2008, last retrieved 7 February 2015.

Wilcox, L. J., “The Moon Flights Never Happened,” Los Angeles Free Press, Volume 6, Issue #278, 14 November 1969, pp. 4-5.

Wisnewski, Gerhard, One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Clairview Books, 15 January 2008), 390pp.


Note: see the published version of this essay in James Fetzer & Mike Palecek, eds., And I Suppose We Didn't Go to the Moon, Either? (Moon Rock Books, 2015) for some photos of some US postage stamps and coins snubbing Neil Armstrong and for diagrams and equations by Prof. Wilcox published in November of 1969.

FAQ16: quotes to ponder on gun control

  

1. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” ~ Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association, speech, Washington, DC, televised live, CNN, December 21, 2012.


2. “The best way to get shot is to have a gun.” ~ Charles Grodin, actor, from the film 11 Harrowhouse (1974).


3. “The best way to shoot yourself is to have a gun.” ~ Charles Grodin, actor, from the film 11 Harrowhouse (1974).


4. “You are 10 times more likely to die from gun violence in the United States than in any other industrialized country. You are more likely to die from gun violence in the United States than in Venezuela, Colombia, Honduras or even in Syria. Other countries do not have this problem. Other countries do have mental health issues. Other countries do have video games. They do not have gun violence on the scale that the United States does. And in countries that have had mass shootings, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, where they have had mass shootings, they have taken action to restrict access to guns. And in the United Kingdom and Australia it has been very successful in stopping mass shootings. It’s simply about guns, and access to guns and gun culture.” ~ Katty Kay, BBC World News America Washington Anchor, Kasie DC, MSNBC, 8/4/2019.


5. "Gun control proponents, intent on disarming the American people, ignore history that reveals the greatest crimes against humanity occur when ruthless governments disarm and then kill powerless civilians." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167.


6. “He [Billionaire Presidential Candidate Ross Perot of Texas] was for gun control, as all, most military – real military – people are who know about guns.” ~ Jim Lehrer, PBS NewsHour, PBS, first aired 7/9/2019. Harwood’s Helpful Hint: when you evaluate this quote, consider The No True Scotsman fallacy, which philosopher Antony Flew recognized and developed as a fallacy recognized by many others as a form of flawed reasoning. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


7. "[G]un ownership among the law-abiding poses no direct risk of crime or violence in the community. Thus the only justification for disarming the majority of the population is for the sake of denying violence prone persons easy access (presumably mostly through theft) to firearms owned by the law-abiding. In effect, the justification runs this way: we must deny guns to 99 percent of the population who will never commit a serious act of violence in their lives in order to produce some marginal reduction in the ease of access to guns among the 1 percent who will commit such an act." Gary Kleck, "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership Levels and Rates of Violence in the United States," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 128.


8. "Burglary is the most common type of intrusion of the home and causes the greatest property loss, but it rarely threatens the homeowner's life. The burglar typically seeks to commit his crime without being discovered, if possible by entering a home that is not occupied. Consequently, he is more likely to steal the home-defense firearm than be driven off by it." Matthew G. Yeager with Joseph D. Alviani and Nancy Loving, "How Well Does the Handgun Protect You and Your Family?" in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 216.


9. "With some 20,000 firearms regulations now on the books, why does the clamor continue for even more laws? The answer is obvious: none of the laws so far enacted has significantly reduced the rate of criminal violence." James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 96. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Note: Test the validity of this argument by asking if you can imagine a case where the premises are true but the conclusion is false. Can you imagine how there can be 20,000 firearms regulations, clamor for more gun control, and yet at least some of the firearms regulations have significantly reduced the rate of criminal violence? Even if this argument is invalid, is it strong? When we clamor for more of something we already have much of, do we imply that it is probably undesirable? 


10. "Most of the published estimates are produced by the advocates, and thus are not to be trusted." James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 96. 


11. "As long as there are any handguns around (and even 'ban handguns' advocates make an exception for police or military handguns) they will obviously be available to anyone at some price. Given Cook's data, the average street thug would come out ahead even if he spent several hundred -- perhaps even a few thousand -- on a suitable weapon. At those prices, demand will always create its own supply just as there will always be cocaine available to anyone willing to pay a thousand dollars to obtain [it]." James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 99. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Is cocaine always available to anyone willing to pay a thousand dollars for it? What about someone locked in the best brig the U.S. Marines have? Does this quote commit the fallacy of false dilemma?


12. "Most of the gun-owning felons in our sample grew up around guns, were introduced to guns at an early stage, and had owned and used guns ever since." James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, "The Great American Gun War: Some Policy Implications of the Felon Study," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 118. Do not quote the following in your A-section. Does 'Most' help make this a strong argument?


13. "If robbers were deprived of guns, there would be a reduction in robberies against commercial places and other well-defended victims. In general, a reduction in gun availability would change the distribution of violent crimes, with greater concentration on vulnerable victims." Philip J. Cook, "The Effect of Gun Availability on Violent Crime Patterns," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 138. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Does this argument commit the fallacy of appealing to pity? Does this argument pose a false dilemma, since even if robbers were not deprived of guns, they would prefer a more vulnerable victim to a less vulnerable victim (all else being equal at least)?


14."Defining 'well regulated'[:] Bill Traill (Letters, June 23) argues that since newspaper licensing would not be allowed under the First Amendment, gun licensing should not be allowed under the Second. That would be a valid argument only if the First Amendment read, "A well regulated media, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the press, shall not be infringed. "It is not by happenstance that the term 'well regulated' appears at the start of this amendment and that the Second Amendment is [the] only place in the Bill of Rights where that phrase appears. The founding fathers carefully deliberated and debated over every single word. Justifiably, they were just as afraid of an armed citizenry as they were of an armed government.” ~ Mark Maslowski of Ben Lomond, CA, from The San Jose Mercury News, June 26, 2001, p.7B.


15. "The availability of a handgun and the taking of a self-defense measure during an aggravated assault dramatically increased the likelihood of a fatality." Matthew G. Yeager with Joseph D. Alviani and Nancy Loving, "How Well Does the Handgun Protect You and Your Family?" in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 215. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Is this an enthymeme with the unstated premise "Fatalities are bad"?


16."'Schoolyard Killing' [:] I was appalled but not surprised that your May 5 [1999] account of a murderous attack on children in Costa Mesa was relegated to Page 3B. Can you deny that if the man had used a firearm in his attack on children that it would have been front page news? I would like an explanation of why an attack on innocent children with a car as the weapon is less important than a similar attack with a firearm.Given the fact that there are millions of cars and firearms, and that cars are readily available, it would appear that the threats of cars and firearms are equivalent. I suspect that you chose not to publicize the Costa Mesa attack because it demonstrates that our problem is not with any particular piece of technology, but rather the fact that our society produces people who think that committing murder is an appropriate way to express their frustrations with life. This is a much more ocmplex and important issue than your usual reflexive call for more 'gun control,' and you are doing your readers a disservice by not addressing it." ~ Chris Copeland, Cupertino, CA. San Jose Mercury News, May 7, 1999, p. 7B.


17. "Gun control has proved to be a grievous failure, a means of disarming honest citizens without limiting firepower available t those who prey on the law-abiding. Attempting to use the legal system to punish the weapon rather than the person misusing the weapon is similarly doomed to fail." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 102.


18. "This is not a law enforcement issue; this is a fundamental human rights issue. Law-abiding people carrying firearms have never been a threat to law enforcement; and there is overwhelming evidence to support the positive results of carrying concealed firearms." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 32. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Does this commit the fallacy of false dilemma or false dichotomy in assuming such a sharp distinction between the law-abiding and those who violate the law? Isn't it obvious upon reflection that every person who ever violated the law was at one time a law-abiding person?


19."The public has a right to ask tough questions of parole boards that release violent criminals before they have served 85 percent of their sentence. Where else would a failure rate of this magnitude -- which sometimes results in the death, rape, or injury of the innocent -- be tolerated? Would the Federal Aviation Administration allow airplanes to fly with critical parts that failed 29 percent of the time? Would the Federal Drug Administration allow drugs on the market that either killed or caused crippling side effects 18 percent of the time? Yet the American Bar Association's soft-on-crime stance would put more criminals back on the streets, while attacking the fundamental right of self-defense, and, indeed, the Second Amendment itself." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 101. Note: Does this argument fallaciously appeal to authority, the legal authority of the Second Amendment? Does this argument commit the fallacy of false analogy in asking questions about different government agencies and different failure rates? Does this argument commit the fallacy of red herring or evading the issue by raising the issue of releasing violent criminals rather than focusing more on the ABA's arguments for gun control (its alleged attack on the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment)?


20. "Most burglaries occur when homes are vacant, so the handgun in the drawer is no deterrent. It would also probably be the first item stolen." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right; But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 268.


21. "One tenet of the National Rifle Association's [NRA's] faith has always been that handgun control does little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization is wrong. Criminals don't buy handguns in gun stores." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 226.


22. "Public health campaigns have changed the way Americans look at cigarette smoking and drunk driving and can do the same for handguns." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 270.


23. "How often are guns used merely to wound or scare away intruders? No reliable statistics are available, but most police officials agree that in a criminal confrontation on the street, the handgun-toting civilian is far more likely to be killed or lose his handgun to a criminal than successfully use the weapon in self-defense." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin publishing Group, 1991), p. 268.


24. "The NRA maintains the gun laws don't work because they can't work." James D. Wright "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 275.


25. "More women own or have access to handguns. Between 1970 and 1978 the suicide rate for young women rose 60 percent, primarily due to increased use of handguns." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 267.


26. "More women own or have access to handguns. Between 1970 and 1978 the suicide rate for young women rose 60 percent, primarily due to increased use of handguns." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 267.


27. "As public health professionals, if we are faced with a disease that is carried by some type of vehicle/vector like a mosquito, our initial response would be to control the vector. There is no reason why if the vehicle/vector is a handgun, we should not be interested in controlling the handgun." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 268. Do not quote the following in the A-section of your paper. Harwood's helpful hint: Does this argument commit the fallacy known as false analogy?


28. "The very increase of violent crime is what spurs thousands of people to buy handguns for self-defense. Furthermore, many of these new gun-owners lack the training to use their weapons effectively. The very increase of violent crime is what spurs thousands of people to buy handguns. No one can challenge the sincerity of their concerns. Still, the very accessibility of these weapon creates a problem." Pete Shield, Guns Don't Die, People Do, (Arbor House Publishing Co., 1981), p. 343. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Can we fairly fix up this argument to the following? If there is an increase in crime, then there is a significant increase in new gun owners. If there is a significant increase in new gun owners, then there are many untrained and ineffective gun-users. If there are many untrained and ineffective gun-users, then there is a life and death problem. So, if gun control prevents an increase in new gun owners, then gun control will prevent at least one source of a life and death problem.


29. "A totalitarian society, and particularly a totalitarian society occupying a country against its will, simply cannot permit the private possession of weapons to any great extent, except by those who have proven their loyalty." ~ The Legislative Reference Service, quoted in Robert J. Kukla, Gun Control (Harrisburg, PA, Stackpole Books, 1973), p. 440.


30. “If somebody wants to kill somebody, they’re going to find a way to do it.” ~ Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), on MTP Daily, MSNBC, 11/6/17.


31. “… I will immodestly state that among professors in the United States, I am almost certainly one of the best shooters. But I would never bring a weapon into a classroom. The presence of a firearm is always an invitation to violence. Weapons have no place in a learning environment.” ~ Anthony Swofford, former U.S. Marine and author of Jarhead, “I Was a Marine. I Don’t Want a Gun in My Classroom.,” The New York Times, circa 2/26/18. Note the presence of an A-claim and 2 E-claims, too.


32. “Common sense gun legislation: I think we should return to an assault weapons ban. I know the word is that that would never pass. But the stats are clear: more weapons means more dead people, more dead children. The FBI did a, did a study of mass shootings and active shooter situations from 2000 to 2013. From 2000 to 2007 there were about 6.5 a year. Now after 2007 that number almost tripled to 16.5. And I know there is no cause and effect here between the repeal of the assault weapons ban. But I feel like if you’re a country where the ethos is that anyone over the age of 18 can purchase this weapon that is intended to kill many, many people, that that’s an ethos that that says it’s OK to have that kind of weaponry around.” ~ Anthony Swofford, author of Jarhead, interviewed on MSNBC Live with Katy Tur, MSNBC, first aired 2/26/2018.


33. “[Anthony Swofford:] To fortify buildings is probably helpful to, to make sure there are ways in which students and teachers can escape buildings.    You know, the, the classroom that I mentioned that I was in that morning [of the school shooting] the door opened out not in, so there would have been no way for me to block a door if there was an attacker. The windows, unfortunately, didn’t even open. So, so my students would have been in totally in peril. And there would have been no way to escape that kind of classroom. So I think there needs to be a systematic kind of thinking about what campus safety looks like and what kind of actions students and teachers should take – but not with firearms.

[Katy Tur:] I don’t know about you, it’s remarkable we live in a time when we have to … I don’t know about you but I think it’s remarkable that we live in a time that we have to think about which way the doors open up into our classrooms because we think maybe we’ll need to protect our students from a man with a gun. Crazy times, Anthony Swofford.

[Swofford]: It’s scary. Super crazy times.

[Tur:] Super crazy.” ~ Exchange between anchor Katy Tur and interviewee Anthony Swofford, author of Jarhead, interviewed on MSNBC Live with Katy Tur, MSNBC, first aired 2/26/2018.


34. “We talk about the Saturday Night Special and I’m for outlawing those things, if we can. But I also remember that the first murder was done by Cain, who didn’t have a Saturday Night Special.” ~ Billy Graham, interviewed by Tom Brokaw on Today, 4/1/1981, rebroadcast on Morning Joe, MSNBC, 3/2/18.


35. "One tempting way to intervene between the manufacturer and the criminal end-user is to raise the price of weapons entering the market, perhaps by taxing handguns heavily." James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, "The Great American Gun War: Some Policy Implications of the Felon Study," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 113.

faq17: have affirmative action quotes?

Last revised 3/10/19


Note: *** = incomplete citation


1. “I do not buy the concept, popular in the ‘60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and the white man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race.’” ~ Joseph Biden, quoted by Matt Viser, from a Delaware-based weekly newspaper, The People Paper, 10/2/1975, “Biden’s tough talk on 1970s school desegregation plan could get new scrutiny in today’s Democratic Party,” The Washington Post, 3/7/2019.


2. “The College Board, the folks who administer the SAT, the Scholastic Aptitude Test, have just announced that there will be what’s being referred to as an adversity score in addition to a numerical valuation of math and verbal skills. …  [Others refer to this as] context data. … Consideration will be given to 15 factors, including the quality of the student’s high school and the poverty level of the student’s neighborhood. Race will not be considered. Students will not get to see the score. While I think the intent to level the playing field is noble, I have questions as to the approach.  … But to elevate a numerical value of circumstance alongside achievement in math and verbal scores is not the appropriate way that I think we should be doing it. I worry that it will have undue influence upon those more objective scores. … I worry that this punishes a student in an advantaged neighborhood, maybe a white middle-class student, who still gains admission the old-fashioned way, by working hard.” ~ Michael Smerconish, host, Smerconish, CNN, first aired 5/18/2019.


3. "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well. On of -- One of the briefs pointed out that -- that most of the most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're -- that they're being pushed ahead in -- in classes that are too -- too fast for them." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia, Fisher v. University of Texas, oral arguments, 12/9/2015, quoted by MSNBC Live 12/11/2015.


4.  "These ideas that he [Justice Antonin Scalia] pronounced yesterday [the mismatch theory] are racist in application if not intent. I don't know about his intent. But it is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court Justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the nation's highest court." ~ Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), from MSNBC Live with Kate Snow, first aired 12/11/2016.


5. "You know who else thinks Affirmative Action is a good idea? The U.S. Military. They've gone so far as to issue friend of the court briefs saying we want to be able to consider diversity, gender, race when we build up our officer corps and our leadership. We think it helps the national security of the United States. And we want leadership that looks like America. That's what a lot of schools say. That's what a lot of Fortune 100 companies say."~ Ari Melber, MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent, from MSNBC Live with Kate Snow, first aired 12/11/2016.


6. “Your article on altering SAT scores touches on a most sensible approach for selecting disadvantaged students for a college education. Eight criteria are listed, with the first seven being race/ethnicity blind, relating only to a truly disadvantaged background, as it should be. However, the last criterion explicitly addresses race and ethnicity. I doubt that there is a single person in our nation who would object to supporting the higher education of a child from a poor school with impoverished parents who has shown he/she can be successful in college. But what does race or ethnicity have to do with that child’s achievement? Ironically, if only the first seven criteria are used, all black, brown or red strivers would still be identified. As it is, by making race and ethnicity a criterion, we taint those legitimate black, brown and red strivers as ‘affirmative action’ ringers. How embarrassing that must be for them. And how disappointing it will be for impoverished strivers who will miss out of college because they are not the right race or ethnicity.” William D. Allen Sr., Placentia, CA, Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1999, p. A23.


7. "Conversely, affirmative action laws should be relaxed or eliminated. This is because affirmative action at some level is causing more problems than good or than it is solving." quoted in San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 29, 1996.


8. "Everyone deserves to be treated equally because we are all created by the same God. Therefore, affirmative action should not be abolished in our society, even though the white man claims that it does not favor him." quoted in Vincent Barry & William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995), p. 432.


9. "The white man sees himself to be superior to the minority group and would say to himself that he has nothing to do with the minority group because of a superiority complex over the black man. Thus, he views blacks as outcasts, lazy, irresponsible, poor, unworthy, and uneducated..." quoted in Vincent Barry & William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995).


10. "However, apart from the fact that we keep talking about healing the racial rifts in our country, affirmative action programs make everybody more racially conscious. They cause resentment and frustration among white men. Many black people and women also resent being advanced on grounds other than merit. Finally, if one hires and promotes people faster and further put them on merit, one is asking for problems, isn't one?" quoted in Vincent Barry and William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.), p. 432.


11. "After all, the Civil Rights Act was established to provide equal opportunity for all citizens of the country, and so affirmative action in employment is one sound way to do this." quoted in Vincent Barry & William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.), p. 436.


12. “Thank you for mentioning my work in your article on adjustments to test scores in college admission. I would make only one slight revision. My proposal is actually twofold. First, I propose that colleges use a race-blind merit index of their own creation. As stated in the article, this could indeed include the extent to which a student’s test score exceeds his/her average high school test score. But, second, along with use of its own merit index, I also propose that institutions use a new, multistage admissions model specifically designed to minimize the risk of legal and political attack. Adopting a flexible, non-‘holistic’ model that uses data on race and ethnicity only where necessary is really more important than the particular merit index the college chooses. If colleges adopt what I refer to as a ‘merit-aware’ approach – both a merit index and a multistage process – the tables will be turned on those who would eliminate affirmative action in selective college admissions. That is, it will be possible to admit more disadvantaged students of color (who are qualified) with, on average, lower test scores even at the most selective colleges, with legal and political impunity.” Bill Goggin, Alexandria, VA, Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1999, p. A23.


13. "Social mores, expectations and attitudes have changed dramatically for the past 30 years, especially with regard to woman’s roles. Hence, racial and ethnic identities are changing, too, which brings peace of mind." San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 29, 1996. Note: Affirmative action began in 1961 by an executive order of President John F. Kennedy.


14. "Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly like cases alike and relevantly different cases differently. So-called reverse discrimination [affirmative action] does not fit that definition, since there is a relevant difference between blacks and whites [for example], namely, that only blacks have been victims of such severe and systematic racist discrimination. Only blacks deserve so much compensation. There is less, or nothing, to compensate whites for." -- Sterling Harwood, in "Introduction: The Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action," in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 94.


15. “Affirmative action greatly promotes diversity in education and employment.” ~ Sterling Harwood, Sterling Harwood, “The Pros & Cons of Affirmative Action,” Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996, p. ???.)***


16. “The policies were originally developed to correct decades of discrimination and to give disadvantaged minorities a boost.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, website last updated 2/17/2008.


17. “One may also object that AA [Affirmative Action] hurts or punishes innocent whites for the sins of their fathers, which is unfair.” ~ Sterling Harwood, describing a Con of Affirmative Action, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 94).


18. “Students/workers who are put into a position through affirmative action often are not fully ready for the task. Not only is this not good for the university/company, but it is also not good for these students/workers as well because it lowers self-esteem.” Author unknown. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/arguments.html, last visited 5/15/06.


19. “I doubt that there is a single person in our nation who would object to supporting the higher education of a child from a poor school with impoverished parents who has shown he/she can be successful in college. But what does race or ethnicity have to do with that child’s achievement?” ~ Author Unknown, Citation unknown. Note: This quote is ineligible for students to use in an A-section of an ABC set, but students may use this quote anywhere else in their papers.


20. “Minorities gave decades of unpaid labor, [and] had land taken from them.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008. Note: This quote is ineligible for students to use in any A-section of any ABC set, but it is eligible for use elsewhere in term papers.


21. “Simply having people of different races or ethnicity's in the workplace/university does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion. People with the same skin color are not necessarily the same in opinion or even culture.” ~ Author unknown, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/index.html, This page was last edited on 5/15/06. Note: This quote is ineligible for use in any A-section of any ABC set but is eligible for students to use elsewhere in term papers.


22. “Part of the education process is learning to interact with other races and nationalities.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008. Note: This quote is ineligible for students to use in any A-section of any ABC set but is eligible for students to use elsewhere in term papers.


23. “What right does the Educational Testing Service [ETS] have to judge a family breadwinner’s occupation? According to the chart, the ETS feels free to play God by assigning a child’s family to the socio-economic group based on parents’ education, occupation and income.” ~ Author Unknown, Citation Unknown. Note: This quote is ineligible for students to use in any A-section of any ABC sets but is eligible for students to use elsewhere in term papers.

Faq18: Have any quotes by or about confucius?

image4


1. “To see what is right, and not do it, is want of courage, or of principle.” ~ Confucius, quoted in Donald O. Bolander, Dolores D. Varner, Gary B. Wright, and Stephanie H. Greene, eds., Instant Quotation Dictionary (New York: Dell Publishing, 1972), p. 227.
 

2. “Honeyed words and flattering looks seldom speak of love.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius(Barnes and Noble, 1994), hereinafter abbreviated ‘SOC’, p. 1.
 

