1. (A) Is John Merrick a Monster? In your answer, consider how you could use the following Areas of Knowledge to justify your claims.

I do not think John Merrick is a monster. Personally I believe a monster is something that is not human, and when i same not human i mean not homo sapiens, not the worlds idea of what a person should be. This is justified bt the Areas of knowledge following. (counter claim included)
a) History: In history people have described monsters as people like Hitler that create massive amounts of destruction, or do things that the 'average' person can not imagine having on their conscience. John Merrick never does anything destructive in his life time. On the contrary he creates rather than destroys, he creates a work of art. A counter claim to this is that in History anything that we have found different from ourself we treat it with fear or hatred (ex. witchcraft, people of different races, etc), and automatically call it a monster. John Merrick is definitely different from the normal, and could therefore be classified as a monster.
b) Natural Science: In natural science people have defined a monster as some type of disease that controls a person and turns them into something new. One could argue that Johns appearance is most certainly a disease that is far from the norm, therefore he is a monster. However he is still mentally there. The disease may control his appearance but it does not effect his mind, it does not control him mentally as an individual and cause him to act in a way monstrous or inhumanly.
c) Social Science: In social science a monster is someone that does not respond to social cues, acts different from the norm, or is threating/harmful to others. At first John does act different from the norm, but what he is introduced to a safe environment he in fact acts with class and all social cues of a normal person. Nothing in his manner is threatening or harmful.
d) The Arts: In the arts a monster is portrayed as a something not human, extremely deformed, scary, it normally has claws, and some type of threatening look to it. John certainly does not have a look of threat to him, for the most part he has a look a fear. Yes he may be greatly deformed but he still has a very human element to him, that most monsters in art do not have.


2. John Merrick claimed, "I am not an animal, I am a human being?" What does he mean? How does he know?

Here John Merrick is claiming that he is human, that he is no different then the rest of us. Just because his appearance is altered by a disease he is still human. He wants people to treat him so and not treat him as something to view like an animal in a show. He also does not want to be treated as something to be feared of, like a monster or a fierce vulgar looking animal. He knows this because both of his parents were human beings, science tells us that if both parents are human the child must be human. He also knows he is human because the doctors (authoritative) tell him that he is human, but only has a physical deformation.

3. Dr. Treves claimed, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?
When he says this he is stating his confusion over what he has done to John Merrick. He can not differentiate between his selfish needs for greed and how it has effected John. His greed lead him to think that what he was doing to John was for the best. He knew that John would not be accepted into to society, so he thought by teaching him that he is an outcast he would protect him from gaining knowledge and being hurt even more. He has knowledge of how he has effected John by the doctors change in John. He can see that John can be 'normal' and accepted and is confused about what he once thought was right.

4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.

Herd mentality plays a huge role in the film. In the film there is there is images of elephants stampeding and the fight that breaks out in the hospital is also a representation of it. The reason why the director presented this images is to represent how humans follow the crowd, and how this was a huge effect on John Merrick's acceptance in society. When he was a circus act and a bunch of people laughed at him it was acceptable to make fun of because others were doing it too. When he was taken into the hospital people began to treat him as a human, he became more accepted. Then when the actress became friends with him it became something acceptable to do, and others 'followed the herd' and accepted him as well.

5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.
There was many different monsters the people reacted to in several different ways. The community reacted to the freak shows as one would expect, with humorous fear. Fear because it is different and humor because it is something different from the norm and they do not know how to react. People reacted to John Merrick similarly but with more of an extreme. This was done because his deformities are so extreme and so different that it was nothing people had seen before. Also his likeness to being a human and how this is something that could happen to anyone makes it more frightening. The night watchmen can also be looked upon as a monster, however the community reacts to him herd like as above. He is a monster to John Merrick, but since people are following him it becomes ok, so people follow him with no regrets.

6. John Merrick claims, "We are afraid of what we don't understand." Do you agree? Does this statement apply to the modern world or have we learned to treat perceived Monsters with dignity? Please be specific in your answer.

I do agree with this statement because what we do not understand is s

Truth Essay

How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true?

Through Plato’s idea of knowledge we are able to get a clear understanding of what is true and what is not. Plato created a set way to identify truth. By looking at his ideas of what knowledge is, there is a greater understanding for how to separate something that is true from something that is not.