3. “Of a gentleman who is frivolous none stand in awe, nor can his learning be sound. Make faithfulness and truth thy masters: have no friends unlike thyself; be not ashamed to mend they faults.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 2. Compare: "Opposites attract" and "Birds of a feather flock together." Compare "Variety is the spice of life" & admiration for diversity & inclusion.
 

4. “A gentleman who is not a greedy eater, nor a lover of ease at home, who is earnest in deed and careful of speech who seeks the righteous and profits by them, may be called fond of learning.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 3.
 

5. “Not to be known should not grieve you; grieve that ye know not men.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 4. Compare the old saying: “It’s not what you know but who you know that counts.” Further, compare the counter-saying: “It’s not who you know that counts but who knows you.”
 

6. “Guide the people by law, subdue them by punishment; they may shun crime, but will be void of shame. Guide them by example, subdue them by courtesy; they will learn shame, and come to be good.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 5.
 

7. “At fifteen, I was bent on study; at thirty, I cold stand; at forty, doubts ceased; at fifty, I understood the laws of Heaven; at sixty, my ears obeyed me; at seventy, I could do as my heart lusted, and never swerve from right.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 5.
 

8. “If I talk all day to Hui [Confucius’s favorite disciple], like a dullard, he never stops me. But when he is gone, if I pry into his life, I find he can do what I say. No, Hui is no dullard.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

9. “Look at a man’s acts; watch his motives; find out what pleases him; can the man evade you? Can the man evade you?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

10. “He [a gentleman] is broad and fair; the vulgar are biassed [sic, biased] and petty.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

11. “Work on strange doctrines does harm.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

12. “Listen much, keep silent when in doubt, and always take heed of the tongue; thou wilt make few mistakes. See much, beware of pitfalls, and always give heed to thy walk; thou wilt have little to rue. If thy words are seldom wrong, they deeds leave little to rue, pay will follow.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 8.
 

13. Confucius, to a questioner, on why he is not in power: “What does the book say of a good son? ‘An always dutiful son, who is a friend to his brothers, showeth the way to rule.’ This also is to rule. What need to be in power?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, 1994), p. 8
 

14. “Without truth I know not how man can live. A cart without a crosspole, a carriage without harness, how could they be moved?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 9.
 

15. Confucius, to the questioner Tzu-chang, on whether we can know what is to be ten generations hence: “The Yin inherited the manners of the Hsia; the harm and the good that they wrought them is known. The Chou inherited the manners of the Yin; the harm and the good that they wrought them is known. And we may know what is to be, even an hundred generations hence, when others follow Chou.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 9.
 

16. “A friend to love, a foe to evil, I have yet to meet. A friend to love will set nothing higher. In love’s service, a foe to evil will let no evil touch him. Were a man to give himself to love, but for one day, I have seen no one whose strength would fail him. Such men there may be, but I have not seen one.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

17. “A scholar in search of truth who is ashamed of poor clothes and poor food it is idle talking to.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

18. “The chase of gain is rich in hate.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

19. “Be not concerned at want of place; be concerned that thou stand thyself. Sorrow not at being unknown, but seek to be worthy of note.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

20. “One thread, Shen [a particular disciple of Confucius], runs through all my teaching.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

21. “A gentleman considers what is right; the vulgar consider what will pay.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

22. “Who contains himself goes seldom wrong.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 20.
 

23. “A gentleman wishes to be slow to speak and quick to act.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, 1994), p. 20.
 

24. “The Master’s teaching all hangs on faithfulness and fellow-feeling.” ~ Tseng-tzu, quoted in SOC, p. 19.

faq19: have QUOTES ON ANCIENT ALIENS?

  

58 Quotes on Ancient Aliens: What ancient astronauts theorists say, believe, suggest, contend or conjecture


Last revised 7/5/19


All are from ancient aliens series on history channel unless otherwise noted

.

 *** = doublecheck the wording of the quotation or the details of the citation


1. "Why is the creature known as Bigfoot so difficult to capture or kill?  Could it be, as ancient astronaut theorists contend, that the creature's ghost-like abilities are the result of its other-worldly origin?" ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at about 6 minutes. Note: Two questions and a contention do not evidence make.


2. “Is the government’s increasing use of outside agencies and contractors designed to throw UFO investigators and ancient astronaut theorists off – and if so, does that mean that infamous top-secret sites, like Area 51 and its alleged underground network of covert laboratories and military installations, will soon be obsolete? Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘no.’ And they insist that, if anything, there are now more government sites engaged in extraterrestrial research than ever and that this research is no longer being confined to areas within the United States or even on planet earth.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, narrator, “Area 52,” Ancient Aliens, Season 13, Episode 6, History Channel, first aired 6/1/2018.


3. “There are some who believe these experiments [by the U.S. military] even involved human subjects as part of a highly controversial research program known as The Montauk Project.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, narrator, “Area 52,” Ancient Aliens, Season 13, Episode 6, History Channel, first aired 6/1/2018. Note: This is an I-claim.


4. “If Bigfoot creatures are allied with extraterrestrial beings, as ancient astronaut theorists believe, what might be their purpose on this planet?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at about 27 minutes. Note: a belief of ancient astronaut theorists is embedded in the middle of the question.

5. “Might extraterrestrials really have posed as false gods in order to keep humans under their control. And if so, could they have appeared to Marshal Applewhite and manipulated him and his followers into committing a horrific, ritual suicide. Ancient astronaut theorists believe the answer is a chilling ‘Yes’ and for further evidence, they point to a series of shallow graves and a Mexican drug lord believed to have supernatural powers.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “Aliens and Deadly Cults,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 10/12/2011, at about 10 minutes. Note: ‘Might’ and ‘could’ are weasel words in the quote above. Group all quotes with weasel words together as mere suggestions of possibilities.


6. “If UFOs really are here, it’s absolutely logical to think that they’ve probably been here for thousands of years.” ~ John Greenewald, UFO Researcher, TheBlackVault.com, interviewed on UFOs: The Lost Evidence, Season 1, Episode 4, “Ancient Alien Visitors,” TRAV (Travel Channel).first aired Sunday April 16, 2017.


7. “This item is tied to a controversy that some believe could rewrite the history of our planet. [Interviewee:] ‘The artefact is tied to an alien race that may have lived in ancient times.’ Across the globe, among the relics left behind by history’s greatest civilizations, are mysterious artefacts that seem to suggest we are not alone in the universe. Within the pyramids of ancient Egypt, archeologists have uncovered strange hieroglyphs that seem to resemble images of spaceships. In the deserts of Mesopotamia, are a series of pictograms carved in clay that appear to show beings descending from the sky. And on a 1500-year-old stone tablet, found in Mexico, a replica of which is on display in the International UFO Museum and Research Center, is a depiction of a solitary figure apparently caught in the beam of an interstellar craft. These objects, and more, have led some to conclude that planet earth has been visited in the past by alien beings from other worlds.” ~ Don Widman, host & narrator, “Ancient Alien, Killer’s Curse and Ground Zero Ship,” Mysteries at the Museum, Season 17, Episode 30, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 11/21/2018.


8. “Beyond Roswell,” 7m; “… suggest …”***


9. “Might the Amitabha Buddha actually have been an otherworldly visitor and, if so, might the three saints of Pure Land Buddhism not just guide the dead to an afterlife but physically change them into higher-functioning beings, beings with extraterrestrial capabilities? Ancient astronaut theorists say yes, and believe further proof can be found in the story of another mythic trio, one that undertook an epic journey – not to a divine land after death but towards a divine life here on planet earth.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Power of Three,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 9/30/2013, at about 45m. Note: I like the spooky/profound/pensive music around 46m here.


10.“Essentially the number three is the key to our DNA language. And this was revolutionary for its time because the ancient alient theory has always suggested that the ultimate proof of extraterrestrial tempering in our past will not come in the form of a crashed spaceship or some type of tools, but the actual proof will come from within our own DNA.” ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Narrator, “The Power of Three,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 9/30/2013, at about 57m.


11. “Could preconceived notions concerning mankind’s origins be causing scientists to overlook valuable data? Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes,’ and suggest that the scientific community has been too quick to find answers when they should be asking more questions.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Science Wars,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 6/2/2017, at about 59 minutes of 60 minutes.


12. "Somebody built something on the moon a long, long time ago.  And I don't think it was earthlings." ~ George Noory, from "Space Station Moon," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 7/29/2016.


13. "Only 300 kilometers away from where Apollo 11 ended up landing this area has undeniable architecture that looks like what you would see from obelisks." ~ David Wilcock, from "Space Station Moon," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 7/29/2016.


14. "My question is: Who built the moon?" ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Publisher of Legendary Times magazine, from "Space Station Moon," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 7/29/2016. 


15. “According to Egyptian texts, their gods were extraterrestrial beings that came to earth and taught our ancestors the secrets of metalwork. If true, might this be why we find isolated examples of advanced and sacred metallurgy occurring long mankind was known to have grasped such technology. Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes’ and suggest that hidden away in the storage area of a small museum in Eastern Europe is even more astounding evidence – the remnants of what might be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.”~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, in "Forged by the Gods," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 5/5/2017, at minute 30.


16. “There are many theories about the black-eyed children. But some ancient astronaut theorists believe their appearance and mannerisms reveal an extraterrestrial origin.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Star Children,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014, at about 47 minutes into the program, discussing children who allegedly have eyes with black irises and who have black instead of the whites of their eyes.


17. “Could the black-eyed kids actually be extraterrestrials in a limbo state between dimensions? And might these child-like beings be part of a much larger other-worldly agenda. Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes.’” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Star Children,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014, at about 48 minutes into the program, discussing children who allegedly have eyes with black irises and who have black instead of the whites of their eyes.


18. “Could it really be that these round monoliths were placed throughout the world to create a greater cosmic energy grid, as some researchers believe?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Monoliths,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/19/2013.


19. "According to Ancient Astronaut theorists, discoveries like the metal ingots found off the coast of Sicily provide evidence that extraterrestrials have been fostering mankind's technological evolution for thousands of years.  And they suggest that even more compelling evidence can be found by examining a mysterious artifact discovered in the tomb of King Tut." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, in "Forged by the Gods," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 5/5/2017, at minute 30.


20. "Ancient Astronaut Theory says that the legends of these Greek gods are not just mythological, but they're actually rooted in actual events." ~ David Wilcock, author of The Ascension Mysteries, in "Forged by the Gods," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 5/5/2017, at minute 30.


21. “Might extraterrestrials really have built caves and tunnel systems to hide the legendary creature known as Bigfoot, as some ancient astronaut theorists believe. “~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at 37 minutes.


22. “Could the intermingling of human and alien beings have resulted in this strange, hybrid creature [Bigfoot], as ancient astronaut theorists contend?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at 38 minutes into the program.


23. “If the creature known as Bigfoot really was created by aliens to mine precious metals thousands of years ago, as ancient astronaut theorists believe, why would it still be around today?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at 47 minutes.


24. “Could it be, as some ancient astronaut theorists contend, that the U.S. military was successful in construction of a military base on the surface of the moon.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "The Alien Hunters," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/28/2017.


25. "Ancient astronaut theorists suggest that world governments have wrapped up the hunt for extraterrestrial life because they already know it exists." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "The Alien Hunters," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/28/2017.


26. "Throughout history, many of the world's greatest thinkers have credited their genius to otherworldly sources." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, from "Aliens and Geniuses," Ancient Aliens: Declassified, History Channel, first aired 4/21/2017, at 1 minute.


27.  "These people [geniuses] are being influenced by higher beings who are guiding humankind." ~ David Childress, from "Aliens and Geniuses," Ancient Aliens: Declassified, History Channel, first aired 4/21/2017. at about 1 minute into the program.


28. “And you’ve got to conclude that we are not alone and that we’ve been visited [by ancient aliens] and we continue to be visited.” ~ George Noory, from “The New Evidence,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 5/27/2016.


29.   “Ancient Astronaut Theorists believe an elaborate secret repository is located under the Sphinx’s paws, known as the Hall of Records. It dates back to the fall of Atlantis, which according to ancient texts is said to have occurred nearly 12,000 years ago. They also claim that there were extraterrestrials living in Atlantis and that they needed a repository to house all of their accumulated knowledge.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Temples of Gold,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 8/18/2011, at about 58 minutes into the program and another at about 34 minutes into the program.***


30.  “Did the Maya really conduct these elaborate and bloody rituals to honor a mythical deity or might they have been, as ancient astronaut theorists contend, commemorating an actual visitation by extraterrestrial beings?” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Mysterious Rituals,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 8/25/2011. Note: 2 other weasel sentences surround this near 6 minutes into the program, for example, David Childress: “All over the world, ancient people and modern people are using the rituals to connect them with gods. Yet these gods may well be ancient aliens.”***


31.  “Might Leonardo Da Vince have been aware of these early UFO sightings. Ancient astronauts theorists believe the answer is a profound ‘yes’ and point to even greater evidence that can be found by studying the works of other Renaissance artists.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “The Da Vinci Conspiracy,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/6/2012. Note the weasel word ‘might’ leading off the sentence.***

32.  “[M]ost ancient astronaut theorists believe that the Egyptian gods were in reality extraterrestrial visitors …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Robots,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 8/7/2015, at about 8 minutes into the program.***


33.  “Is it possible that our ancestors encountered highly sophisticated extraterrestrial robots in the ancient past and, if so, might there be some tangible evidence? Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes,’ and believe the evidence was recovered deep beneath the sea and dates back more than 2,000 years.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Robots,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 8/7/2015, at about 11 minutes into the program.


34. “Could the Antikythera mechanism be proof that the ancient Greeks had technology far in advance of the time in which they lived, and might this be evidence that there really were functioning robots on the island of Rhodes? Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes’ and claim there is also evidence that advanced robots existed 300 miles to the north on another Greek island, Lemnos.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Robots,” first aired 8/7/2015, at about 19 minutes into the program. Note the weasel word ‘Could’ leading off the quote. Weasel words make the quotes less interesting for analysis, since concerning contingent matters of fact – as philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) catergorizes the factual claims here – almost anything is possible in the sense of being logically possible (not involving a logical contradiction). The more interesting question is whether these are realistic possibilities or merely remote possibilities for which there is far too little evidence to warrant belief that the possibilities have been actualized.


35.   “Might the ancient engineers of Ollantatambo really have used tools acquired from otherworldly sources, as ancient astronaut theorists contend?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, The quoted question above parses into this claim: Ancient astronaut theories contend that the ancient engineers of Ollantatambo might really have used tools acquired from otherworldly sources. Note the weasel word ‘might’ kicking off the quotation.


36. “Could the Mitchell-Hedges skull really be an ancient, extraterrestrial relic, as ancient astronaut theorists suggest?” This implies: “Ancient astronaut theorists suggest that the Mitchell-Hedges skull could really be an ancient extraterrestrial relic.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Crystal Skulls,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 10/7/2013.  Note: it fails to name them or quantify them. I think it includes another with “as many ancient astronaut theorists suggest.” @ 44m: “According to ancient alien theorists, the Atlantians also used objects made of crystal, not only as a means of harnessing energy, but as a means to store important information, much like a computer.”


37.   “But could, as ancient astronaut theorists believe, these strange Dogu figures really be a primitive interpretation of a pressurized space suit or diving apparel?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “Underwater Worlds,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 11/11/2010 at about 36 minutes into the program. This question implies: As ancient astronaut theorists believe, these strange Dogu figures really are a primitive interpretation of a pressurized space suit or diving apparel.


38. “… as Ancient Astronaut theorists believe.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, “The Time Travelers,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/27/2012, at about 25 minutes into the program.***


39.  “… Ancient Astronaut theorists believe …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Stargates,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 1/24/2014, at about 6 minutes into the program


40. “… Ancient Astronaut theorists believe …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Stargates,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 1/24/2014, at about 35 minutes into the program.


41.“According to ancient astronaut theory, we are talking about physical craft that, at some point, were misinterpreted as living creatures.” ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Publisher of Legendary Times magazine, “The New Evidence,” Ancient Aliens, first aired 5/27/2016, at about 26 minutes into the program. Note that the program note states: “Satellite images, ground-penetrating radar and thermal scanning leads to new evidence that appears to substantiate the belief held by millions of people that Earth has been visited in the past by extraterrestrial beings.”


42. “Is it possible, as ancient astronaut theorists suggest, that these monoliths were created by mankind to pay homage to actual otherworldly beings who visited Earth in the distant past?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator; “The Monoliths,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired ?, at about 46 minutes into the program. ***


43. “[E]very story has a core of truth.” ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Publisher of Legendary Times magazine, “The Monoliths,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired ?, at about 36 minutes into the program. ***


44. “[some] ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes’.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “The Monoliths,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired ?, at about 39 minutes into the program.***


45. “Might there actually be evidence of an ancient extraterrestrial civilization buried under the ice of Antarctica. Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes’ and believe that this long history of an alien presence there is precisely what brought another occupying force to its frozen shores – The Nazis.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Pyramids of Antarctica,” first aired 5/6/2016, at about 32 minutes into the program. Note: the program description states: “Satellite imagery reveals what appears to be the tops of manmade pyramids in Antarctica; ancient astronaut theorists conjecture that extraterrestrials may have colonized an ice-free Antarctica before a global catastrophe plunged it into an ice age.”


46. "Every decade we [humans] are getting smarter and smarter and smarter." ~ David Wilcock, author of The Synchronicity Key, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, first aired 2/7/2014.


47. "Throughout human history there have been children who stand out for their advanced knowledge and incredible abilities." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, first aired 2/7/2014.


48. "Today, there is evidence that a higher number of unusually gifted children are being born than ever before." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, The History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014.


49. "There's genetic evidence to prove that humans are evolving at a rapid rate of speed." ~ David Wilcock, author of The Synchronicity Key, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, The History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014.


50. "Some Ancient Astronaut Theorists believe there are children born here on earth that have a connection to beings from beyond our world." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, The History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014.


51. "Some of the Star Children have very high energy." ~ Nikki Pattillo, author of A Spiritual Evolution, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, The History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014.


52.  “I mean, after a while even coincidence no longer makes sense.” ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Publisher of Legendary Timesmagazine, “The Evidence,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/20/2010, at about 10 minutes into the program.


53. “ … ancient astronaut theorists believe …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “The Mystery of Puma Punku,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/20/2010, at about 6 minutes into the program.


54. “ … ancient astronaut theorists suggest …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Destination Orion,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/20/2010, at about 5 minutes into the program.


55. "The U.S. Government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race..." ~ The Obama Administration, quoted in "Alien Encyclopedia," Unsealed: Alien Files, first aired 9/17/2012.


56. "In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence [about exraterrestrials] is being hidden from the public's eye." ~ The Obama Administration, quoted in "Alien Encyclopedia," Unsealed: Alien Files, first aired 9/17/2012.


57. "This business of Erich von Daniken and other people like him hypothesizing that anything interesting or complex from antiquity was brought by aliens is just ridiculous. You've substituted a more complex hypothesis, these aliens for which there's really no other evidence, for a less complex hypothesis, which is: ancient people were smart and hard-working. Why not go with the simpler hypothesis [aka, Occam's Razor]?" ~ Paul Keyser, Historian of Ancient Science and Greek Technology, "Star Clock BC," Naked Science, National Geographic Channel (NGC 276), first aired 1/20/2011.


58. "Everything about this planet [earth] defies logic and probability." ~ George Noory, Coast to Coast AM, radio, 12/15/15, interviewing James Rollins, author of The Bone Labyrinth.

FAQ20: Have 26 Guidelines for Writing & Grading Term Papers?

26 guidelines A-z

Dr. Harwood will use these 26 guidelines in grading your papers and presentations. So, learn all the guidelines thoroughly. The first letter in a comment like 'AF' refers to the guideline I am relying on to comment on your paper and the second letter will be 'F' (meaning 'followed') or 'U' (meaning 'unfollowed'). So, for example, 'AF' means guideline A was followed. 'AU' means guideline A was unfollowed. 'BF' means guideline B was followed and 'BU' means guideline B was unfollowed. Don't worry, 'FU' means only that guideline F was unfollowed. ;o) Avoid being confused by 'UU,' which means only that guideline U was unfollowed. Call me at my cell @ 408-687-8199 if you want any more help with understanding my comments on your graded work, my guidelines A-Z, or any other part of our course together. When writing your first draft, concentrate primarily on guidelines A through F, but follow all 26 guidelines A-Z before submitting your paper. Guidelines with an asterisk (*) are especially important. The alphabetical order is no indicator of importance.


GUIDELINE A*. Always avoid attachments when emailing your term paper to me. You must successfully deliver your term paper to me by emailing it to me, without any attachments, to svharwood1@aol.com. Failure to do so counts as failing to submit your paper at all. You will get an ‘F’ on the paper if you submit it only as an attachment by the deadline, which is 1159pm PT the same day as the final exam (our last class). To copy & paste (and avoid attachments and avoid links to googledocs, etc.) simply use Control + A to highlight all of your text, then Control + C to copy all of your highlighted text onto the clipboard, then Control + V to paste all of your highlighted text on the clipboard into the empty message field of a new email addressed to me. Then send.


GUIDELINE B* Begin your paper with “In this paper I will argue that ____” and then fill in the blank to announce at the outset the main purpose of your paper. Be sure to fill in that blank with the same position you stated in your title (see guideline T) and in your heading for your introduction (see guideline U). The quotations in your A-sections must always be controversial and published.  Clearly identify which arguments are yours. Take a stand on the main issues early on, and continue to take stands on issues throughout your paper. Announce in your first paragraph of your introduction what conclusion you will argue for in your paper and, if your paper is about a moral issue, what moral principles you will use to support your conclusion. If you are morally evaluating a case, then state your moral evaluations of each morally questionable action in your case clearly and early in your first paragraph on p.1 of your paper. When writing on a moral question, you must argue from at least one moral principle. But the more moral principles you show to be on your side, the better your paper will be.  The last paragraph of your Introduction must look like this, with the blanks filled in of course to summarize your paper:


In 2C I will argue that ___.  In 3C I will argue that ___.  In 4C I will argue that _____.  In 5C I will argue that _____.  In 6C I will argue that _____.  In 7C I will argue that _____. Section 8 concludes my essay.

Go beyond 7C if you have more than the minimum of 6 ABC sets in your term paper, as you should try to do, following guideline E.  The blanks will be filled in with a summary of your C section that is similar to the heading you will use atop your C-section, following guideline U.


GUIDELINE C.* Anticipate and fully present all significant counterarguments to your views, and respond to these counterarguments. You may respond by modifying your position or by arguing against the counterarguments. If you are writing on a moral question, then in your first paragraph on page 1 announce what moral principles your opponents will use. You will find counterarguments in the assigned readings. The better the argument, whether it favors your side or not, the more space you should devote to it in your paper.
 

GUIDELINE D. Guideline 'D' is about 'doubt.' Avoid extreme relativism and skepticism, unless that is your approved paper topic. Extreme moral relativism states that no argument is any better than any other argument. Extreme moral skepticism is the view that no moral knowledge exists.
 

GUIDELINE E. * Extra effort exhibits excellence. More is better. Show that you have read and mastered all the assigned readings. You must always use citations. See guideline O below. Carefully present and evaluate ALL the assigned readings that are relevant to your paper topic. Avoid viewing the paper as a mere exercise or chore that you must complete. Instead, view the paper as one of the few chances you will have to show what you know. View the paper as a great opportunity to show all of the relevant information that you know. Your paper should be an analytical paper rather than a research paper. You might find some outside research helpful after mastering and analyzing the readings assigned. You must however document any factual claims you make that fail to be obvious. If you have any doubt about whether your factual claims are obvious, document them. See guideline M below. Philosophy papers are not history or psychology papers. Philosophy papers frequently morally evaluate and argue rather than just describe.  In moral topics (the topics on the syllabus that start with "Based on the 5 moral principles ..."), you must apply all 5 moral principles in every C-section.  Avoid "one and done," which occurs when a student applies only 1 of the 5 moral principles in a C-section and then moves on to another ABC set.  If you apply only 1 or 2 of the 5 moral principles in a C-section, then that is only 20% or 40%, which is an F level of quality.  The 3 most important moral principles to apply are utilitarianism, libertarianism, and egalitarianism, but if you apply only those 3 of the 5, then you can get at most only 60% credit, which is a D- level of quality.  If you apply only 4 of the 5 moral principles in a C-section, then the most credit you can get is 80%, which is a B- level of quality.  To repeat for emphasis: apply all 5 moral principles in every C-section if you write about a moral topic (for example, abortion, affirmative action, euthanasia, gay marriage, gays in the military, gay adoption, stem cell research, cloning, gun control, capital punishment, or any other topic that is listed on the syllabus on in my email approving the topic starting with "Based on the 5 moral principles ...").
 

GUIDELINE F.* Give the FULL and COMPLETE definition of any principle or concept when you first use it, which will most probably be in 2C (section 1 is your introduction). Never define two concepts (moral principles, truth tips or fallacies) in a row. Apply the first concept only after you give the definition of the that concept. Apply the first concept in a separate paragraph (following guideline M) immediately after the paragraph defining the first concept. Finish the application of the first moral principle defined before you move on to define the second moral principle. The definition and application of the same moral principle should appear in two separate paragraphs (see guideline M below). After you have given the full and complete definition, usually in section 2C of your paper, you should – starting in section 3C -- just repeat a short version of the key element in the definition that you intend to apply to evaluate an action in your case. Since my courses often involve applying principles and concepts, define your terms and then SHOW HOW they APPLY to the case or argument or issue or quote in question. In writing on moral questions, show, BY ARGUMENT, that the moral principles make the facts of the case morally relevant. Argue that the facts favor one side rather than the other(s). The more principles you use (without distorting the principles or the facts of your case) to support your evaluations or analysis, the better your paper will be.
 

GUIDELINE G. Use topic sentences. Use words to show the relationships between sentences in your arguments (for example, "In other words," "That is," "For example," "However," "Still," "Besides," "Indeed," "So," “Hence,” “Thus,” “Ergo,” "Therefore," "Further," "Furthermore," "Moreover," "Similarly," "Likewise," "Contrariwise," "On the contrary," "Rather," "Instead," "In sum," "Finally," and "In conclusion,"). Use 'Further' or 'Additionally' rather than 'And' to start a sentence. Use 'However' or "On the other hand" rather than 'But' to start a sentence. Use ‘Alternatvely’ rather than ‘Or’ to start a sentence. 'And,' 'But' and 'Or' are a bit too informal for your scholarly papers.
 

GUIDELINE H. Minimize assumptions, especially key, controversial, or unstated assumptions. Clearly and explicitly argue for every evaluation or conclusion or analysis that you make. In moral writing, morally evaluate every morally questionable action in your case. The number of morally questionable actions will vary from case to case. Accepting an assumption without critical thinking is giving someone a free pass and in philosophy and critical thinking there are no free passes.
 

GUIDELINE I.* Be specific. In the words of The Beatles' album "Sgt. Pepper": "Indicate precisely what you mean to say."
 

GUIDELINE J.* Use extreme words (also called ‘watchwords,’ for example, 'any,' 'all,' 'always,' 'whenever,' 'whatever,' 'never,' 'no,' 'none,' 'every,' 'solely,' 'only,' 'completely,' 'fully,' 'lone,' ‘necessary,’ 'must,' 'absolutely,' 'unquestionable,' 'impossible,' ‘inconceivable,’ 'undeniably') only with extreme caution, since extreme words used without qualifying words (e.g., 'almost,' 'usually,' 'typically,' 'often,' 'frequently,' 'not') often lead to overstatement and falsehood. Avoid hyperbole (that is, exaggeration for rhetorical effect). Avoid overstating arguments & using slanted rhetoric.
 

GUIDELINE K. Avoid using rhetorical questions as substitutes for arguments. Try to answer any questions you pose in your paper and do so immediately after you ask them. So that means you should never pose two questions in a row. Consider the following exchange from Lincoln, a novel by one of my favorite writers, Gore Vidal:
Seward: "Never end a speech with a question."
Lincoln smiled, "For fear you'll get the wrong answer?"
Seward nodded, "People are perverse."
Compare this to the ad populum fallacy.
 

GUIDELINE L. Be brief. As Shakespeare wrote (in "Hamlet"), brevity is the soul of wit. Eliminate unnecessary words by using the active voice instead of the passive voice. Further, almost always delete 'actually' and 'really.' Balance guidelines L and E. See guideline W on the passive voice. Here's an example of the active voice: "The bat hit the ball." Here's an example of the passive voice: "The ball was hit by the bat." The active voice is briefer than the passive voice.
 

GUIDELINE M. Use a separate paragraph every time you start a significantly new event in your paper. For example, defining a moral principle is one significant event but then applying that definition to a quote is a new event deserving a new (separate) paragraph. Further, if a paragraph consists of only one or two brief sentences, check to see whether the paragraph is best incorporated into another paragraph of your paper. If a paragraph runs for much over a page, check that you are neither rambling, merely drifting down a stream of consciousness, nor being verbose.
 

GUIDELINE N. Avoid using scare-quotes (that is, inverted commas). For example, avoid saying "This seems 'right'" or "You are 'wrong'."
 

GUIDELINE O. *  No Internet-only citations are permitted in the A-sections, except for The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and www.sterlingharwood.com (the quotes I say on this site that you can use in A-sections).  See the 5 required pieces of info in the next paragraph.  You must cite a named, individual, non-fictitious person (or set of such persons as co-authors). The name must be sufficiently recognizable to allow identification.  Remember, only information attributable to a named individual nonfictitious person is eligible for citation in your term paper. Read and think about whatever you like, but Dr. Harwood wants your term paper to focus on real info from real people rather than waste time or distract by you citing in your term paper, for example, just some actor or imposter or fictitious person like "lonely girl" on the Internet. Whenever you use someone else's idea(s), use a citation immediately following it (at the end of the sentence, in parentheses) to give 5 pieces of key information: For a book, give: 1) author; 2) title; 3) publisher; 4) year; and 5) page (or pages if the quote runs from one page to another);

For a periodical (magazine, newspaper, scholarly journal, newsletter, etc.), give: 1) author; 2) title of the article; 3) title of the publication (magazine, etc.); 4) date (month, day and year), and page (or pages if the quote runs from one page to another);

For a film, give: 1) the person's name (actor's real name, see IMDB.com or the film's credits); 2) title of film; 3) film company (see IMDB.com or the film's credits); and 4) year film was first released (see IMDB.com);

For a TV show, give: 1) the person's name (actor's real name, see IMDB.com or the show's credits); 2) the name of the TV show; 3) the network the show was broadcast on originally (see IMDB.com or the show's credits); and 4) the first air date (see IMDB.com)

For a radio show, give: 1) the person's name who spoke the quoted statement; 2) the name of the radio show; 3) the call letters (such as KLIV or WBAL) of the radio station that aired the show; and 4) the date on which you heard the show;

For the Internet, use in an A-section only if it is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or www.sterlingharwood.com, but you can cite any Internet source in any part of your paper that is NOT an A-section, and give whenever you cite the Internet: 1) the name of the person who wrote or spoke the quoted statement; 2) the Internet URL (website address, such as sterlingharwood.com); and 3) the date you last successfully visited the Internet site and saw the quoted statement.

Avoid quote-quilting (that is, overusing others' arguments and merely weaving them together into a position). If you use the exact words of another, then you must use quotation marks around all of those exact words. Failure to quote exact words and failure to credit others with a citation when you use their ideas is plagiarism, which is unethical and sometimes illegal. Dr. Harwood punishes plagiarism by giving an F for the course to any student who plagiarizes. If you have any doubt or ignorance about what plagiarism means, then before you submit any work carefully read the definition of plagiarism at www.dictionary.com -- and other dictionaries -- and consult a school counselor about our college's rules concerning plagiarism and academic honesty and integrity.
 

GUIDELINE P. Avoid understating your point. One of the most important things you will learn in college is how to give your points just the right level of emphasis, avoiding overemphasis and under-emphasis. On overemphasis, see guideline J above. On under-emphasis, probabilities are usually crucial. Showing a mere possibility is helpful only when rebutting a claim that something is impossible. Lawyers rightly ridicule arguments trying to show some possible, horrible consequence to a law or ruling, calling such arguments "possible horrible arguments." Avoid making such arguments. Avoid weasel words, which tend to water down and understate your point. Weasel words include, but are hardly limited to: ‘maybe’, ‘may’, ‘perhaps’, ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘possible’, ‘possibly’, ‘conceivable’, ‘conceivably’, and ‘can’.
 

GUIDELINE Q. * Expose the commission of any fallacies others commit, but avoid oversimplifying or distorting others' views or the definitions of the fallacies just to rebut your opponents. Avoid committing any fallacies yourself. See sterlingharwood.com for the definitions of fallacies.
 

GUIDELINE R. Proofread your paper carefully! Bad proofreading is the fastest way to lose credibility with your readers. Imagine if you wrote paper on Microsoft and kept calling it Macrosoft or Macrosift all the way through your paper. Your readers would infer that since you fail to know even how to spell your subject, you do not know what you are talking about. At best, typographical or grammatical errors distract your reader; and dividing your reader's attention risks misinterpretation of your views. At worst, such errors obscure thoughts you wish to communicate, and convince your reader that his or her wisdom is no match for your ignorance. Here are some words that are often misspelled or misused: 1) 'argument' is right; 'arguement' is wrong; 2) "it's" means "it is"; 'its' is the possessive of 'it'; 3) 'criterion' is singular and 'criteria' is plural; 4) 'solely' is right; 'soley' and 'soly' are wrong; 5) 'occurrence' is right; 'occurence' is wrong; 6) 'likelihood' is right; 'likelyhood' is wrong; 7) 'judgment' is best in America; 'judgement' is the British spelling; and 8) 'lose' (not 'loose') is the opposite of 'win', and 'losing' (not 'loosing')is the opposite of 'winning'; 9) 'loose' is the opposite of 'tight'.
 

GUIDELINE S. Put points positively, which makes your writing less evasive and more forceful and clear. Use these words to help you avoid 'not': 'lack', 'without,' 'refrain,' 'shun,' 'fail,' 'scarcely,' 'hardly,' 'refuse,' 'refrain,' 'reject,' 'avoid,' 'doubt,' "decide against," and "rather than” ; “instead of." Avoid using negative terms such as 'not' and 'never.' Avoid using contractions (for example, "don't" and "ain't" and "I'll") in formal writings such as your paper. This guideline prevents you from using double negatives and from mincing words (e.g., "not without")
 

GUIDELINE T: The title for your paper must clearly TAKE A STAND on your approved paper topic and clearly IDENTIFY YOUR PAPER TOPIC. This means that if you use a question for your title, be sure to answer that question in your title (or a subtitle). Here's an example of a title with a subtitle: "Is Abortion Moral?: No". 'No' is the subtitle. "Is Abortion Moral?: Yes" would be an equally excellent title for a paper on abortion. Here are examples of bad titles that fail to follow guideline A: “Paper,” “Term Paper” “Philosophy Paper”; “Philosophy Term Paper”; "Affirmative Action"; "Abortion"; “Death Penalty,” “Executions,” “Capital Punishment,” Euthanasia"; "Gun Control"; "Surrogate Motherhood." Here are examples of good titles that follow guideline A: "Say 'Affirmative' to Affirmative Action"; "Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination & Wrong," "Kill Euthanasia: It's Wrong," “Put Mercy Killing out of its Misery: It’s Wrong,” "Euthanasia: We Have a Moral Right to Death with Dignity," "Abort Abortion: It's Wrong," "Abortion: Women Should Have the Right to Choose," "Gun Down Gun Control: It's Wrong," "Gun Control is So Good It Saves Lives."


GUIDELINE U.* Use numbered headings (see the sample papers on this site to see how the headings look) to show your readers where you are heading. The heading is like a headline and thus the heading for your introduction, for example, should thus appear on a separate line above the first paragraph of your introduction. Pity your reader. He or she must take thousands of tiny stains (letters) and use interpretation to make from these stains a philosophy or a position. Avoid passing up opportunities to use headings to let your reader know what your conclusions will be (where you are heading) and how you will get there. Headngs are useful signposts. Use a summary of your C section (found in your Intro & Conclusion) as a heading for the entire ABC set.
 

GUIDELINE V. Use complete sentences. That is, avoid "sentence fragments."
 

GUIDELINE W. Work to be clear and literal. Avoid sarcasm, metaphors and figurative language. Use the active voice to promote clarity. Passive voice is good for politeness, suspense and evasion of responsibility (for example, President Reagan's "Mistakes were made" on the Iran/Contra scandal). Your scholarly papers put a premium on other values such as clarity and brevity, which are much better served by the active voice. The passive voice often uses forms of the verb "to be", often uses the past participle of a verb, and often uses 'by.' For example, the active voice of "Plato argued for this conclusion" is better than "This conclusion was argued for by Plato."

GUIDELINE X. Avoid splitting infinitives. Infinitives involve verbs. Examples of infinitives: 1) "to go" is the infinitive of 'go'; 2) "to die" is the infinitive of 'die'. Here's an example of a split infinitive: "Its 5-year mission is to boldly go where no one has gone before."
 

GUIDELINE Y. Avoid ending sentences with prepositions. Winston Churchill jokingly said that this error is a mistake up with which he will not put. ;o) Examples of propositions include: at, under, over, of, for, in. Examples of sentences ending with prepositions include: 1) "Where's the library at?"; 2) "Check to see if the mail is in"; and 3) "You are the one I came for."
Another joke concerning this guideline is:
Freshman: “Where’s the library at?”
Professor: “Here at Cornell we simply do not end our sentences with prepositions.”
Freshman: “OK, then where’s the library at – scumbag!”
 

GUIDELINE Z. Avoid contractions, which are too informal for the scholarly writing you do. Examples of contractions include: "I'm," "Don't," and "I'll." Further, avoid starting sentences with 'And,' 'But,' or 'Or' since these are also too informal.

faq21 THE MOST LOGICAL EXPLANATION OF BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS?

Quotes & Stats on Bigfoot


Important Note: The quote at the very end with an asterisk (‘*’) next to the start of it is ineligible for A-sections in your ABC sets. All the other quotes are eligible for you to use as A-section quotes in ABC sets. Any Source of Info is Allowed in any of your C-sections of any of your ABC sets, your Intro, and/or your Conclusion. There are no restrictions on where you get your info for any part of your paper except the A-section quotes in your ABC sets. Those quotes must be quotes of controversial, published claims, and must include citations following Guideline O.


1. “Well, there are reports of Bigfoot all across the United States. There’s absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of the reports come from the Pacific Northwest. If you look at the terrain, it’s filled with mountains, vast forests that just go on for thousands of square miles. Now, if Bigfoot exists, which I believe he does, then the best places for these creatures to exist in a fashion that would not see them killed by us would be in the deep forests and in the mountains.” ~ Nick Redfern, author and cryptozoologist, interviewed in “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


2. “We tend to assume that we have explored all of the places on our planet – that between satellites and google earth and all of our modern technology that we’ve seen every square inch of our planet. And the reality is that we absolutely haven’t.” ~ Lynne McNeill, Ph.D., Professor of Folklore, Utah State University, interviewed in “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


3. “As a folklorist, I go back to the idea that legends [like Bigfoot] do not exist for no reason. Bigfoot speaks to a lot of truths. And it is worthwhile to consider what those truths are.” ~ Lynne McNeill, Ph.D., Professor of Folklore, Utah State University, interviewed in “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


4. “As far as scientists and anthropologists are concerned, myths and legends are no substitute for cold, hard evidence.  And they believe that footprints, like the one found near Willow Creek [in October of 1958 along a 30-mile area of Bluff Creek in California] may offer some of the strongest scientific evidence we have that Bigfoot really exists.” ~ Narrator, “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


5. “That first footprint [the Willow Creek print of October 1958] has become an iconic image. Since then, the practice has proliferated and now I have over 300 footprint casts in my laboratory, and probably one of the most extensive collections of that type of data. And from that has emerged a remarkable and compelling body of evidence that there really is a species of creature as yet unrecognized by science living here in North America.” ~ Jeff Meldrum, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Idaho State University, “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


6. “[Josh Gates, explorer & TV host:] What do you say to people who are hardened skeptics who say that there can’t be anything like the Yeti out of the Himalayas?

[Dr. Jeff Meldrum:] Well, skepticism is an important part of science. However, even in science you never say ‘never.’ Based on the evidence that I’m familiar with, I can see no other way to account for it than to acknowledge the possibility – and in fact the probability – that there is an unrecognized species of primate in the Himalayas.”  ~ from “Unmasking the Myth,” Expedition Unknown: Hunt for the Yeti, Travel Channel, first aired 10/26/2016. Note: Double-check the spelling of Dr. Meldrum’s name.


7. “My hunt for the Yeti led me to the edge of the inhabitable world. In Nepal, I learned that my own Yeti experience all those years ago is part of a mass tapestry of stories. I met dozens of witnesses, held venerated artifacts, and experienced the sheer power of belief. And then, in Bhutan, the shy jewel of the Himalayas, I came away with a new piece of evidence. We recovered a clue that a bear species once thought to be extinct here could still be alive and well. In the end, my journey revealed two different, but I think complementary answers to the Yeti legend. On the one hand, the near-religious status of the Yeti, and the lack of compelling DNA evidence, leads me to believe that it is rooted in folklore, a Himalayan myth for the ages, a proxy for the holy mountains. But I also think that every eyewitness I met was sincere in his belief. The footprint from Bhutan reveals how little we really know about what’s living in the Himalayas. To me, there’s little doubt that bears make up the vast majority of reported Yeti sightings. But questions do remain. The footprint impression I found years ago, the print we saw in Monjo, and the depressions in the snow on [Mount] Everest and in Bhutan, none of those match bear prints at all. And cold 100% of eyewitnesses really be mistaken? The answer is, I’m not sure. There will always be a part of me, a wishful part, that says the Yeti could be out there waiting in the frosted unknown. And I raise my glass to the intrepid explorers who continue to search for answers, and to the people of the Himalayas who continue to pay respect to the Yeti and who share its legend with the world.” ~ Josh Gates, “Unmasking the Myth,” Expedition Unknown: Hunt for the Yeti, Travel Channel, first aired 10/26/2016.


8. “This is an absolute case that we have not got the cut and dried evidence, we got no skull, no bones and you have to admit we should have that if we want to believe that Bigfoot is real.” ~ Dr. Bill Sellers, Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide, History Channel, first aired: 2/2/2011, Time: 1:26:15-1:26:28, Directed by Virginia Quinn. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1947972/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBGsTDMRHw), last visited 2/24/19. 


9. “There is no way to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there’s such an animal without having a body on the dissecting table we have to ask the question if there is a Bigfoot out there why haven’t we found it.” ~ Dr. David Daegling, Bigfoot: Is It Real, National Geographic, first aired 6/23/2005, Time: 41:35-41:50, Directed by Noel Dockstader, available on amazon prime, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0860046/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOPrdBbdZms), last visited 2/24/19.


10. “After doing a recreation using the same exact camcorder as the original video there’s no doubt in my mind that it was either one of his friends or another camper, there’s no way that’s a sasquatch it’s clearly a person.” ~ Ranae Holland, “Finding Bigfoot” (2011– 2015) 8:16-8:30, Season 2, Episode 9, Holy Cow! It’s Bigfoot, Air date: 3/11/2012, Keith Hoffman, for the Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyA2UMIIztE), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1), last visited 2/24/19.


11. “We just happened to look in the field and we saw him as soon as soon as the light from the spotlight hit him he was gone” Shawana Ward, Finding Bigfoot (2011– 2015), 4:22-4:34, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for the Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


12. “Even though it was night time we did see the eye glow, depending on how high those eyes where that’s going to give us a good assumption of how big this Sasquatch was.” ~ Cliff Barackman, Finding Bigfoot (2011– 2015), 5:18-5:25, Season 3, Episode 6, Bigfoot and Wolverines, Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk), http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


13. “There’s a lot of things in this story that just don’t make sense, why would a Sasquatch throw a log at a car if it’s a creature that wants to be undetected and even though he’s a hunter the sighting was at night I can’t rule out an identification”. Ranae Holland, Finding Bigfoot (2011– 2015), 6:33-6:50, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


14.“I originally got into logging because I wanted to see a Sasquatch. I’ve never seen one logging yet but I’ve met plenty of loggers that claim to have seen the [Sasquatch].” ~ James Fay, 12:58-13:05, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet Channel, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


15. “I saw a glimpse, an outline of a shadowy figure that was covered in hair the witness doesn’t even know what he saw, without him knowing and without providing hard evidence I can’t say that was a Sasquatch”. Ranae Holland, 22:30-22:45, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman (for Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


16.“All I saw where these orange eyes just staring right at me it didn’t look away, I re-aimed my riffle at him but as soon as I did that the Sasquatch took before I could shoot.” ~ Stuart Kunkle, 23:50-24:10, Season 3, Episode 6, Bigfoot and Wolverines, Air date: December 16, 2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


17. “The deer skeletons lead me to believe the Bigfoot reports around here are true, I think Sasquatches do live in this are but this area is so large we need to narrow our focus.” ~ Matt Moneymaker, 31:30-31:50, Season 3, Episode 6, Bigfoot and Wolverines, Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


18. “Me and a buddy of mine where raccoon hunting when saw something that was a big dark figure that was lurking in the woods, there’s no doubt in my mind it wasn’t a human.” ~ Shane Mitchell, 6:05-6:20, Season 3, Episode 10, “Bacon for Bigfoot,” Air date: 1/13/2013, Keith Hoffman (for Animal Planet), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPKIcc1wfb0), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1).


19.“To me it pops right out, right of the back it’s a lot bigger than I am this thing is significantly bigger than me it’s at least seven feet tall it’s not a human – it’s a Sasquatch”. James Fay, 7:31-7:42, Season 3, Episode 7, “Bobo Marks His Turf,” Air date: December 23, 2012, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCr8s4Vox4), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1).


20. “I looked through my window because I heard rustling in the bushes, I saw this black figure standing on its back legs it looked at me and then ran away.” ~ Joe Cocca, 16:25-16:50, Season 3, Episode 7, “Bobo Marks His Turf,” Air date: December 23, 2012, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCr8s4Vox4), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1).


21. “Bigfoot obviously has reproductive systems just like humans that’s why there’s so many Bigfoot's roaming around in the wild.” ~  Matt Moneymaker, 21”19-21:27, Season 3, Episode 7, “Bobo Marks His Turf,” Air date: 12/23/2012, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCr8s4Vox4), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1), last visited 2/24/19.


22. “I’m confident in saying that we have three Sasquatches around us, due to all the eye witnesses’ accounts and their evidence”. James Fay, 40:50-41:02, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: December 16, 2012, Keith Hoffman (for Animal Planet), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1), last visited 2/24/19.


23. “What happens a lot of the time is that somebody has what you might call a ‘Bigfoot experience,’” he said. “They hear one howling, or throwing stones at them, or something like that. Then they see a clump of hair caught in a bush, and say ‘Aha, that’s come from the Bigfoot.’” ~ James Owen, Weird & Wild, National Geographic, July 1, 2014, Page 1 (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/01/yeti-bigfoot-dna-hair-study-science-animals-himalaya/, last visited 2/24/19.


24. "There are places where you can see territorial markings and snaps that the creature has made in the trees. There are even canopies and bows made of trees for him to sleep under, according to Gilbert. "It looks like a tombstone almost," Gilbert said. "You can see the outlines of the creature's eyes, head and his teeth." ~ James Owen, Weird & Wild, National Geographic, July 1, 2014, Page 1 (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/01/yeti-bigfoot-dna-hair-study-science-animals-himalaya/.


25. “Now that the Patterson film has been debunked what do you really have? [Mere] [s]tories and footprints.” ~ Sean Reynolds, Bigfoot: The Lost Coast Tapes. New Breed Entertainment (26 October 2012), Director: Corey Grant, Time: 13:46-13:53. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j9k5GNWGhw), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1740725/?ref_=nv_sr_4.), last visited 2/24/19.


26. “It’s rare to find a carcass of a grizzly bear in the wild. While that's true, grizzlies have not escaped photographic documentation.” Stefan Lovgren, National Geographic News on October 23, 2003, Page 2 of 2. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot_2.html), last visited 2/24/19.


27. “Eyewitness testimonies notoriously inaccurate especially when people are frightened, there is recent research that suggest in the conditions of stress and fear as you would expect in Bigfoot sighting. The brain actually does an even worse job of remembering what it sees.” ~ Benjamin Radford, Bigfoot: Is It Real?, National Geographic, (23 Jun. 2005) Time: 4:40-5:02, Directed by Noel Dockstader, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0860046/), (https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOPrdBbdZms), last visited 2/24/19.


28. “Eyewitness testimony is not reliable, police detectives know this, lawyers know this, and physiologists know this, there’s nothing shocking about it. The problem is when you apply that to Bigfoot sightings it’s even less reliable.” ~ Benjamin Radford, Bigfoot: Is It Real?, National Geographic, (23 Jun. 2005), Time: 5:07-5:22, Directed by Noel Dockstader. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0860046/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOPrdBbdZms), last visited 2/24/19.


29. “I believe very much in what local people and if local people tell me something is there, I have a suspicion that it may be true even if I haven’t seen it.” ~ Dr. Anna Nekaris, Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide, Handel Productions, February 2, 2011, Time: 12:07-12:14 Directed by Virginia Quinn, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1947972/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBGsTDMRHw), last visited 2/24/19.


30. “All the scientists have are tantalizing clues, hair samples that don’t register as any know species, recorded calls in the middle of the night and most crucial of all thousands of eye witness reports.” Alan Handel, Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide, History Channel, February 2, 2011 Time: 1:23:40-1:23:56, Directed by Virginia Quinn, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1947972/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBGsTDMRHw), last visited 2/24/19.


31. “How come there are no remains when these creatures die? Can't you show us one teensy-weensy bone? How about a tooth? Not even a toe-nail?” ~ from: "Sasquatch - Bigfoot Believers vs Skeptics - Krantz." Bigfoot Encounters. 21 May 2009, http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/believers.htm, last visited 2/24/19.


32. “The most common characteristic of bigfoot pictures is that they exist in the absence of hard physical evidence that the creature was really there.” ~ from: “Sasquatch: Best Evidence - Page One," Paranormal Phenomena. 21 May 2009, http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa112999a.htm, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Avoid using this in any A-section of any ABC set but you may use it in any C-section where the quote helps.

 

33. “A good example of this, is the case of Terry Reems, who in 1975, along with dozens of other witnesses saw a Bigfoot stranded on the median of Interstate 84.” ~ from “Sasquatch: Best Evidence - Page One," Paranormal Phenomena. 21 May 2009 <http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa112999a.htm>.)
Note: Avoid using this in any A-section of any ABC set but you may use it in any C-section where the quote helps.


34. “There have been more than 700 footprints attributed to Bigfoot collected over the years, having an average length of 15.6 inches.” ~ from: “Sasquatch: Best Evidence - Page One." Paranormal Phenomena. 21 May 2009, http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa112999a.htm, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Since the claim quoted is unpublished, avoid using it in any A-section of any ABC set. But you may use this quotation in any other part of your paper except the title and the B sections.


35. “It's a fact that for more than 400 years people have reported seeing large, hair-covered, man-like animals in the wilderness areas of North America.” ~ from: Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. 21 May 2009, http://www.bfro.net/, last visited 2/24/19.
Note: Since this quote is unpublished, avoid using it in any A-section of any ABC set. But you may use this quote in any other part of your paper except the title and the B sections.


36. “It is a fact that sightings of these animals continue today. Real or not, these reports are often made by people of unimpeachable character.” ~ from: Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, 5/21/2009, http://www.bfro.net/, last visited 2/24/19. Note: avoid using this in any A-section of any ABC set but you may use it in any Intro, Conclusion, or C-section.

37. “How about all those hunters? Why haven't they brought one down yet?” ~ from: "Sasquatch - Bigfoot Believers vs Skeptics – Krantz," Bigfoot Encounters, first aired 5/21/2009, http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/believers.htm, last visited 2/24/19.


38. “The good news for Bigfootologists and enthusiasts who are looking forward to proving and identifying what they’ve been after for years is that there is now a way of doing that, which there never was before.” ~ James Owen, “Weird and Wild,” National Geographic, 7/1/2014, p. 1, http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/01/yeti-bigfoot-dna-hair-study-science-animals-himalaya/, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Since the quoted claim is uncontroversial, avoid using it in any A-section of any ABC set. But you may use this quote in any other part of your paper except the title and the B sections.


39. "Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified.” ~ Prof. Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University, “Weird and Wild,” National Geographic, 7/1/2014, p. 1, http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/01/yeti-bigfoot-dna-hair-study-science-animals-himalaya/, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Double-check the accuracy of this citation. It may be from another work by National Geographic.


40. “In 1988, wildlife biologist John Bindernagel of Vancouver Island found massive footprints in the snow and heard a "whoo-whoo whooop" call in the woods.” ~ from: “Sasquatch: Best Evidence - Page One." Paranormal Phenomena, first aired 5/21/2009, http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa112999a.htm, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Since this quote fails to count as published, because the citation is only to an Internet source that fails to appear in Guideline O, avoid using this quote in any A-section of any ABC set but you may use it anywhere else in your paper except the title or in a B section.


41.*“Only days after Georgia residents Matt Whitton and Rick Dyer told reporters at a press conference on Friday that they had a dead Bigfoot body, their evidence has been exposed as a rubber ape costume.” ~ from: "Bigfoot Hoax: ‘Body’ Is Rubber Suit," Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines, National Geographic News, first aired 5/21/2009, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080820-bigfoot-body.html, last visited 2/24/19.


Stats & Other Facts About Alleged Bigfoot Sightings


1. Stat: 36 seconds: length of The Patterson-Gimlin film. Source: Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 62.


2. Fact: The Patterson-Gimlin film was taken by Roger Patterson of Yakima, Washington in Pine Bluff, CA, which is northeast of Eureka, CA. Source: Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 61.


3. Fact: The Patterson-Gimlin film was a color film taken in 1967. Source: [coming soon]


4. Stat: 14.5 inches: length of some footprints attributed to Bigfoot. Source: Roger Patterson of Yakima, Washington, cited in Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 62.


5. Stat: 41 inches: Distance apart of some footprints tentatively attributed to Bigfoot. Source: Roger Patterson, cited in Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 62.

6. 74 inches: height of D


7. Stat: 81 inches: one estimate of the height of Bigfoot. Source: Dr. Ian McTaggart Cowan, Dean of Graduate Studies, University of British Columbia, who estimated the height of the Bigfoot leaving those footprints at 6’ 9” based on the measurement of alleged Bigfoot footprints of 14.5 inches, cited in Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 62.


Bibliography


1. “The Sasquatch Returns,” Weekend Magazine, January 13, 1968.

2. Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64.

image5

FAQ22 HAVE QUOTES ON THE LOCH NESS MONSTER?

Quotes About the Alleged Loch Ness Monster


Last revised: 11/2/19


What is the most logical explanation for the many sightings of and other evidence for the alleged Loch Ness Monster in Loch Ness, Scotland? Note: some of these quotes are uncontroversial and all quotes used in the A-sections of ABC sets must be controversial. I identify below which quotes I find uncontroversial, but I cordially welcome you to talk me out of my classification and to stir up controversy. “Dr. H” = “Dr. Sterling Harwood.”


1. “[This show is a] thrill ride to the depths of the world’s greatest mystery.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so you may use it in an A-section, C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion.


2. “Scientists think ‘Nessie’ [The Loch Ness Monster] is a giant eel, an eons old sea serpent, or … an ocean mammal of the Sirenian order.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


3.  “Exactly what is Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster]? There are several theories.

Bob Love believes that Nessie probably is a very large eel. Eels can fold up like an accordion, which could account for the sightings of camel-like humps. They breed by laying eggs, which hatch out into three-inch larva. But a six-foot-log larva has been found, and is on display in Copenhagen, Denmark. An eel growing from such a larva would be 90 feet long.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


4. “Another theory is that Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster] is a carnivorous, sea-going mammal of the Sirenian order.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


5. “A third theory says Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster] is a plesiosaur, a large fish-eating reptile. ‘Plesiosaurs flourished I the Cretaceous period about 65 million years ago,’ says Jack Ullrich. ‘So they should be as extinct as all the other dinosaurs.’ But, he adds, a living coelacanth (a large fossil fish going back to the same period), was discovered in 1947.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


6. “And why hasn’t anyone found Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster] yet? One reason is the reluctance of science to accept her existence.

A second drawback [that is, reason] is money. Because of a lack of funds, Bob Love and the [Loch Ness Investigation] Bureau have had to use ingenuity in place of dollars, to improvise inexpensive underwater flash cameras and other equipment.

But the money shortage may be ending. Last November, scientists from London University said they had seen a family of similar monsters in Loch Morar, the deepest loch in Britain. Shortly after the Morar sightings, the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau received more grants, and will be searching with better equipment.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


7. “Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster] may help in solving the mystery. A new power plant at the village of Foyers has forced Nessie to abandon her favorite spot in the loch. She now frequents Urquhart Bay, where she has been surfacing more often than ever. 

So chances of solving the centuries-old mystery are better than ever. All who have participated in the search, know there is something in Loch Ness. We would love to be there when it is finally found.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


8. “It [Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra 10E plane] exists. It’s not the Loch Ness Monster. It’s not Bigfoot. That plane exists, which means you can find it.” ~ Robert Ballard, Explorer, Expedition Amelia, National Geographic Channel, first aired 10/20/2019.

9. “Our experience [in our TV program] tonight shows just how difficult the search for the Loch Ness Monster can be. Despite years of research and months of planning, all we could get was a fleeting encounter. And yet, that might be closer than anyone else has ever come. At the very least, we’ve identified a new approach in finding the beast based on scientific logic. As many as 18,000 new species are discovered every year. That means 4 new ones might have been found in the time you’ve been watching this [1-hour] program. There’s a chance we’ve identified something new tonight. We mayhave even seen it. No matter what, we’ve certainly added to the rich history of this legendary creature. From St. Columba in the year 565 [A.D./CE] to Alex Campbell in 1933 to Gordon Holmes in 2007 to us here today, one thing is clear. Something is out there. There’s only one way to find out what the Loch Ness Monster truly is and that’s to keep looking. The search continues.” ~ Zachary Quinto, “The Loch Ness Monster, Part 2,” In Search Of, Season 2, Episode 2, first aired 10/11/2019.


10. “One of the world’s greatest mysteries is on the cusp of being solved by a Kiwi [New Zealand] scientist [Neil Gemmell, University of Otago, New Zealand].” ~ Anonymous News Anchor, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This seems controversial, so try to use it in an A-section or in any relevant C-section, Intro, and/or Conclusion. Dr. H makes a rare exception here to allow you to use an anonymous quote in an A-section, given that the anonymous anchor makes the statement on screen and is very recognizable in this program from a generally reliable source.


11. “I think there’s something down there [in Loch Ness]. … Yes, I do.” ~ Al Roker, when asked if he believes in the Loch Ness Monster, Today Show, NBC, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so try to use it in an A-section or any relevant C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion.


12. “For more than a millennium, thousands of eyewitnesses say they’ve seen a massive creature slithering through these depths [of Loch Ness], but once spotted, it slowly disappears beneath the surface, eluding capture or explanation.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019.


13. “The thing about Loch Ness is that it is in a sense a lost world. It is quite big. You could put every human being on earth into it three times over. It’s dark, so it’s hostile.” ~ Adrian Shine, Naturalist – Loch Ness Project, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019.


14.“It’s the largest loch in the British Isles. It’s mysterious. We probably know more about the rocks on the moon than we know about rocks on the bottom of Loch Ness.” Eric Verspoor, University of the Highlands and Islands, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019.


15. “It [Loch Ness] is the sort of place where it would be difficult to prove that there was nothing there.” ~ Adrian Shine, Naturalist – Loch Ness Project, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019.


16.“We think there is a rational thought or explanation for most of the sightings but we’re open to the idea that we are wrong.” ~ Neil Gemmell, scientist who led an expedition to Loch Ness searching for DNA from the Loch Ness Monster, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so you may use it in an A-section, a C-section, your Intro, and/or your Conclusion.


17. “The eyewitness accounts are compelling evidence that there’s a monster in Loch Ness.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so you may use this in an A-section, C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion.


18. “Scientists have been searching for the legendary Loch Ness Monster since the first recorded sighting more than fifteen hundred years ago.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This seems uncontroversial, so use it only in a C-section, Intro, and/or Conclusion but not in any A-section.


19.“Loch Ness is nearly 800 feet deep.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This seems uncontroversial, so use this in any relevant C-section, Intro, and/or Conclusion but avoid using it in any A-section.


20. “There are over nineteen hundred reports [of witnessing the Loch Ness Monster] from Loch Ness from about sixteen hundred individual events. So, some events have multiple witnesses. And those are probably the best reports. Those are the ones where we have the most trust in what was actually seen.” ~ Charles Paxton, University of St. Andrews, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This seems uncontroversial, so use this in any relevant C-section, Intro, and/or Conclusion but avoid using this quote in any A-section.


21. “In my view, eyewitnesses [of the alleged Loch Ness Monster] are honest and accurate in what they see.” ~ Adrian Shine, Naturalist – Loch Ness Project, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so try to use it in an A-section and/or in any relevant C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion.


22. “What we’ve got here is a weight of evidence that says there have been some real things that have been observed at here Loch Ness that, I think, are really hard to explain. There is still plenty of space for science and belief [in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster] to co-exist here because we have not been able to definitely say that there is a creature and it looks like this. There’s still this other element of uncertainty which allows for those who want to believe in the [Loch Ness] Monster to continue to believe in the [Loch Ness] Monster.” ~ Neil Gemmell, University of Otago, New Zealand, scientist who led an expedition to Loch Ness searching for DNA from the Loch Ness Monster, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so try to use it in an A-section and/or in any relevant C-section, Intro or Conclusion.


23. “Since the completion of Neil Gemmell’s expedition [to try to find DNA evidence of the Loch Ness Monster], there have been more than two dozen new sightings of the Loch Ness Monster.” ~ Graphic, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is uncontradicted and from a reliable source, so it seems uncontroversial; so use this in any relevant C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion but avoid using it in any A-section.

FAQ23: What's a student's paper on affirmative action often look like?

  

WARNING: SAMPLE PAPERS ARE IMPERFECT PAPERS. FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES A-Z, (coming soon to this site) WHICH ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SAMPLE PAPERS. CONTACT DR. HARWOOD EARLY & OFTEN TO GET ALL THE HELP YOU NEED TO DO YOUR BEST.

Hi Hugh,

GRADE = Incomplete, BUT A GOOD START. YOU SHOULD NUMBER SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 14, WITH SECTION 1 FOR THE INTRO AND SECTION 14 FOR THE CONCLUSION. YOU DID WELL ON APPLYING THE MORAL PRINCIPLES BUT RU & OU ON THE QUOTATIONS AND THE CITATIONS. SOME OF YOUR C SECTIONS ARE INCOMPLETE BECAUSE THEY USE ‘…’ RATHER THAN APPLY ALL 5 MORAL PRINCIPLES TO THE QUOTE IN THE A SECTION.

DR. H

Hugh Blind/Phil 60

Term paper/Due: May 28, 2018


Affirmative Action is Moral

by Hugh Blind (pseudonym)


1. Introduction: I Support Affirmative Action to Promote Equal Opportunity for All

In this paper I will argue that Affirmative Action is morally correct because it helps to equalize numbers of achievers from different national origins, genders, disabled groups and promotes educational and employment opportunities in equalizing these numbers. If you have one ethnic group such as the Anglo-Saxon and all of one gender of just males than it will be all one sided and not a diversity in it. To have equal number of race, size in addition to gender, national origin whether an employment opportunity and or educational advantage. If you have just ethic group like the Anglo Saxon and all one gender of male dominate than it will be all one sided and not a divers in size of ethnicity by doing this kind of method it will be just how it was when the Anglo Saxon first came to the land of America, in enforcing the true people of the land which were the Native Americans some case or should I say most cases taking away their heritage that in today bringing back some of their ways their ancestry did their traditions, languages and ceremonies. Enforcing their way of living in bringing their superior race of what they seem to have brought to us America in which it is today it was not until the early 1960’s from which then President Kennedy responding to pressure from the civil rights movement.


Given, the opportunity to different ethnicity of the Black man, Native American, Latino, Asian and so forth, male and female, social economic statues as well as one gender the opportunity to achieve in which other way they will not have the opportunity. Where would our county be diversity I say it was what America was built on. The land of opportunity to achieve one self and the assistance for them to achieve. their fullest in their employment opportunity if you have a board room with only male gender and these business men all happened to be all white men with no other race in that board room will you call it affirmative action? No that will be Egalitarianism 2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly similar cases similar or failing to treat relevantly different cases differently. (See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 24.)


Affirmative Action began as a plan to equalize the educational, employment, and contracting opportunities for minorities and women with opportunities given to their white, male counterparts, (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1970.html). Actually, President Lyndon Baines Johnson followed up on the Executive Order of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who created Affirmative Action in 1961 but was assassinated on November 22, 1963. They got the ball rolling. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s executive order 11246, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1970.html).  The success over Affirmative Action’s 57-year history, we still use Affirmative Action in America today.

In 2C I will argue … In 3C I will argue … In 4C I will argue … In 5C I will argue … In 6C I will argue … In 7C I will argue … In 8C I will argue … In 9C I will argue … In 10C I will argue … In 11C I will argue … In 12C I will argue … In 13C I will argue … IU CU BU COMPLETE THESE SENTENCES BY REPLACING THE ELLIPSES (…); VU


2. Affirmative Action Greatly Promotes Diversity in Education & Employment

2A) “Affirmative action greatly promotes diversity in education and employment.” ~ Sterling Harwood, Sterling Harwood, “The Pros & Cons of Affirmative Action,” Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996, p. ???.)


2B) I agree.


2C) Affirmative action gives those who in other matters have lacked opportunities more opportunities now to go out and acquire employment opportunity, along with a education in seeking a higher education to advance themselves in the field that they are studying in Greater competition and a larger pool to draw from. (See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings, and Cases by Sterling Harwood @ 1996 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc, p. ???).RU ADD THE MISSING PAGE(S) 


Additionally, to this greater pool the AA in fair enough for others who in other words will be unable to go up the latter and not on the bottom of the totem pole because they were able to accomplish it by the Affirmative Action in process and that is what is all about.


3. Affirmative Action is Morally Correct Because It Corrects Evil


3A) “The policies were originally developed to correct decades of discrimination and to give disadvantaged minorities a boost.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm.


3B) I agree.


3C) Since there had been a lot of people of color who were segregated in to the lower sector of employment and education. Likewise, women that were given even lower type of services of work and education. In a Prima Facie Moral Principle number 5 Nonmaleficence: Avoid causing pain or suffering. (Note this is not the same as nonmalevolence, which concerns only motivation rather than causation.) . (See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings, and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996).


4. Affirmative Action Avoids Punishing Whites

4A) “One may also object that AA [Affirmative Action] hurts or punishes innocent whites for the sins of their fathers, which is unfair.” ~ Sterling Harwood, describing a Con of Affirmative Action, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. ???). IU, RU; ADD THE PAGE OF THE TEXT. OU


4B.  I disagree.


4C.  It may be true as some were to say but nevertheless some are taught or shown by their own fathers of arrogant toward the minority and women at that. In the same way as the old TV show the Archie Bunker show (“All in the Family”) that was once seen on the tube in the 70’s era of off humor type of show.

Perfectionism (Often Called Virtue Ethics) number 5. Gratitude is a virtue and ingratitude is a vice. Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings, and Cases by Sterling Harwood @ 1996 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc).

Egalitarianism (often Called Fairness or Justice) number 2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly similar cases similarly or failing to treat relevantly different cases differently. 

The quotation is conceivably so, in this statement of the way some of the minorities may fill for the reason that their own fathers who had previously enforce on the people of color and women in thinking of they were the inferior to them and it took in till then President Lyndon Johnson to help get AA going to give these minorities and women a better chance in the employment opportunity and as well as a education opportunity. 


5) Utilitarianism, to count a particular amount of happiness for a white person as more important (or less important) than the same amount of happiness for a black person. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996.)


5A. “Students/workers who are put into a position through affirmative action often are not fully ready for the task. Not only is this not good for the university/company, but it is also not good for these students/workers as well because it lowers self-esteem.” http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/arguments.html, This page was last edited on 5/15/06 RU; ADD QUOTATION MARKS; OU ONLY PUBLISHED QUOTES COUNT


5B. I Disagree.


5C.  On the contrary I find this statement irrelevant in most case due to the fact that those who fit in to the Affirmative Action category they do try harder than those who do not fit in order for them to get where they are going if it were not for Affirmative Action in being what it is what it is today. Prima Facie Moral Principles rule number 11. Promote just institutions and work for their establishment, momentous, and improvement. (See, Sterling Harwood, Business ss Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p.25.)

In those families knowing that their sons and daughter or other family members, close friends will have this opportunity to achieve in that field of work or to further their educational plan. 


6A.  “I doubt that there is a single person in our nation who would object to supporting the higher education of a child from a poor school with impoverished parents who has shown he/she can be successful in college. But what does race or ethnicity have to do with that child’s achievement?” ~ Author Unknown, Citation unknown. OU, IU, RU


6B.  I disagree.


6C.  The quote in 6A might be right, since no one in our nation object to this fact a child to have a higher education but without the Affirmative Action implemented to help many of these children we would fail to have them in our workforces. In by using their civil rights in bettering their families and them at that. And I will cal that Perfectionism (Often Called Virtue Ethics) number 5 Gratitude is a virtue and ingratitude is a vice. (Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p.25.)  Prima Facie Moral Principle number 6. Beneficence: Benefit others and cause them to be happier. (Note this differs from benevolence, which concerns only motivation rather than causation. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 25.)


7A. “Minorities gave decades of unpaid labor, [and] had land taken from them.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008; OU ONLY PUBLISHED CLAIMS COUNT & THE INTERNET GENERALLY FAILS TO COUNT AS PUBLISHED


7B.  I agree.


7C. Without the vast minorities in our nation and all the hard work that these minorities did as they are still doing for America and even today in which if it were not for Affirmative Action that was put in to place during President John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson era. Because of all the torment and segregation that went on. In a Egalitarianism (Often Called Fairness or Justice) number 2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly similar cases similar or failing to treat relevantly different cases differently. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 24.


8. We Need Affirmative Action to Promote Diversity


8A.  “Simply having people of different races or ethnicity's in the workplace/university does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion. People with the same skin color are not necessarily the same in opinion or even culture.” ~ Author unknown,  http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/index.html, This page was last edited on 5/15/06 RU; ADD A PERIOD AND QUOTATION MARKS; ONLY PUBLICATIONS COUNT AND THE INTERNET USUALLY FAILS TO COUNT AS A PUBLICATION


8B. I agree.


8C. It will be as if we are all one body, mind and soul even though we are the same race, culture. Whether we are married in to that cultural and or race, heritage we all have a will to think in dependently. Egalitarianism’s rule number 4 applies here: Exploitation-taking unfair advantage of an innocent person’s predicament –is wrong. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 24.


9. Affirmative Action is Just


9A. “Part of the education process is learning to interact with other races and nationalities.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008. OU ONLY PUBLICATIONS COUNT & THE INTERNET USUALLY FAILS TO BE A PUBLICATION


9B. I agree.


9C. The quote in 8A is indeed right, and consequently our nation of the first peoples of the land was the Native American. Who showed their white counter parts to live off the land. When the black man came to this land from their white counter parts as slaves they also brought to the new lands of America their ways of their land. Therefore, they also resurrected there customs and heritage and that was the start of the AA, for it took century’s in order for the AA to come to pass.

Prima Facie Moral Principles rule 11 applies here. Promote just institutions and work for their establishment, maintenance, and improvement. Business As Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases by Sterling Harwood copyright @ 1996 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc


To sum up on my decision of choosing this topic it took me quite a few thoughts on different topics. However this one has stood out to me on a number of occasions and knowing it firsthand of incidents that has previously and present transpired, in doing different research on this paper of AA and learning the history of AA it was a real eye opening experience to me. If it were not for these past Presidents of J.F. Kennedy who stated the ball rolling in getting this law in to and President Lyndon Johnson,. The following Executive Order regarding race-neutral Affirmative Action was signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson on Sept. 24, 1965. Editor, EO 11246 is race-neutral on its face; President Johnson specifically left it to various federal agencies to implement the terms of this order. Many of minorities and women would not have to opportunity to continue on with their education and employment opportunity to achieve in. http://www.adversity.net/Terms_Definitions/TERMS/Affirmative_Action_EO11246.htm


Numerous minorities have benefited from this Executive Order regarding Affirmative Action and, like myself, knowing that a law like this helps those who are of some would say under privilege get a better opportunity for them to accede in whatever field of employment or education in which they prevail.


10. Affirmative Action is Justified


10A) Part of the education process is learning to interact with other races and nationalities.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008. OU ONLY PUBLICATIONS COUNT


10B) I agree. 


10C. Native Americans were the first peoples of our nation. Who shown who showed their white counterparts to live off the land. When the black man came to this land from their white counter parts as slaves they also brought to the new lands of America there ways of their land. Therefore, they also resurrected their customs and heritage and that was the start of Affirmative Action, for it took centuries in order for the AA to come to pass.

Prima Facie Moral Principle number 11 applies here. Promote just institutions and work for their establishment, maintenance, and improvement. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc, 1996, p.25).


11. Affirmative Action is a Good Check on the ETS


11A. “What right does the Educational Testing Service have to judge a family breadwinner’s occupation? According to the chart, the ETS feels free to play God by assigning a child’s family to the 

socio-economic group based on parents’ education, occupation and income.” ~ Author Unknown, Citation Unknown. IU OU


10B. I agree.


10C. Advocates of affirmative action have no right to implicate this kind of scenario of their Educational Testing Service of judging one family economic status, just because one is in a lower income bracket does that mean that that family did not attend a higher learning education, no sometimes scenarios get in the way and a down fall happens were there a death, divorce or loss of one’s job that either of the parent or both of the parents had that brings that family in to that bracket of a lower income family.


Egalitarianism 3. We should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of their own. (Business As Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases by Sterling Harwood copyright @ 1996 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. 


12. Justice Scalia Poorly Argues That Affirmative Action Wrongly Mismatches Blacks Because Blacks Need to Study on a Slower Track


12A. "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well. On of -- One of the briefs pointed out that -- that most of the most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're -- that they're being pushed ahead in -- in classes that are too -- too fast for them." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia, Fisher v. University of Texas, oral arguments, 12/9/2015, quoted by MSNBC Live 12/11/2015.


12.B. I disagree.


11.C. I disagree because … IU BU EU VU COMPLETE THIS SENTENCE & THIS SECTION BY APPLYING ALL 5 MORAL PRINCIPLES TO THE QUOTE IN 11A.


13. Justice Scalia Was A Racist


13A. "These ideas that he [Justice Antonin Scalia] pronounced yesterday [that affirmative action is wrong because it mismatches racial minorities with schools and jobs] are racist in application if not intent. I don't know about his intent. But it is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court Justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the nation's highest court." ~ Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), from MSNBC Live with Kate Snow, first aired 12/11/2016.


13.B. I agree.


13.C. I agree because … IU BU EU VU COMPLETE THIS SENTENCE & THIS SECTION BY APPLYING ALL 5 MORAL PRINCIPLES TO THE QUOTE IN 12A.


14. The US Military’s Acceptance of Affirmative Action is Strong Evidence That Affirmative Action is Morally Acceptable


14A. "You know who else thinks Affirmative Action is a good idea? The U.S. Military. They've gone so far as to issue friend of the court briefs saying we want to be able to consider diversity, gender, race when we build up our office corps and our leadership. We think it helps the national security of the United States. And we want leadership that looks like America. That's what a lot of schools say. That's what a lot of Fortune 100 companies say."~ Ari Melber, MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent, from MSNBC Live with Kate Snow, first aired 12/11/2016.


13B. I agree.


14C. I agree because … IU BU EU VU COMPLETE THIS SENTENCE & THIS SECTION BY APPLYING ALL 5 MORAL PRINCIPLES TO THE QUOTE IN 13A.


15. Conclusion: Affirmative Action is Ethical


Affirmative Action is moral because all 5 moral principles support it. Libertarianism supports affirmative action whenever the private employer or the private school want to use it. This is part of caveat emptor and “anything between consenting adults is moral.”


In 2C I argued … In 3C I argued … In 4C I argued … In 5C I argued … In 6C I argued … In 7C I argued … In 8C I argued … In 9C I argued … In 10C I argued … In 11C I argued … In 12C I argued … In 13C I argued … IU CU BU COMPLETE THESE SENTENCES BY REPLACING THE ELLIPSES (…)

coming soon

FAQ24: Have A List of 13 Problems for Flat Earth Theory?

  

13 BIG PROBLEMS FOR THE FLAT-EARTH CONSPIRACY THEORY: WHY YOU SHOULD EDGE AWAY FROM FLAT EARTH & BE BEHIND THE CURVE


Prof. Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D., Evergreen Valley College, San Jose, CA, PHIL 60, Fall 2019, last revised 7/29/2019


This handout specifically identifies a baker’s dozen of problems for flat earthers. This term paper topic might realistically be the easiest or one of the easiest term paper topics. It does have one rival for the easiest term paper topic: the cult belief that the world was going to end in 2012. I have a book to loan you on that topic. Email Dr. Harwood at svharwood1@aol.com for a sample term paper on flat earth theory. Here’s a combination of observations and considerations that lead me to reject the flat earth conspiracy theory, though I always welcome any counterarguments for us to evaluate and respond to concerning any of our term paper topics:


1. The observation of a curved shadow earth routinely casts upon the moon (that is, the crescent moon), though flat earth theorists (called ‘flatters’ for short, as opposed to ‘ballers’ as the shorthand term for the mainstream scientific view that the earth is an oblate spheroid) say all crescent moons are merely matters of perspective regarding the phases of the moon rather than the earth casting a curved shadow onto the moon;


2. The observation of the curve of the horizon of the ocean one can see starting at about 11 stories or more up from sea level;


3. The observation of such a high percentage of moons, planets and the sun that are spherical;


4. The standard story in science about how gravity forms planets etc. into a spherical shape because gravity works in all directions;


5. The statistical improbability that so many scientists and others could be so deeply fooled about such a basic fact of our habitat for so many thousands of years, especially when flatters have cited at least one passage in the Bible (Job 38:14) that implies a flat earth, given how influential the Bible has been generally for over a billion people. But also see Isaiah 40:22, which mentions the “circle of the world.” So there may be some contradictions in The Bible.


6. The argument by Eratosthenes. See the Wikipedia entry for him, for details.


7. The observation that sun dials at sea level have different readings at the same time if the sun dials are far enough apart;


8. The observation that ships routinely disappear over the horizon and return back into view and report an uneventful voyage


9. The lack of motivation for thousands of scientists and millions of people to lie about the shape of the earth;


10. The reward of fame and fortune that would await any scientists who could give convincing or even close to convincing evidence of a flat earth.


11. Flying or otherwise traveling along the equator in either direction lands one back at the starting point if one follows the equator long enough.


12. Photographic evidence: Photographs taken from space that show a spherical earth.


13. Flat Earth Argument: First, even those who fail to believe in a flat earth admit that 71% of the earth’s surface is covered by water. (Source: Ezra Knight, narrator, “It Fell from Space,” Secrets of the Earth, Weather Channel, first aired 11/17/2014.) Second, at least the part of the earth covered by water must be flat, since water always finds its own level. Counterargument: Gravity or other forces do prevent water from finding its own level. Consider this quote:

“[Narrator:] Mountains on the sea floor create their own gravitational attraction. Surrounding water is drawn toward the mass, creating measurable changes on the surface.

[Dr. Walter Smith, Geophysicist:] The smallest ones I can resolve are a kilometer or less in height and they move the sea surface about 5 centimeters. And the satellite has no problem resolving that.” Source: “Malaysia Airlines 370,” Drain the Oceans, Season 1, Episode 11, National Geographic Channel (NGC), first aired Monday, July 30, 2018.

Note: Consider this: [ask me about the Ron Howard quote in Edward Hendrie’s book The Greatest Lie on Earth.]


FAQ25: Have a Sample Paper on Flat Earth Theory?

sample paper on flat earth theory

Earth is a moving globe. TF
 

1.Introduction: RU SEE THE BLUE LINE? YOU ARE MISSING A SPACE Earth has a curvature and is a moving globe UF RU HEED THE BLUELINED ERROR TO PUT A SPACE AFTER ‘1.’


In this paper, I will argue that BF Earth has a curvature and is a spinning globe. Many people still believe that Earth has dish-shaped and covered by an ice wall around its edge. OU CITE AT LEAST ONE OF THEM HERE AS AN EXAMPLE, ED HENDRIE, FOR EXAMPLE They claim that Earth is the center of the universe, so the Moon and The Sun orbit around Flat Earth. OU CITE TO DOCUMENT THIS, SINCE THE CLAIMS ARE SO UNUSUAL OR UNBELIEVABLE OR BOTH They also create their theories and search for evidence against sphere Earth. GF However, we have a critical amount of observations and counterexamples to prove that Earth is a globe.
 

In 2C, I will argue that the gravitational force does exist on Earth. In 3C, I will argue that the surfaces of the oceans are concave. In 4C, I will argue that the spherical Earth model is more logical than the flat Earth model. In 5C, I will argue that Nasa did and do provide us the correct information about Earth. In 6C, I will argue that the Earth rotates on its axis. In 7C, I will argue that the Holy Bible hardly supports flat Earth. In 8C, I will argue that the media gatekeeper is scarcely the leading cause of flat-Earth theory’s failure. In 9C, I will argue that the Pac-man theory of flatters is impractical. Section 10 will conclude my essay. BF, BF, BF, BF, BF, BF, BF, BF, BF
 

2. A gravitational force keeps us from floating off the ground. UF
 

2A. “There is no such thing as gravity; gravity is not necessary on a flat earth. It is density that keeps objects from floating off the surface of the Earth. People and objects are heavier than air and therefore do not float off the ground. There are some gases, of course, that are lighter than air, and they float off the ground.” (Edward Hendrie “Crushing Gravity.” The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. 547.) OF; ITALICIZE THE TITLES OF BOOKS; RU
 

2B. I disagree.BF
 

2C. I disagree because IF Edward Hendrie’s claim fails to match the motion of free fall objects. From his assumption, the heavier (denser) objects will stay at the bottom, and lighter (less dense) objects will float to the top. GF Also, we proved the speed of an object that moves through a viscous fluid has an inverse ratio with the density of that fluid. For instance, we would move through water (density = 1 g/cm^3) OU much faster than through muddy swamp (density =1.906 g/cm^3). OU WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE STATISTICS?  GF Hence, if Hendrie were correct, free fall objects would reduce its speed as it approaches the Earth’s surface. IF  GF However, experiment and observation with free fall objects show that those objects speed up as it approaches Earth’s surface due to gravitational force. GF Therefore, it proves the presence of a gravitational force.
 

I will apply truth tip 3 for Hendrie’s quote. “TRUTH TIP 3. Reject a claim that conflicts with the claims of another credible source unless you have resolved the question of which source should be believed (that is, which source is more credible than the other).” (Sterling Harwood, 7 truth tips, class handout, PHIL 60, fall 2019.) OF IF
 

I apply truth tip 3 because IF Hendrie rejects the existence of gravitational force and applies his density theory without discussing which theory is more precise to describe Earth. GF Also, Hendrie failed to contribute enough proof and information for people to promote his theory. In contrast, scientists defend gravitational theory because it gives an intelligible explanation about the correlation between density and gravitational force. IF For instance, Archimedes’ principle explains the relationship of gravitational force in a fluid for us. When locating an object in a fluid, the fluid will exert a force called buoyant forces, which would counter gravitational force. OU CITE A PUBLISHED OR RELIABLE SOURCE TO DOCUMENT THIS The object will float if buoyant forces and gravitational force balance with each other, but if gravitational forces win, the object will sink. GF Therefore, Hendrie was partly valid RU SUB ‘CORRECT’ FOR ‘VALID’; WE USE ‘VALID’ AS A PROPERTY OF ARGUMENTS RATHER THAN PEOPLE OR EVEN THE POSITIONS OF PEOPLE; SO AVOID AMBIGUITY BY USING ‘VALID’ IN SENSES OTHER THAN THAT ON PAGE 1 OF THE FALLACY HANDOUT POSTED ON CANVAS when he implies that lighter gas floats off the ground due to its lighter density. Nevertheless, he was mistaken about the theory of density that keeps objects from floating off the surface of the Earth.BF
 

3. The oceans’ surfaces are concave. UF
 

3A. “Water always seeks its level, because water is always level. Water cannot be anything but perfectly flat. There is never any convexity to water, as would be required by globular Earth. All oceans, seas, and lakes are perfectly level.” (Edward Hendrie, “Water Not Convex Proves Earth Is Not a Globe.” The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. 159.)OF
 

3B. I disagree.BF
 

3C. I cannot SU deny that the experiment of pouring water into a tube with different shapes would give us the conclusion that water will find its level. GF However, Hendrie SU cannot reasonably employ that experiment result in the ocean because IF there is an issue that arises for any flatter. That problem is, what is the container for the ocean? The flatter might respond CU that it is the 150-foot-tall wall of ice due to their flat Earth model. GF However, SU no one has ever seen that ice wall before, so that answer is baseless. IU DOES HENDRIE ADMIT THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN IT?  EVEN IF HE FAILS TO ADMIT IT, YOU CAN SIMPLY REPORT THAT YOU HAVE SEARCHED FOR WITNESS REPORTS OR SCIENTIFIC REPORTS OF IT IN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRIES FOR ANTARCTICA OR THE ARCTIC CIRCLE AND HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY WITNESS REPORTS OR SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
 

GF Also, I will now apply true tip 5 to Hendrie’s quote. “TRUTH TIP 5. Claims with extreme words - watchwords - without any qualifying words (qualifiers) are more likely to be false. Watchwords include: 'never' (as in "Never say 'never'."), 'always', 'all', 'every', 'none', 'absolutely', 'exceptionless', 'impossible', 'total', 'totally', 'complete', 'completely', 'full', 'fully', 'only', 'lone', 'no', 'zero', 'perfect', 'best', 'unprecedented'. Qualifiers include: probably, possibly, almost, nearly, quite, not (for example, “Not all red birds can fly well.”), sometimes, somewhat, perhaps, maybe, possibly, could, might, may, can. All other things being equal, claims with watchwords and without qualifiers are more likely to have counterexamples to them than claims without watchwords or claims with watchwords with qualifiers.” (Sterling Harwood, 7 truth tips, class handout, PHIL 60, fall 2019.)OF


I apply Truth tip #5 IF to Hendrie’s argument because he uses watchwords “always” and “perfectly” in his quote. The observation of the curve of the horizon of the ocean one can see starting at about 11 stories or more up from sea level of Dr. Harwood is one of the counterexamples for Hendrie’s claim. (Sterling Harwood, 13 big problems for flat earthers, class handout, PHIL 60, fall 2019.) IF  GF Furthermore, the observation of Lake Pontchartrain Power Transmission Lines shows us the curve of the Earth. Therefore, those two examples have debunked Hendrie’s argument.
 

I will apply fallacy 6 IF QF to Hendrie’s quote. “FALLACY 6), COMPOSITION: This fallacy is committed when we conclude that a whole must have a characteristic because some part of it has that characteristic. Example: The Dawson family must be rolling in money since Fred Dawson makes a lot from his practice.” (Sterling Harwood, 48 fallacies to avoid & to expose when others commit them, class handout, PHIL 60, RU CAPITALIZE ‘FALL’: fall 2019.)OF
 

I apply fallacy 6 because IF the liquid in a tank or a lake appears to be level fails to indicate that the water will be level universally on Earth. As the ocean covers 71 percent of Earth’s surface, IU CITE MY SOURCE FOR THIS.  SEE: 71% of the earth’s surface is covered by water. Source: Ezra Knight, narrator, “It Fell from Space,” Secrets of the Earth, Weather Channel, first aired 11/17/2014. the experiment that Hendrie discusses is scarcely scaled or applicable to the ocean. Also, Hendrie refused to consider external factors such as the wind, gravitational force IU BECAUSE HE DENIES THAT THERE ARE ANY GRAVITATIONAL FORCES; CU: HOW WOULD WIND BE ABLE TO SHAPE THE EARTH’S WATER INTO A SPHERE? from the Moon, Earth. GF BF Therefore, his claim is unsupported.
 

4. The RU CAPITALIZE ‘FLAT’ FOR PARALLELISM WITH ‘GLOBE’ LATER IN THIS HEADING flat Earth model is illogical compared to the Globe Earth model. UF
 

4A. “For most people it is a new concept to think that the sun might be much smaller than the earth and confined to the space directly above the plane of the earth.” (Edward Hendrie, “Simple Proof That Heliocentrism is Impossible.” The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. 313.)OF
 

4B. I strongly disagree.BF
 

4C.  I disagree because IF the ideal of flat Earth is familiar to people. John Stuart Mill said that “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.” (John Stuart Mill “On Liberty,” Dover Publications, 2002, RU USE ‘pp.’ SINCE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE PAGE p.36-37.) OF IF THIS IS A CLASSIC & USEFUL QUOTE, EXCELLENT Mill’s quote means that in order for us to argue against the flat Earth advocates, we have to understand their model and thought. Because IF we have many people who can PU SUB “ARE ABLE TO” FOR ‘CAN’ debunk flatters with their logical reasons, it is no SU doubt that many people understand and acknowledge the flat Earth model. GF Also, Hendrie’s flat earth shape was very similar to the one that Samuel Rowbotham described in his book Zetetic Astronomy in 1865.  OU PUBLISHER?   GF Thus, the flat earth model has been out for decades, and it is an old concept for people. IU WHAT IS THE IMPORT OF IT BEING OLD? ARE OLD SCIENTIFIC IDEAS MORE SUSPECT OR ARE THEY MORE LIKELY TO BE LONG-ESTABLISHED & STABLE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS?  WHY ARE YOU NOTING THE AGE OF THE CONCEPT? THE CONCEPT OF A GLOBE EARTH IS JUST AS OLD, RIGHT?
IF SO, THEN THERE’S NO ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE BASED ON THE AGE OF THE 2 MAIN RIVAL CONCEPTS HERE


GF Additionally, I disagree because IF the flat Earth model that Hendrie describes is absurd compared to the globe Earth model. First of all, flatters do a creative project of making their sun path to describe the seasons on flat Earth, which we can look upon the Flat Earth Society website. ( https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions, 10/7/2019.) OF  GF However, that path is baseless since they failed to give a reason for the mysterious energy that shapes their Sun to that route. Secondly, GF as people proved that the Sun is a sphere, sunlight will travel in all directions into the Earth’s surface.  GF Thus, if the sun cycles directly above the plane of the Earth, Earth will receive permanent daylight. F  GF IOf course, that results in conflicts with our experience of daylight and nighttime. On the other hand, the globe Earth model solidly demonstrates that the day-night cycle and seasons on Earth happen because IF the Earth is continuously spinning around its axis and rotating around the Sun.
 

5. NASA is hardly a liar. UF
 

5A. “Why would NASA create bogus images of Earth in space? Because the Earth is not a floating sphere that is spinning and orbiting in space. Moreover, the LRO and DSCOVR satellites do not exist. There are no satellites in outer space. Indeed, there is no outer space.” (Edward Hendrie “Chapter 26: NASA Pictures of a Spherical Earth.” The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. 400.) OF
 

5B. I strongly disagree.BF
 

5C. I disagree because IF a lot of scientists and people can scarcely be genuinely fooled for thousands of years. Also, Abraham Lincoln stated that “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” (Alexander K. McClure, “Abe” Lincoln’s Yarns and Stories, p. 184, 1904). IF OF  Flatter may argue that Lincoln was far from the scientist. GF However, Lincoln was an expert on public opinion since he won 2 major elections in 1860 and 1864, and one other election in Illinois. GF Thus, Lincoln’s quote debunks flatters’ claims. GF Also, NASA has provided their photos about spherical Earth for decades. Since flatters are unable to contribute their photos of flat Earth, they are trying to find the pinhole in NASA photos to declare those pieces of evidence are fake. GF However, NASA is SU not the only Space Agency that publics the confirmation of the global Earth. Besides NASA, their competitor in the space race- Roscosmos, which is Russia’s Space Agency, also publicizes their photos. (Elizabeth Howell, https://www.space.com/22724-roscosmos.html, 10/07/2019). OF GF Therefore, if the world is flat, it means that the whole world’s specialists are lying to us rather than only NASA. Nonetheless, flatters fail to find the motivation for governments and experts from distinctive DIFFERENT? DISTINGUISHED? nations to invest a lot of money and time to set up a fool on Earth. IF  GF Thus, I reject the claim that NASA was lying to us.
 

I will apply truth tip 4 to Hendrie’s quote. “TRUTH TIP 4. Claims that are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear require clarification before acceptance as true.” (Sterling Harwood, 7 truth tips, class handout, PHIL 60, fall 2019.)OF
 

I apply truth tip 4 because Hendrie claims the Earth is in doubt of spinning and orbiting in space. That claim is so vague since he avoids giving any evidence or research that the Earth is immobility. GF Also, his argument fails to point out why NASA has to fake their photos.
 

I will apply truth tip 5 to Hendrie’s quote. “TRUTH TIP 5: ‘Claims with extreme words - watchwords - without any qualifying words (qualifiers) are more likely to be false. Watchwords include: 'never' (as in "Never say 'never'."), 'always', 'all', 'every', 'none', 'absolutely', 'exceptionless', 'impossible', 'total', 'totally', 'complete', 'completely', 'full', 'fully', 'only', 'lone', 'no', 'zero', 'perfect', 'best', 'unprecedented'. Qualifiers include: probably, possibly, almost, nearly, quite, not (for example, ‘Not all red birds can fly well.’), sometimes, somewhat, perhaps, maybe, possibly, could, might, may, can. All other things being equal, claims with watchwords and without qualifiers are more likely to have counterexamples to them than claims without watchwords or claims with watchwords with qualifiers.” (Sterling Harwood, 7 truth tips, class handout, PHIL 60, RU fall 2019.) OF FF
 

I apply truth tip 5 because IF of Hendrie’s claim, “there are no satellites in outer space” has a watchword “no”. Since Hendrie’s view is extreme, we can easily find a counterexample for his claim. We can spot satellites by naked eye or with binoculars and telescopes that are pretty affordable and readily available. According to Bob King, we can search for the opportunity to observe low orbiting satellites on the website Calsky (https://calsky.com,10/10/2019). OF  King also gives helpful tips for observing satellites that “Be sure next launch, binoculars are essential for seeing these. Few if any are visible with the naked eye unless they flare”. (SpaceX Launches First Volley of Starlink Satellites by Bob King May 29,2019, https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/spacex-launches-starlink-satellites/,10/10/2019). OF  GF Hence, Hendrie’s claim was faulty.
 

6. The Earth is rotating around its axis. UF
 

6A. “Indeed, if there was a Coriolis effect it would be nearly impossible to land a plane on a runway. A runaway that runs north and south would be careering at approximately 1,000 miles per hour across the path of the airplane, which would make it impossible to line up the airplane for landing.” (Edward Hendrie “Chapter 15: No Coriolis Effect Proves a Stationary Earth.” The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. 277.) OF
 

6B. I partly disagree.BF
 

6C. I disagree because IF Hendrie’s assumption about running away Earth is incorrect. The Earth’s rotation will cause a Coriolis effect. Besides, the Coriolis forces make an impact on the Earth’s atmosphere and make the air move. GF Therefore, when the airplane takes off, it will both have the initial velocity given by its engine and velocity of the atmosphere. As a result, its vector of velocity is the combination of those two velocities. As a result, relative to the Earth, the airplane’s speed is not SU 1,000 miles per hour, but somewhere near the speed is given by the airplane engine. GF Hence, Hendrie’s assumption is baseless. BF
 

I will apply truth tip 7 to Hendrie’s quotes. “TRUTH TIP 7. No claim that has a counterexample to it can be true. For example, President Obama is a counterexample to the claim ‘No black has ever been President of the United States.’” (Sterling Harwood, 7 truth tips, class handout, PHIL 60, RF fall 2019.)OF IF
 

I apply truth tip 7 to Hendrie’s quotes because he rejects Earth is spinning. There are many substantial proofs for the existence of spinning Earth. We have suspected that the Earth is spinning for thousands of years. In 1851, Foucault’s experiment with the pendulum gave us the firm trust and evidence for spinning Earth. At the moment, we have gone to space and observed the rotation of the Earth. GF Thus, Hendrie cannot truthfully deny that our Earth is spinning.
 

7. The Bible hardly supports flat Earth. UF
 

7B. RU SUB ‘7A.’ FOR ‘7B.’ HERE “The so-called scientists that are pushing heliocentrism have been deceived and have in turn become deceivers themselves; they are fools who speak lies and refuse to believe the truth. ‘For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness’ (1 Corinthians 3:19) We are admonished to keep the faith and not join with those so-called scientists who oppose God’s word.” (Edward Hendrie “Chapter 44: Compromising the Faith.” The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. 847.) OF
 

7B. I disagree. BF
 

7C.I RU ADD A SPACE AFTER ‘7C.’ partly disagree because IF people write the Bible thousands of years ago. In the modern world, the values of the Bible come from its figurative meaning. I admit that the Holy Bible some verses that imply flat Earth such as Job 38:14, Job 26:7, and Isaiah 40:22. OF OF OF & IF IF IF YOU QUOTE EACH ONE & THEN ANALYZE THEM ONE BY ONE BELOW  GF However, we know that the Holy Bible’s teaching comes from its figurative meaning rather than the literal meaning.

GF Therefore, it is wrong to imply that the Bible confirms flat Earth. Flatters are trying to twist the teaching of the Bible by using the plain meaning from it to influence people. For example:
 

“It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.” ("BibleGateWay",Job 38:14 King James Version (KJV) --BibleGateWay,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38%3A14&version=KJV,
09/21/2019.) OF
 

The literal meaning of this verse is that the Earth is mainly flat due to the comparison of the Earth to a garment. From Joseph Benson’s perspective, the figurative meaning of that verse is since the darkness has hidden the beauty of the Earth when the twilight stands, everything on Earth becomes much more glorious and magnificent like changing a new garment. (“StudyLight,” https://www.studylight.org/commentary/job/38-14.html,10/07/2019) OF; RU END EVERY CITATION WITH A PERIOD
 

“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” ("BibleGateWay",Job 26:7 King James Version (KJV) --BibleGateWay,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+26%3A7&version=KJV,
09/21/2019) RU END EVERY CITATION WITH A PERIOD
 

Since the word “stretcheth” by definition in Cambridge dictionary means to spread over a large area or distance. OU  GF Thus, some flatters discuss that since God stretched the north of Earth, God created the Earth flat. GF However, The Holy Bible often uses “the north” to refer to heaven. GF Therefore, Job 26:7 could PU ODDS? CU mean that God spread heaven in an empty place.
 

“He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.” ("BibleGateWay",Job 40:22 King James Version (KJV) --BibleGateWay,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+40%3A22&version=NIV,
09/21/2019) RU ADD A PERIOD; OF
 

When talking about the circle, people think about a 2D shape. Therefore, “the circle of the earth” implies that Earth is flat like a dish rather than being a ball. According to Dominic Statham, “Isaiah 40:22 and the shape of the earth,” the word “circle” in the Bible is translated from the word “khûg” also carries the sense of roundness. Consequently, it is difficult to clarify that in that verse if the world is 2D or 3D shapes. (Dominic Statham, “Isaiah 40:22 and the shape of the earth”, Published: August 11, 2016 (GMT+10), https://creation.com/isaiah-40-22-circle-sphere, 09/22/2019”) RU ADD A PERIOD TO END THE CITATION; OF
 

I will apply fallacy 12 IF to Hendire’s RU SEE THE RED LINE? FIX UNDERLINED ERRORS IN BLUE OR IN RED quote: “FALLACY 12), APPEAL TO FORCE (ALSO CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM): This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy includes any argument which threatens those who refuse to believe its conclusion. Example: You better believe abortion is wrong because if you don’t, then you will burn in hell forever.” (Sterling Harwood, 48 fallacies to avoid & to expose when others commit them, class handout, PHIL 60, RU fall 2019.) OF
 

Hendrie commits fallacy 12 because IF he stated that scientists who refuse to support flat Earth are unfaithful to God. QU THIS IS PROBABLY THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY TOO. AREN’T UNFAITHFUL PEOPLE SOMETIMES RIGHT ABOUT THIS OR THAT IN MANY CASES? SO REJECTING A PERSON’S VIEWS JUST BECAUSE HE/SHE IS UNFAITHFUL IS A FALLACIOUS & INVALID ARGUMENT, AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT I disagree with Hendrie because when scientist introduces something that does not SU mention in the Bible does not SU mean that they are with evil. SU ESPECIALLY AVOID MORE THAN ONE NEGATIVE TERM IN THE SAME SENTENCE  “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (“BibleGateWay,” John:16:12 King James Version (KJV) --BibleGateWay, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16%3A12&version=KJV,
09/29/2019). OF As we see in that verse, Jesus refused to tell us everything about the Earth because IF of our knowledge was not strong enough in order to understand them all. God wants us to study and search for new knowledge by ourselves. The scientists are trying to explore the remaining mysteries about Earth that God has never mentioned in the Bible. GF Therefore, the scientists are more faithful than Hendrie thought since they study about the Earth.
 

I will apply fallacy 27 IF to Hendrie’s quotes. “FALLACY 27), PAST BELIEF: This is a form of the fallacy of common belief (ad populum) and a form of the fallacy of appealing to authority (the authority of tradition). The same error in reasoning is committed, except the claim is for belief or support in the past. Example: We all know women should obey their husbands. After all, marriage vows it contained those words for centuries. Appeal to the authority of tradition or time-honored beliefs.” (Sterling Harwood, 48 fallacies to avoid & to expose when others commit them, class handout, PHIL 60, RU fall 2019.) OF FF
 

I apply fallacy 27 to Hendrie’s claim about the Bible because people wrote the Bible more than a thousand years ago. At that time, the base RU FU ‘BASE’ IS AMBIGUOUS; ‘BASE’ HAS ONE NEGATIVE MEANING; YOU MEAN ‘FOUNDATIONAL’ science and culture were completely different from the modern world. The Bible is written for all generations, so we have to read and relate it to the current time rather than the written one. If we trust and practice the Bible’s teaching, ultimately words to words, we will produce many issues toward our civilization. To illustration, in the past, slavery is encouraged and allowed in some verse in the Bible.” Exhort servants to be obedient unto their masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again” (“BibleGateWay,” Titus 2:9 King James Version (KJV) --BibleGateWay,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+2%3A9&version=KJV,
09/29/2019). OF As we see, Titus 2:9 makes sense with both of its literal and figurative meanings that slaves should obey their masters unconditionally. GF However, in the modern-day, since slavery is against humanity, we should understand it refers to proper training for a new employee. GF Therefore, our generation has to adjust and use the figurative meaning of the Bible to this current time.
 

8. Media gatekeepers are hardly the primary cause of flat-Earth theory’s failure.UF
 

8A. “Sometimes the [Media] gatekeepers use their power and influence to put pressure directly on the flat earth advocates themselves to shut down discussion of the flat Earth.” (Edward Hendrie “Chapter 30: Media Gatekeepers.” The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. 481.) OF
 

8B. I partly agree.BF
 

8C. I agree that the media does apply some pressures on flat Earth believers. Social media, newspapers, and textbooks often propose and acknowledge us about global Earth rather than flat Earth. Even though media means scarcely offer people about flat earth theory, interested people still obtain an assessment of various records and study through textbooks, online. GF Also, people still can openly debate flat Earth theory anywhere as long as they avoid bringing up any other issues into the conversation, such as religion and politics. Since flatters repeatedly violate rules against racism and hate speech, some of their websites or blogs get shut down. For example, ProBoards shut down the IFERS forum after IF warning Eric Dubay about the racism and religious discrimination content in his documentary Adolf Hitler vs. the Jew World Order and video the Jewish elite’s plans for world domination. (Edward Hendrie “Chapter 30: Media Gatekeepers.” The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. RU USE ‘pp.’ 478-479.) GF Therefore, Hendrie SU cannot justifiably blame Media gatekeepers as the cause for flat Earth theory’s failure. 

 

I will apply Fallacy 24 

FF IFto Hendrie’s quote. “FALLACY 24), QUESTIONABLE CAUSE: (In Latin: non causa pro causa, “not the cause of that”). This form of the false cause fallacy occurs when the cause for an occurrence is identified on insufficient evidence. Example: I can’t find the checkbook; I am sure that my husband hid it so I couldn’t go shopping today.” (Sterling Harwood, 48 fallacies to avoid & to expose when others commit them, class handout, PHIL 60, RU fall 2019.)
 

I apply Fallacy 24 to Hendrie’s quote because he tends to accuse the media gatekeepers as the central portion toward flat Earth’s theory failure. However, Hendrie should realize that people neglect flat Earth’s theory because it has many pinholes and fails to fulfill the public concern.  Also, Stephen Hawking stated that “Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.” (Stephen Hawking. A Brief History Of Time, Bantam Books, April 1988, p.10). OF  GF Therefore, instead of blaming the media for their failure, flatters should either discover a different theory or expanse their theory to receive public trust. Of course, the public offers a lot of fame and fortune for the scientist who can give a precise convincing or even close to convincing the evidence of flat Earth. MF
 

9. The invisible portal WU CLARIFY BY ADDING “THAT SOME FLATTERS BELIEVE IN” is unrealistic.
 

9A. “That is, celestial bodies are able to teleport from one side of the planet to the other when they reach the horizon-just as the Pac-Man arrive on the right-hand side of the screen as they exit the left-hand side.” ( “FLAT EARTH BULLETIN”,ForteanTimes,July 2017,p.10) RU ADD SPACES
 

9B. I disagree.BF
 

9C. I disagree with the theory because IF it is impractical. It is nonsensical to apply a video game mechanic to the real world. This theory raises many questions in the community, and they remain unanswered. IF For example, why people hardly feel anything when going through the portal or what is on the other side of that invisible portal. IF Also, people have SU never observed any teleportation anywhere on Earth. GF Additionally, this theory only holds for some specific observations, such as we come back to the same place when we travel Eastward. GF Hence, this theory still needs to be polished before accepted by the public.
 

I will apply truth tip 7 to that claim. “TRUTH TIP 7. No claim that has a counterexample to it can be true. For example, President Obama is a counterexample to the claim, ‘No black has ever been President of the United States.’” (Sterling Harwood, 48 fallacies to avoid & to expose when others commit them, class handout, PHIL 60, OF fall 2019.)OF
 

I applied truth tip 7 because IF it failed to explain some observations on Earth. The Pacman theory explains very well why the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars all rise in the East and set in the west. GF However, it failed to explain why the shooting star detected on the Earth never come back the next day or on the same night.  GF Therefore, the teleport portal on Earth does not SU exist.
 

10. Conclusion: I have proven Earth is a sphere. UF BF
 

In this paper, I argued that Earth is a sphere. BF I explained that how the heliocentrism defines the Earth the best. I also argued why some theory that flatter introduced fails to hold in many circumstances. GF Also, flatters tried to find many pinholes in the NASA photo but still failed to disprove that we have been in space to see the sphere Earth. GF Therefore, we can confirm that the Earth is a globe.
 

In 2C, I argued that the gravitational force kept us from floating off the Earth. In 3C, I argued that we have much observation of curvature ocean. In 4C, I argued that the flat Earth model still has many pinholes. In 5C, I argued that NASA hardly fools people about the sphere Earth. In 6C, I argued that the Earth is spinning and create a Coriolis effect. In 7C, I argued that the Bible’s teaching goes along with the development of science. In 8C, I argued that people the flat Earth model was unsupported due to their unconvincing explanation rather than media. In 9C, I argued that the teleportation portal at the edge of Earth is unrealistic. Section 10 concluded my essay.BF, BF, BF, BF, BF, BF, BF, BF, BF


FAQ 26: What are 50 Fallacies to Avoid Commiting and for Exposing When Others Commit Them?


Definitions of Sound Arguments, Unsound Arguments, Valid Arguments, Invalid Arguments, Strong Arguments, Weak Arguments & Descriptions of 50 Fallacies to Avoid & to Criticize When You Find That Others Commit Them


Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning or argument. Some textbooks define these fallacies differently. The following definitions, descriptions or examples are the ones that I have found to be most useful. See me if you encounter other definitions, descriptions or examples that clash with the ones here, so we can see which is most useful. Arguments consist of a series of statements intended to establish the truth of a conclusion. Premises are reasons that the arguer gives to try to establish the truth of a conclusion. A conclusion is the claim that the arguer ultimately wants to show to be true. Arguers often indicate premises by using: 'since,' 'because,' 'for the reason that' or 'for' (as in 'you should stay with me; for I love you.') These words are direct premise indicators. Direct premise indicators often serve as indirect conclusion indicators. For example, in the argument "Abortion is wrong because it kills people" the premise is directly indicated to be "Abortion kills people" but indirectly the conclusion is indicated to be " Abortion is wrong." Conclusions are often indicated by the words: 'In conclusion', 'I conclude,' 'therefore,' 'Thus,' 'so,' 'hence,' or 'Ergo.' These words are direct conclusion indicators. The initials Q.E.D. also directly indicate a conclusion, since they stand for a Latin phrase meaning "that which is to be demonstrated." Direct conclusion indicators serve as indirect premise indicators. Since each argument has only one conclusion, by process of elimination everything else working in the argument would be a premise. Generally, it is a good strategy to argue from less controversial premises to more controversial conclusions. For if your premises are every bit as controversial and uncertain as your conclusion is, then as a practical matter you will usually fail to convince your audience that your conclusion is true.
 

A sound argument must, by definition, be both 1) valid; and 2) without false premises. An unsound argument is simply an argument that is not sound (an invalid argument, an argument with at least one false premise, or both). All fallacies are unsound (except begging the question, which merely cannot ever be known to be sound), but four of the fallacies listed below are valid. Sound arguments are the best arguments. Any argument that is not sound is unsound. An unsound argument either has at least one false premise or is invalid, or both.

A valid argument is one where it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. In other words, IF all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Stated differently, the truth of the conclusion of a valid argument would necessarily follow from the truth of all the premises. This is why invalid arguments are often called non-sequiturs, since "non sequitur" is Latin for "does not follow." An invalid argument is simply an argument that is not valid (that is, an argument where it is possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false). Fallacies 1 through 16 are invalid and fallacies 17 through 19 are valid (though I suspect hasty generalization can be interpreted reasonably as valid or as invalid, since all scientific generalizations are, strictly speaking, invalid). Valid arguments are not necessarily the best arguments, since they can fail to be sound arguments. Any argument that is not valid is invalid.

A strong argument, by definition, is an argument where if all the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be true. All valid arguments are strong, but not all strong arguments are valid. Strong arguments tend to have words associated with probabilities being over 50% for example, 'most,' 'almost all,' 'nearly all,' the majority,' 'usually,' 'typically,' most often,' 'probably,' and 'most commonly.' For example, "Most As are Bs. Jim is an A. So Jim is a B." is a strong but invalid argument. A weak argument is an argument that is not strong (that is, even if all the premises are true, then the conclusion is not likely to be true, meaning its probability is 50% or less.) Strong arguments are not necessarily the best arguments, since they can fail to be valid arguments and thus also fail to be sound arguments. Any argument that is not strong is weak.
 

FALLACY 1), THE AD POPULUM FALLACY: This fallacy is invalid. Model: Most (or all) people believe X. Therefore, X is true. This fallacy is invalid since the premise can be true and the conclusion false. For example: even when most people believed the earth was flat, the earth was not flat. Here's a real example of the fallacy committed: "This [Windsor v. United States, Supreme Court decision, June 2013] is straight follow, follow the polls.  I don't think it's anything more than that or anything less than that.  I also think it's the right thing because, for that reason." ~ Evan Thomas, Inside Washington (PBS, produced by WUSA), broadcast 7/1/2013.

FALLACY 2), THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY: This fallacy is invalid.
 

Model: Arguer X is defective.
 

Therefore, the conclusion of X's argument is false.
 

This fallacy is invalid, since the premise can be true and the conclusion false.

 

Example #1: “[South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham:] If you cross AOC [Alexandria Ortega Cortez] and the Fab Four, you’re going to get a primary [challenge]. And if you vote with ‘em, you’re going to lose in the general election. So the biggest beneficiary of this [clash between Pelosi & 4 freshmen Democratic Congresswomen, including AOC] will be the Republican party.

[MSNBC Anchor Ali Velsi:] Do you believe that to be true?

[Former Democratic Congresswoman Donna Edwards:] No I don’t. Lindsey Graham doesn’t know a thing about the Democratic Party, and so let’s just dismiss that out of hand.” ~ Exchange from The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, MSNBC, first aired 7/11/2019.

Example #2: Hitler was morally defective (to say the least!) but that fails to imply that Hitler's belief that Britain had an air force during WWII was false.
 

The Ad hominem fallacy occurs when the arguer is attacking the person making the argument. This fallacy is attacking the arguer rather than his/her argument. Example: John's objections to capital punishment carry no weight since he is a convicted felon. Note: Saying something negative about someone is not automatically ad hominem. If a person (politician for example) is the issue, then it is not a fallacy to criticize him/her.
 

FALLACY 3), THE FALLACY OF APPEALING TO AUTHORITY: This fallacy is invalid.
 

Model: X is an expert.
X believes Y
Therefore, Y is true
 

This fallacy is invalid because the conclusion can still be false even if all the premises are true.
 

Example 1: Newton believed the orbit of Mercury around the sun had one particular shape, but Einstein later showed that Newton was wrong about this.
 

Example 2: is Einstein's belief that indeterminism in physics is incorrect. He said: "God does not play dice with the universe." But indeterminism fits the evidence better than Einstein's view does. Even the best experts can be wrong. Appealing to law or culture can also commit this fallacy, since they are also fallible authorities.
 

"Ad verecundiam" is the Latin name for Appeal To Authority. This fallacy tries to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. Oftentimes it is an authority in one field who is speaking out of his or her field of expertise. Example: Sports stars selling cars or hamburgers. Or, the actor on a TV commercial that says, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."
 

FALLACY 4), APPEAL TO PITY: This fallacy is invalid.
 

Model: X is pitiful
 

Therefore, X is wrong
 

Even if it is pitiful to amputate the leg of a sick child, that does not mean that amputation is wrong, since amputation can be medically necessary
to save the child's life.

Consider the example of a driver asking a police officer to refrain from issuing a speeding ticket to the driver because of some pitiful consequence the ticket will have for the driver. This fallacy is hardly saying we should run around and make the world a more pitiful place. But avoiding the pitiful is scarcely the only value. We also value safety, as in the safety promoted by issuing speeding tickets to speeders.
 

FALLACY 5), EQUIVOCATION: This fallacy is invalid. One equivocates by trading on an ambiguity. One equivocates by acting as if an ambiguous word or phrase has only one meaning when it has at least two.
 

Example 1:
Premise 1: It is generally wrong to lie.
Premise 2: We generally ought to prevent wrongdoing.
Conclusion: Therefore, we generally ought not let sleeping dogs lie.
 

Example 2:
Premise 1): Every human has a right to life
Premise 2): All fetuses are human
Conclusion: Therefore, all fetuses have a right to life.
 

There are different senses of the word 'human.' One is a biological sense but he other is a moral sense. We can see the difference when we say:
"Hitler was inhuman." That scarcely means that Hitler was of a species other then Homo sapiens. Another example is from Captain Kirk's eulogy of First Officer Spock in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. Kirk said: "Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most -- human." Spock was biologically only half-human and half-Vulcan. Anyway, a soul seems less of a biological entity than a moral one. For example, when we say Hitler had no soul, we seem to mean that he had no moral character. Further, compare the statement by Captain Janeway of the Starship Voyager in “Equinox, Part I,” Star Trek: Voyager, first aired 9/22/1999: “But if we turn our backs on our principles, we stop being human.”

So, for all example 2 claims at least, fetuses might be human in the biological sense but not in the moral sense.  Obviously, whether the fetus is a person (has moral character or status) is key to many arguments about whether abortion is immoral killing.  It seems irrelevant to at least some utilitarian arguments, however, since utilitarianism's requirement of maximizing happiness for all in the long run need not (and perhaps could not consistently) be limited to persons currently alive.  If we limited utility to be maximized to those currently alive, then we might perversely be required to spend lavishly on medical care in the last 6 months of life for many terminally ill patients at the expense of promoting long-term projects (such as R&D or long-run space exploration) that will create a serious amount of net benefit only for those who are not yet alive or born.
 

Equivocation is a product of semantic ambiguity. The arguer uses the ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a way as to make the reason offered appear more convincing. Example: We realize that workers are idle during the period of lay-offs. But the government should never subsidize idleness, which has often been condemned as a vice. Therefore, payments to workers who were laid off are wrong.
 

FALLACY 6), COMPOSITION: This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy wrongly assumes that whatever is true of each part of the whole is true of the whole.
 

Model: X is true of each part of Y
 

Therefore, X is true of Y
 

This fallacy is invalid, since the premise can be true and the conclusion false.
 

Example 1: each part of a compound could be a poison, but when combined the two poisons cancel out each other's poisonous effects. Na and Cl are poisons when consumed individually, but combine to form NaCl, which is ordinary table salt.
 

Example 2: Each book in the bargain book bin costs only $1, so therefore one can buy the entire collection of books in the bargain book bin for only $1.
 

This fallacy is committed when we conclude that a whole must have a characteristic because some part of it has that characteristic. Example: The
Dawson family must be rolling in money, since Fred Dawson makes a lot from his practice.
 

FALLACY 7), DIVISION: This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy wrongly assumes that whatever is true of the whole is true of each part of the whole (or a particular part of the whole.)
 

Model: X is true of Y
 

Therefore, X is true of each part of Y.
 

This fallacy is invalid, since the premise can be true and the conclusion false.
 

Example 1: unsurpassed musical greatness in rock 'n roll is true of The Beatles, but that does not imply that unsurpassed musical greatness in rock 'n roll is true of each solo Beatle (for example Ringo Starr.)
 

Example 2: is that since NaCl is not poisonous, Na is not poisonous. This would be a fatal error in reasoning.
 

This fallacy is committed when we conclude that any part of a particular whole must have a characteristic because the whole has that characteristic.

Example 3: I am sure that Karen plays the piano well, since her family is so musical.

Example 4: “Out of touch liberals like Barack Obama say they want a strong economy.  But in everything they do they show they don’t like business very much.  But the economy, of course, is simply the product of all the businesses in the nation added together.  So it’s a bit like saying you like an omelet but you don’t like eggs.” ~ Mitt Romney, victory speech after winning the primaries in Maryland, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, 4/3/12, broadcast on CNN.
 

FALLACY 8), THE NATURAL/UNNATURAL FALLACY: This fallacy is invalid. Avoid confusing this fallacy with the so-called naturalistic fallacy in metaethics, which studies the meaning and reference of moral language.
 

Model 1: X is natural. Therefore, X is good
 

Model 2: X is unnatural. Therefore, X is bad
 

FALLACY 9), DENYING THE ANTECEDENT: This fallacy is invalid. The fallacy falsely assumes that a sufficient condition is a necessary condition. First we need to know what an antecedent is. We can put a conditional statement into the following standard form: If A, then B. The antecedent of "If A, then B." is A. The antecedent comes before ('ante' which means 'before') the word 'then' in the standard form "If A, then B." This fallacy is invalid, since the premises can both be true even when the conclusion is false.
 

Example 1: “I’m not afraid.  I’m not scared.  Why should I be afraid?  Babies are afraid.  I’m no baby.” ~ Curly Howard, The Three Stooges, “Dizzy Detectives” (1943).  The error is treating "Babies are afraid" (which is generally true or at least often true) as if it is "Only babies are afraid" (which is clearly false).  Curly's argument would be valid if he had said: "Only babies are afraid."

Example 2: If you get cancer, your medical problems will worsen.
You did not get cancer.
Therefore, your medical problems did not worsen.
 

Example 3: If it rains today, then the streets will get wet today.
It didn't rain today.
Therefore, the streets didn't get wet today. (Counterexamples include: watery people of the world convention, gang of kids releasing hydrants, water tower falling; flood; dam bursting; snow melting; sleet melting; melting hail, old man Johnson watering lawns too much etc.)
 

Example 4: If you are in California, then you are in the U.S.
You are not in California.
Therefore, you are not in the U.S.
 

Example 5: If X is between consenting adults, then X is morally permissible.
X is not between consenting adults.
Therefore, X is not morally permissible.

Example 6: If Elvis made a triumphant return from the dead, then people will listen to his music more.
Elvis hasn't made a triumphant return from the dead.
Therefore, people will not listen to his music more.

Note Libertarianism supports the first premise in Example 5, so look for this fallacy more when you see libertarianism.
 

This is an invalid form of the conditional argument. In this one, the second premise denies the antecedent of the first premise, and the conclusion denies the consequent. It is often mistaken for modus tollens. Example: If she
qualifies for a promotion, she must speak English. She doesn't qualify for the promotion, so she must not know how to speak English.
 

FALLACY 10), AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT: This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy falsely assumes that a necessary condition is a sufficient condition. First, we need to know what a consequent is. A conditional statement can be put
into the following standard form: If A, then B. The consequent of "If A, then B." is B. The consequent follows ('segue' means, "to follow", as in a musical segue, a sequence, and consequences following an act.)
 

Example 1: If Elvis made a triumphant return from the dead, then people will listen to his music more.
People did listen to his music more.
Therefore, Elvis made a triumphant return from the dead.
 

Example 2: If you get cancer, then your medical problems will worsen.
Your medical problems worsened.
Therefore, you got cancer.
 

Example 3: If it rains today, then the streets will get wet today.
The streets got wet today.
Therefore, it rained today
 

Example 4:
If you are in California, then you are in the U.S.
You are in the U.S.
Therefore, you are in California.
 

Example 5:
Capital punishment of person X is constitutional only if person X received due process.
Person X received due process.
Therefore, capital punishment of person X is constitutional.
 

This is an invalid form of the conditional argument. In this case, the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedent. Example: If he wants to get that job, then he must know Spanish. He knows Spanish, so the job is his.
 

FALLACY 11), POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC: This is a Latin sentence meaning "It happened after the event, so it happened because of the event."  This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy includes any argument of the form: "X occurred after Y, therefore X occurred because of Y." This fallacy underestimates the frequency of coincidences.

Example 1:
I won at blackjack last time after I rubbed my rabbit's foot.
Therefore, I won at blackjack last time because I rubbed my rabbit's foot.
 

"post hoc ergo propter hoc" means "After this, therefore caused by this." It is a form of the false cause fallacy in which a person infers that because one event followed another it is necessarily caused by that event. Example: Mary joined our class and the next week we all did poorly on the quiz. It must be her fault.
 

FALLACY 12), APPEAL TO FORCE (ALSO CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD BACCULUM): This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy includes any argument which threatens those who refuse to believe its conclusion. Example: You better believe abortion is wrong because if you don't, then you will burn in hell forever.

FALLACY 13), APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: This fallacy is invalid. Argumentum ad ignorantium is the Latin name for appeal to ignorance, which is arguing on the basis of what is not known or cannot be proven. (Sometimes called the "burden of proof" fallacy). This fallacy assumes that if you can't prove that something is true then it must be false (and vice versa). Example: You can't prove there isn't a Loch Ness Monster, so there must be one.
 

This fallacy includes any argument of this form:
 

We don't know X is false.
Therefore, we know X is true.
 

Or of this form:
 

We don't know X is true
Therefore, we know X is false.
 

Example 1: No one has ever really proven that there are no ghosts.
Therefore, there are ghosts.

Example 2: No one has disproven every UFO sighting. So at least one UFO sighting is real.

Example 3: No one has shown that Dr. Harwood’s bank account is under a million dollars. Therefore, Dr. Harwood’s bank account is not under a million dollars.
 

FALLACY 14), THE EXISTENTIAL FALLACY: This fallacy is the least important for our purposes, since it applies in the fewest numbers of arguments that we are likely to consider.  This fallacy is invalid. The fallacy moves from only universal premises to a particular conclusion. In other words, one cannot prove an I or O claim with premises made up of only A or E claims. An A claim has the form: All S are P. An E claim has the form: No S are P. An I claim has the form: Some S are P. An O claim has the form: Some S are not P.
 

FALLACY 15), THE STRAWMAN FALLACY: One commits this fallacy whenever one attacks an argument that no one has ever made and that is so weak that no one would probably ever make it. This fallacy is invalid, since the argument attacked is irrelevant. It's possible for the argument attacked to be unsound and yet just as likely for the conclusion of the argument attacked to be true. So the strawman fallacy of attacking the argument is irrelevant and thus invalid. For the same reasons, the strawman fallacy is weak.
 

Example One: Liberals think that murderers shouldn't be punished but should be given a handshake for overcoming being victims of society and for showing much self-esteem. This is absurd. So, liberalism is false.
 

Example Two: Conservatives think that starving people -- especially starving children, who need to learn key lessons early in life -- shouldn't be helped with free food aid because they should learn to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps instead of asking for a free handout, which will only make them woefully dependent on others instead of committed to embracing the rugged individualism they will need to survive in the long run in this cold, cruel world. This is absurd. So, conservatism is false.
 

The strawman fallacy occurs when we misrepresent an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, usually by distorting his or her views to
ridiculous extremes. This can also take the form of attacking only the weak premises in an opposing argument while ignoring the strong ones.
 

Example: Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the criminals.
 

***FALLACY 16), HASTY GENERALIZATION: Logicians usually consider this fallacy invalid (but below we will explore a different interpretation that would make this fallacy valid). This fallacy is committed when one fails to take enough time to collect a large enough sample or a randomized enough sample on which to extrapolate scientifically.
 

Model: A is a representative sample of Bs.
X is true of all Bs is sample A.
Therefore, X is true of all Bs.
 

This fallacy is usually considered invalid, due to what is called the General Problem of Induction, which is that science seems to assume that the future will be relevantly similar to the past. But there is no way to support this assumption scientifically without begging the question at issue, since to say that the assumption has worked in the past and is therefore likely to work in the future is to beg the question of whether the past will be relevantly similar to the future. But if scientists really simply assume that the future will be like the past, then this is a valid argument, since it is impossible for both premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. One might rephrase the argument as: S is true of all Bs in sample A. If A is representative sample of Bs, then X is true of all Bs. A is a representative sample of Bs. Therefore, X is true of all Bs.
 

Further, obvious claims of the form "A is a representative sample of Bs" are not always false. But when they are false, then the fallacy of hasty generalization is created.
 

Hasty generalization is a generalization accepted on the support of a sample that is too small or biased to warrant it. Example: All men are rats! Just look at the louse whom I married.
 

FALLACY 17), FALSE DILEMMA: This fallacy is valid but unsound. This fallacy claims you are facing a dilemma when you really are not. A dilemma is a tough situation, when you are between the proverbial rock and a hard place.  This fallacy falsely limits your choices. False Dilemma (often called the either/or fallacy or false dichotomy). This fallacy assumes that we must choose one of two alternatives instead of allowing for other possibilities; a false form of disjunctive syllogism. Example: "America, love it or leave it." (The implication is, since you don't love it the only option is to leave it).
 

Model form of the fallacy: Either X or Y is true. X is false. So, Y is true.
 

Example 2: Either X or Y is true. Y is false. So, X is true.
 

This fallacy follows the logical process of elimination. This fallacy is valid, since it is impossible for both premises to be true and the
conclusion false. The fallacy is unsound because the premise "Either X or Y is true." is false. Obviously, statements of the form "Either X or Y is true" will not always be false. But when they are false, and when they are used in an argument using this process of elimination, then they create the fallacy of false dilemma fallacy of false alternative MX missile
 

FALLACY 18), FALSE ANALOGY: This fallacy is valid but unsound. This fallacy compares apples and oranges, as the old saying goes. It compares two things that are not comparable. It draws an analogy which fails to fit. The fallacy is valid, since it is impossible for both premises to be true and the conclusion false. But the fallacy is unsound because it has the false premise claiming that two things are analogous. So, when that premise claiming the two things are analogous is true, the argument is valid. But when that premise is false, it creates the fallacy of false analogy.
 

Model: A is analogous (that is, relevantly similar) to B in all respects. X is true of A. So, X is true of B.
 

For example: Eagle eggs are similar to human fetuses in that both are precious. We should have laws protecting eagle eggs from human destruction. So, we should have laws protecting human fetuses from abortion. (This argument is a version of one by Steve Friend, a Pennsylvania State Legislator in the 1980s.) One relevant difference between eagle eggs and human fetuses that the argument overlooks is that eagle eggs are usually outside of the mother eagle but the human fetus is usually inside the human mother. Another relevant difference might be that human mothers, but not eagles, have a moral right or privacy that includes intimate private parts like the womb.
 

Here's another example. Some stock analysts state that there's never just one cockroach, comparing bad news about a company to a cockroach.

 

Here's another example: Consider the case of this story trying to explain why there is the problem for Christianity of why God had to become a man. “His [God’s] problem was similar to that of the naturalist who had a special concern for a certain ant hill which he had been observing for months. Each day, the man spent hours watching the intricate maneuvering of these ants and had come to the place where he felt a very special affinity for them. One day the naturalist saw a huge bulldozer in the distance and immediately realized that this ant hill lay right in the path of the construction of a new road. The man panicked. He desperately searched his mind for a way to remove the ants. He scooped up handsful [sic, handfuls] of them, but they only bit him. He thought of building a fence around the ant pile, but realized the bulldozer would only tear it down. In his frenzied mind, he thought to himself, if only I could communicate to them and tell them about the danger ahead of them. If only I could make them see that I’m their friend and only want to save them from complete destruction. But despite his great concern, he could think of no way to communicate to them in a way they would understand. You see, to be able to do that, he’d have to become an ant himself and yet fully retain the nature of a man so he could continue to clearly assess the problem and make it known to the ants.” ~ Hal Lindsey, “Why God Had to Become a Man,” The Hall Lindsey Report, aired Friday 12/28/2018 on The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN).

This type of fallacy is an unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument relies heavily on a weak analogy to prove its point. To take one last example here: This must be a great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in Switzerland.
 

FALLACY 19), BEGGING THE QUESTION: This fallacy is valid but it is, as a practical matter, impossible to know that it is sound; for in its premises it assumes what needs to be proved (namely, the conclusion about which we are arguing).
 

Model: X is true. Therefore, X is true.
 

This fallacy is valid, since it is impossible for X to be true in the premise and false in the conclusion. This fallacy may look as if no one would use or be fooled by such an argument. But Hitler and others used the infamous technique of the big lie, which is simply repeated over and over until it gains credence even though it begs the question that was originally at issue. This fallacy assumes in the premises what needs to be proved, the conclusion. Begging the Question is an argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the premises. Some scholars also call this fallacy circular argument.
 

Example #1: Of course, the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the Bible. Eample #2: My favorite example of begging the question comes from Larry of The Three Stooges, who says in one episode: "I do not snore in my sleep.  I stayed up awake all last night to see if I snored and I didn't."

Example #2: “What you want to do as an investor: I mean, if you go through a decision tree, question number 1 is ‘Do I want to own stocks?’ Yes. Then, ‘Do I want to own cyclical or defensive?’ Yes, to both. You have to be present to win. So, if the market is going to continue to go up, you have to actually be in the market to take part in the market.” ~ Liz Young, Bank of New York Mellon, Director of Market Strategy, on Fast Money Halftime Report, CNBC, 8/14/2019.

FALLACY 20), INCONSISTENCY (ALSO CALLED: SELF-CONTRADICTION OR INCOHERENCE): Note: "Contradiction should awaken attention, not passion." ~ Proverb, Penn Jones Jr., Forgive My Grief Vol. 1 (Midlothian Mirror Inc., 1966), p. 7.

· Example 1: “You had a group on one side that was bad. And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that but I’ll say it right now.” ~ President Donald Trump, speech about violence in Charlottesville, VA that occurred on 8/12/2017 that led to the death of Heather Heyer & to multiple injuries, 8/15/2017.

· Example 2: “When you see me again it won’t be me.” ~ from “Beyond Life and Death,” Twin Peaks, ABC, first aired 6/10/1991.

· Example 3: When Curt is driving on the road, he curses the cyclists there and yells at them to use the sidewalk instead. When Curt is walking on the sidewalk, he curses the cyclists there and yells at them to use the road instead.

· Example 4: Some racists inconsistently believe that blacks are filthy, lazy, and untrustworthy yet believe that blacks are naturally suited to cook, clean, and handle the children while white parents are away.

· Example 5: Some sexists believe women are dull, inarticulate, passive, and are poor entrepreneurs yet believe women are scheming manipulators with great verbal skills who can wrap men around their little fingers.

· Example 6: Puritans thought sex is a dirty, disgusting, degrading act we should share only with someone we love.

· Example 7: Nazis believed Jews were generally bankers or rich people and that Jews were generally revolutionary communists. Nazis believed that Jews were mentally and physically inferior to the vast majority of Germans yet somehow controlled Germany and were running Germany into the ground.

· Example 8: Saying white men can't jump yet enjoying the part of the Olympics where whites excel at the high jump.

· Example 9: Some racists say that black genes prevent blacks from playing golf well yet they admit that Tiger Woods -- whom they know to be partly black -- is the best golfer of the 21st Century.

· Example 10: Some say no whites can rap well yet admit that Eminem and Marky Mark (Mark Wahlberg) rap well.

· Example 11: The case of someone calling herself/himself a feminist yet insisting no woman should run for Congress.

· Example 12: Bumper sticker: “The best things in life are not things.”

· Example 13: See CD14, track 6 of the Philosophy of Religion set of CDs for the galloping contradiction of ethical monotheism’s transcendent, unreachable God who nonetheless responds to prayers.

· Example 14: “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” ~ Vince Lombardi, head coach of The Green Bay Packers and, later, The Washington Redskins of the NFL, circa 1966.

· Example 15: “It is akin to the Nixon enemies list. It’s unprecedented.” ~ Andrea Mitchell, reporter for NBC News & anchor for MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, interviewed by Rachel Maddow on The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, August 15, 2018, referring to President Trump’s withdrawal of the security clearances of former Director of the CIA John Brennan, who had strongly criticized President Trump.

· Example 16: “After a timeout, the NFL today and comments from Redskins defensive line coach Jim Tomsula: the man who never speaks spoke at camp.” ~ Larry Michael, Redskins Nation, NSWA TV, first aired 8/16/2018.

· Example 17: “Truth isn’t truth.” ~ Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, former mayor of New York City & former presidential candidate, interviewed by Chuck Todd, Meet the Press, NBC, 8/19/2018.

· Example 18: “You had some aftershocks even prior to it [the main quake of 6.4 magnitude near Ridgecrest, CA] on a smaller scale.” ~ Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Republican, CA), House Minority Leader, MSNBC, live coverage of the aftermath of a Southern California earthquake near Ridgecrest, CA, first aired 7/4/2019 between 124 to 135pm.

· Example 19: “The best illustration of the incoherence of the Trump administration strategy toward Iran came last week in a White House press release. It read: ‘There is little doubt that even before the deal’s existence, Iran was violating its terms.’ The White House has not subsequently explained how a country can violate the terms of a deal before that deal existed.” ~ Fareed Zakaria, Fareed Zakaria GPS, CNN, first aired 7/14/2019.

· Example 20: Inconsistency involves hypocrisy (failing to practice what you preach) or a contradiction. Here are some examples. Inconsistency: A discourse is inconsistent or self-contradicting if it contains, explicitly or implicitly, two assertions that are logically incompatible with each other. Inconsistency can also occur between words and actions. 

· Example 21: “The next batter, Chris Davis [of The Baltimore Orioles], hits a towering line drive into the left center field gap.” ~ Alex Parker, anchor, The Mid-Atlantic Sports Report, MASN, first aired 7/18/2019.

· Example 22: “[E. Jean Carroll:] He [Donald Trump] is 6-3 … And down go the tights. It was against my will. And it hurt. And it was a fight.

[Anderson Cooper:] … You’re saying there was actual penetration.

[E. Jean Carroll:] Yes.

[Anderson Cooper:] … That is the definition of rape – one definition.

[E. Jean Carroll:] That’s thedefinition. Yes. … It did not last long. And that’s why I don’t use the word you just used [‘rape’]. I use the word ‘fight.’

[Anderson Cooper:] You don’t use the word ‘rape’?

[E. Jean Carroll:] Sexual violence is in every country in every strata of society. And I just feel that so many women are undergoing sexual violence. Mine was short. … So, this one instant, this one what, 3 minutes in this little dressing room, I just say it’s a fight. That way I’m not the victim. Right? I’m not the victim.

[Anderson Cooper:] You don’t feel like a victim?

[E. Jean Carroll:] I was not thrown on the ground and ravished. Which, the word ‘rape’ carries so many sexual connotations. This was not, this was not sexual. For, it just it it hurt. …

[Anderson Cooper:] I think most people think of rape as, I mean, as a violent assault that is not sexual.

[E. Jean Carroll:] I think most people think of rape as sexy. … Think of the fantasies.” ~ from Anderson Cooper 360, CNN, first aired 6/24/2019.

FALLACY 21), NON SEQUITUR: Non sequitur is a Latin phrase meaning: "It does not follow."  In this fallacy the premises have no direct relationship to the conclusion. This fallacy appears in political speeches and advertising with great frequency. Example 1: A waterfall in the background and a beautiful girl in the foreground have nothing to do with an automobile's performance. Example 2: “Your entire business is profiting off of other people’s information, then your job is to keep that information safe.” ~ Ali Velshi, MSNBC ad, aired many times, including on 7/9/19 at 1019am PT.
 

FALLACY 22), AMPHIBOLY: This is a fallacy of syntactical ambiguity where the position of words in a sentence or the juxtaposition of two sentences conveys a mistaken idea. This fallacy is like the fallacy of equivocation except that the ambiguity does not result from a shift in meaning of a single word or phrase but is created by word placement. Example 1: “Jim said he saw Jill walk her dog through the window.” Ouch! She should be reported for animal abuse. Example 2: The Flamingos sang a song called “I Only Have Eyes for You.” What happened to the rest of the face, etc.?
 

FALLACY 23), APPEAL TO EMOTION: In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logical reasons to persuade the listener. The fallacy can appeal to various emotions including pride, pity, fear, hate, vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is oversimplified to the advantage of the arguer. Example 1: In 1972, there was a widely-printed advertisement printed by the Foulke Fur Co., which was in reaction to the frequent protests against the killing of Alaskan seals for the making of fancy furs. According to the advertisement, clubbing the seals was one of the great conservation stories of our history, a mere exercise in wildlife management, because "biologists believe a healthier colony is a controlled colony." Is this also an example of appeal to authority? Example 2: In the 1970s there was a TV ad for an antiperspirant called ‘Sure.’ The ad showed people afraid to raise their hands because that would expose the sweaty stains on the armpits of their shirts. The ad said: “Raise your hand if you’re Sure.” The suggestion is that you should raise your hand only if you have used Sure on your armpits. The ad appealed to fear. Example 3: In the 1970s a TV ad for a dandruff shampoo showed a lady in a crowded elevator momentarily scratch her head. All the others in the elevator looked at her as if she were a leper. The ad warned: “That little itch.” This appeals to the fear of even having a little itch on your head when among others.
 

FALLACY 24), QUESTIONABLE CAUSE: (In Latin: non causa pro causa, "not the cause of that"). This form of the false cause fallacy occurs when the cause for an occurrence is identified on insufficient evidence. Example: I can't find the checkbook; I am sure that my husband hid it so I couldn't go shopping today.
 

FALLACY 25), SLIPPERY SLOPE: This fallacy is similar to false dilemma. It essentially states "Either one avoid setting foot on the slippery slope or else one will slide too far down the slippery slope and get hurt." If there
is a third alternative, then one committed the slippery slope fallacy and the fallacy of false dilemma.
 

Slippery slope is a line of reasoning that argues against taking a step because it assumes that if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to the last. This fallacy uses the valid form of hypothetical syllogism, but uses guesswork for the premises. Example: We can't allow students any voice in decision making on campus; if we do, it won't be long before they are in total control.
 

FALLACY 26), COMMON BELIEF: This fallacy is similar to the ad populum fallacy. It is sometimes called the "bandwagon" fallacy or 'appeal to popularity". This fallacy is committed when we assert a statement to be true on the evidence that many other people allegedly believe it. Being widely believed is not proof or evidence of the truth. Example: "Of course Nixon was guilty in Watergate. Everybody knows that."
 

FALLACY 27), PAST BELIEF: This is a form of the fallacy of common belief (ad populum) and a form of the fallacy of appealing to authority (the authority of tradition). The same error in reasoning is committed except the claim is for belief or support in the past. Example: We all know women should obey their husbands. After all, marriage vows contained those words for centuries. Appeal to the authority of tradition or time-honored beliefs

FALLACY 28), CONTRARY TO FACT HYPOTHESIS: This fallacy is committed when we state with an unreasonable degree of certainty the results of an event that might have occurred but did not. Example: If President George H. W. Bush (President Bush #41) had not gone into the Persian Gulf with military force when he did, Saddam Hussein would control the world's oil from Saudi Arabia today.

FALLACY 29) TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT: This fallacy is committed when we try to justify an apparently wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The underlying assumption is that if they do it, then we can do it too and are somehow justified. Example: Supporters of apartheid are often guilty of this error in reasoning. They point to U.S. practices of slavery to justify their system.

FALLACY 30), SLANTING: A form of misrepresentation in which a true statement is made but made in such a way as to suggest that something is not true or to give a false description through the manipulation of connotation. Example 1: "I can't believe how much money is being poured into the space program." This is slanted because 'poured' suggests needless spending. Example 2: Do you see the difference between a ‘plan’ and a ‘scheme’? The word ‘scheme’ seems slanted toward the negative whereas ‘plan’ seems neutral or even good, as when we praise a man as “the man with the plan.”

FALLACY 31), RED HERRING: This fallacy introduces an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a diversionary tactic. It takes people off the issue at hand; it is beside the point. Example: Many people say that engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind them how difficult it is to master all the math and drawing skills that an engineer requires.

FALLACY 32), FAILING TO FOLLOW OCCAM'S RAZOR: Occam's Razor is named after medieval logician William of Occam (also known as William of Ockham), who lived from 1287 to 1347. He was an excommunicated Franciscan Friar. Occam's Razor cautions: Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. In other words, if 2 theories or explanations both fit the evidence equally well and predict with equal accuracy, then choose the simpler of the 2 theories or explanations. We should do so because every claim that an entity exists has a probability greater than 0 of being wrong. So to claim that 2 entities exist instead of 1, when both theories fit the evidence equally well and predict the future equally well, means that you are sticking your neck out unnecessarily by making an unnecessary claim that has a realistic chance of being wrong. Following Occam's Razor is also called following the law of parsimony or economy. Being parsimonious or economical here means avoiding the making of unnecessarily extravagant claims about how many things exist. See the KSS Principle: KSS = "Keep it simple, stupid!" It is most rational to agree with those who follow Occam's Razor.

A leading example of how many use Occam's Razor appears in arguments by atheists arguing against the existence of God (or gods).  Atheists often argue that science (including but not limited to Darwinism) explains (or can explain) all the phenomena or events we observe, that science presents such explanations without God as part of any of the scientific explanations, and so it would multiply entities beyond necessity to claim that God exists or some gods exist.  See generally, Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion (Houghton, Mifflin Harcourt, 2006). Here’s a recent political example of how some use Occam’s Razor. “I keep telling myself with these guys, it’s Occam’s Razor, right? Like, the simplest explanation is the correct one. The reason they, you know, lie about their contacts, the reason they sweat when they’re being asked about an investigation, is because they’re hiding something. I mean, that just, that seems to follow logic.” ~ Rep. Eric Swalwell (Democrat, California), interviewed about members of the Trump administration, from “The State of Our Union is …”, The Circus: Inside the Wildest Political Show on Earth, Showtime, first aired Sunday 2/10/2019.

FALLACY 33), THE GAMBLER'S FALLACY: The Gambler's fallacy assumes that the gambler is "due to win" the next try at a random game (for example, roulette) when the gambler has lost a few in a row. The fallacy normally takes the view that the longer the gambler's losing streak is, the more likely it is that the gambler will win the next try at a random game of chance. The problem with this assumption is that a truly random game leaves no room for the game to remember who has won or lost in the past. If the gambler has bet on number 7 in roulette and lost 5 times in a row, the chances of the number 7 coming up the next time is still 1 in 38 (there are 38 numbers on most roulette wheels, which include the numbers 1 through 36, 0 and 00). If the gambler loses 10 times in a row betting on number 7, the chances that the 11th roll of the roulette wheel will produce a 7 as the winning number are still 1 in 38. The roulette wheel has no mind and hence no memory.

On the other hand, those who deny that the Gambler's Fallacy is a genuine fallacy ask us to consider the ideas of "the law of averages" and "regression toward the mean." Further, defenders of the gambler committing the gambler's fallacy would ask us to compare the apparent memory of the past in the random game found in the Monty Hall paradox.  The Monty Hall paradox is that you increase your odds of winning by switching from one randomly chosen box to another even though only 1 of the 2 random boxes has the prize to win.  The set up is that you choose 1 of 3 boxes, only 1 of which has the prize, then Monty Hall eliminates one of the losing boxes and asks you if you wish to switch your choice to the other remaining box after one losing box is taken away.  You should switch, since 2/3 of the time your initial choice was wrong and only 1/3 of the time your initial choice was right (the winning box).  So 2/3 of the time you will be switching into a winning choice and 1/3 of the time you will be switching into a losing choice.  Thus, your odds of winning move from 1/3 without a switch to 2/3 with a switch.  This is a paradox because it seems that it should be otherwise, since you appear to be randomly choosing between only 2 boxes, one of which has the prize and the other of which fails to have the prize, apparently indicating that your odds of winning the prize would be 50% (50/50) whether you switch or decide against switching.  The situation, however, acts as if it remembers your previous bet with a 1 in 3 chance.  You can empirically verify that switching increases the odds of winning by conducting experiments going through the choices described above, for example, by having a friend hide a penny under 1 of 3 playing cards and then choosing 1 of the cards, and then having your friend remove one of the other cards that has no penny underneath it, then asking you whether to switch or not.  If you switch, you'll find out over the long run that you win an average of about 2/3 (about 67%) of the time and when you decide against switching you'll find that you win over the long term only about 1/3 (about 33%) of the time on average.  It's amazing but true. So where do you stand? Do you side with "The trend is your friend" and "Go with the flow"? Or do you side with a player or number being "due," the old saying from Herodotus "Change is the one constant," the law of averages, and regression toward the mean? Herodotus is known as The Dark One because of his obscure sayings such as "You can never step in the same river twice."

FALLACY 34), THE “NO TRUE SCOTSMAN” FALLACY. See the Wikipedia entry for a fallacy identified by British Philosopher Anthony Flew.

FALLACY 35), THE CONJUNCTION FALLACY. This fallacy occurs when a person concludes that “X and Y are true” is more likely than “X is true.” see Michael Lewis, The Undoing Project (2016), Ch.12.

FALLACY 36), The Fallacy of Relativity & The Decoy Effect. See Ch.1 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational, where he notes that everything is relative even when it shouldn't be. See the index for ‘relativity’ and for ‘decoy.’

FALLACY 37), THE FALLACY OF ANCHOR PRICES, HERDING, ARBITRARY COHERENCE & SUPPLY & DEMAND. See Ch.2 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

FALLACY 38), THE FALLACY OF OVERVALUING ZERO & THE FREE (THE UNDUE COST OF ZERO COST & FREEBIES). See Ch.3 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

FALLACY 39), THE FALLACY OF BEING HAPPY TO DO THINGS EXCEPT WHEN PAID TO DO THEM. See Chapters 4-5 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational

FALLACY 40), THE FALLACY OF UNDERESTIMATING THE INFLUENCE OF AROUSAL. See Ch.6 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

FALLACY 41), THE FALLACY OF PROCRASTINATION. See Ch.7 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

FALLACY 42), THE FALLACY OF OVERVALUING WHAT WE OWN. See Ch.8 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational. Is this sentimental attachment to our familiar surroundings and belongings, and thus a case of emotion versus reason again?

FALLACY 43), THE FALLACY OF DISTRACTING OPTIONS. See Ch.9 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational

FALLACY 44), THE FALLACY OF FULFILLMENT OF EXPECTATIONS. See Chapters 10-11 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational. Example: cheap placebos often work.

FALLACY 45), THE FALLACY OF DISTRUST. See Ch.12 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational. See the index for ‘trust’ and ‘distrust.’

FALLACY 46), THE FALLACY OF DISHONESTY. See Chapters 13-15 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

FALLACY 47), THE FALLACY OF IGNORING THE IKEA EFFECT. See Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational. See the index for ‘IKEA.’

FALLACY 48), THE FALLACY OF MISPLACED CONCRETENESS: See Alfred North Whitehead & the Wikipedia or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on this fallacy. I hope to expand this handout soon and post the latest & greatest versions on Canvas on the EVC site.59


FALLACY 49), THE FALLACY OF VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY IN INTERPRETATION. “In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitableinterpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.” ~ from https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=PRINCIPLE+OF+CHARITY


50) The Argument from Fallacy (aka The Fallacy Fallacy) falsely assumes that any argument that commits a fallacy has a false conclusion. Counterexample: “The moon is bigger than a breadbasket. Therefore, Barack Obama was President of the United States.” This argument commits the non sequitur fallacy but Barack Obama was still President of the United States.


FAQ27: What is Dr. Harwood's well-publicized essay "'11 Objections to Utilitarianism"?


Eleven objections to utilitarianism


Author’s abstract: this essay examines 11 criticisms of various forms of utilitarianism (it mentions 12 forms), arguing that the most plausible form of utilitarianism is act-utilitarianism as opposed to rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is still subject to severe criticism, including the criticism that utilitarianism is unjust, fails to grant sufficient weight to promise keeping, enjoins going into an experience machine, and gives undue weight to animals.


  

A. Introduction


I will discuss 11 significant objections to utilitarianism, though I will not accept all 11. my purpose is not to burry utilitarianism once and for all but to survey a large number of abjections and provoke further discussion, although I may perhaps put a few more nails in utilitarianism’s coffin. I start by trying to clarify the nature of utilitarianism since it has so many versions both drawing criticism and developing as responses to criticism. Here is a list of 12 versions I will at least mention below (though some of these can be combined to form still more versions): motive- utilitarianism, act- utilitarianism, rule- utilitarianism, average utilitarianism, total utilitarianism, hedonistic utilitarianism, eudaimonistic utilitarianism, negative utilitarianism, welfare- utilitarianism, preference-satisfaction utilitarianism, felt-satisfaction utilitarianism, and ideal utilitarianism. Of course these 12 versions of utilitarianism do not correspond to the 11 objections to utilitarianism consider, but many of these versions were developed to deal with objections to other versions of utilitarianism. Indeed, many critics who thought they had finally driven a stake through the heart of utilitarianism have only seen utilitarianism live on by being transformed into another version.


Utilitarianism is a consequentialist (that is, teleological) moral principle. As a moral principle, utilitarianism tells us how we should act. Consequentialism is not itself a moral principle but a category into which some moral principles fit. Consequentialism insists that an act is determined to be morally right (or morally wrong) exclusively by particular consequence of doing that act. (Consequentialism and utilitarianism can go beyond acts to include evaluations of institutions, policies, motives, and persons, but for simplicity I shall focus on acts and deemphasize versions of utilitarianism such as motive- utilitarianism.) Some include the maximizing theory of the right as a definition of consequentialism, but this would make the definition of consequentialism, but this would make the definition of consequentialism under-inclusive because we can imagine moral principles that value consequence alone but do not require maximizing good consequence (because, for example, there could be two different kinds of consequences to maximize and no rule for trading off between them). The particular consequences determining the rightness (or wrongness) of the art in question are specified not by consequencentialism itself but by a particular consequentialist principle. Utilitarianism is a particular consequentialist principle that specifically concerns utility. Utility is psychological satisfaction (for example, pleasure, happiness, and well-being). Since utility is utilitarianism’s only value, utilitarianism is a monistic rather than a pluralistic moral principle. And it is utilitarianism’s monism rather than its consequensentialism that explains why utilitarianism requires maximizing utility. Because utility is the only value, there is no other value to check or limit the logical approach of requiring the gain of more and more of the only value.

Many versions of utilitarianism differ primarily according to which psychological satisfaction they emphasize. For example, hedonistic utilitarianism stresses satisfaction of preferences; ideal utilitarianism stresses what would be desired under ideal conditions; negative utilitarianism stresses that avoiding dissatisfaction is more important than gaining satisfaction; and welfare- utilitarianism stresses what is in the best interests of those whose well-being is in question. And of course, many of these psychological satisfactions interrelate and overlap with one another. Disutility – psychological dissatisfaction (for example, pain and unhappiness) – is the opposite of utility.  


Utilitarianism essentially specifies that the consequences that determine an act’s rightness (wrongness) are the psychological dissatisfaction that the act causes. Utilitarianism is a monistic moral principle, since it implies that there is only one thing that has moral value, namely, psychological satisfaction. Since there is no other moral value to check or limit the value of psychological satisfaction, utilitarianism says an act is right only to the extent that it maximizes these satisfactions, that is, produces the greatest balance of satisfaction over dissatisfaction for all in the long run. If only dissatisfaction is available, then utilitarianism says an act is right to the extent that it minimizes dissatisfaction. This is not a second or separate value in utilitarianism, for we can represent utilitarianism as claiming that an act is right to the extent that its expected consequences fall as far to the right as possible on the following scale. The far left ranges to an infinite amount of dissatisfaction, the 0 represents where the amount of satisfaction equals the amount of dissatisfaction, and the far right ranges to an infinite amount of satisfaction.

<---------------------------------0--------------------------------->


* * * note: the remainder of this essay is coming soon * * * 

Contact Us

Dr. Sterling Harwood's Homepage

5445 Alum Rock Avenue, San Jose, CA 95127-2613

408-687-8199; svharwood1@aol.com

Get in Touch!

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Cancel