Plato’s argument is that knowledge has to be described and communicated, that way it had certainty to its truth. “Propositional” knowledge (aka Platonic knowledge or knowledge by description) is a way that we can determine what is true and what is not. Propositional knowledge is a formal statement of convincing knowledge, or “knowing that” something is true. According to Plato knowledge can be tested to see if it is in fact true or not. In order to be knowledge it must apply to three things, it must be justified, it must be true, and it must be believed. Knowledge can be justified though authority, empathy, ratification, and memory. Belief however is necessary but is not sufficient enough to stand on its own. Now for something to be true it must also fit into three categories. It must be public, independent, and eternal. The information presented has to be public, for example if the true statement was that a dog is friendly is true it must be friendly to everyone. If it was only friendly to its owner and not to other people of the public then it is not true. The statement must also be independent of belief. For example the owner of that dog may fully believe that his dog is friendly when in fact it is a evil beast, his belief does not make it true. Last but not least the dogs friendliness must be eternal. In that moment that dog must be friendly then and forever.

Based on Plato’s three clarifications must of how a piece of knowledge be true, I believe it fits in with all types on knowledge. In empiricism/experiential knowledge (see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, taste it) any sort of knowledge presented to be true through induction must also have to fit into the three categories. For example if someone were to say “the grass is green” because they can see that the grass is in fact green this knowledge could be verified as truth because it is public, everyone can see that the grass is green, it is separate from belief, and it is eternal because the grass will always be green in that moment. Rationalism and Deduction (instructed knowledge using a prior knowledge, ‘knowledge that came before’) are also an example that knowledge that can be used to distinguish between what is truth and what is not. For example a person can know that fire is hot and not to touch it through rationalization, it can be told to a person through authoritative means, they can tell from the heat it gives off, etc. All of the knowledge that they have acquired about fire can lead a person to know that fire is dangerous and not to touch it through ratification, without them ever having to try. This is public because fire is dangerous to all, it doesn’t only hurt some people. It is independent, because even if you believe it is not hot it is in fact hot. It is eternal because in that moment fire will always be hot.

The implications of my argument are that I believe that Plato’s form of acknowledging truth is the right form, no matter what type of knowledge is used. In my argument I do not address any other ways to justify truth through knowledge, and if people were to believe my claims then they would all think the same as Plato. There would not be any challenges in the way that we conclude what is true and what is not. This could impede on the development of knowledge as a whole. However, it would also lead to a recognized system to decide on truth and would create less ambiguity in the world.

A counter claim to my argument would be that Plato’s belief on finding truth from knowledge is wrong. There might be a different methodology this person may find more suitable to show how knowledge is truth. They could also argue with the three different categories that Plato lies out. It could be argued that truth does not have to be eternal since our realms of knowledge are changing daily, that things cannot ever stay eternal.

According to Plato’s idea of knowledge there it must be believed. However, just believing in something does not make it knowledge. For example you can not know that that grass is green with our believing in it. Also even though you may believe in dragons, it does not mean you have knowledge of them, because they are neither justified nor true. Also according to Plato truth must be independent of belief. This makes it fairly easy to separate truth from something that is believed to be true.

Monster 2

1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of
Karadzic and Milosovic, was it fair for the Independent to use the
word "Monster".
I feel as though it is not fair for the independent to use the word
monster as a label for Karadzic and Milosovic. Even though what they
were doing was completely wrong they do not deserve the term monster.
The blame cannot be placed entirely on them, for if the people of
Serbia had not lied and thrown rocks at each other Milosovic would
have never said the famous words “you will not be beaten again”. He
did not have the original intent to kill the Muslims, but only did so
when he felt it was revenge/defense for his people. A monster would
originally have the intent to hurt, and be looking for a reason to do
so, not the other way around. Plus a monster would not have human
driven motives such as revenge or defense, but would only kill for the
sake of killing.

2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to
Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The
Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
I think the phrase of calling Karadzick and milosovic would be
justified through authority and reason. News articles such as the
independent are authoritative sources and are telling people that
these people are monsters, so then it must be true. In the Peter Maas
article we are able to read a first hand account of the witness of the
brutalities committed. They are presented to us with such distaste and
we take what we are learning about to obviously be extremely inhumane.
Since we see the actions as being inhumane it is easy to place the
term of something none human to apply to the persons in charge, i.e.
monster.

3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can
look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
I think a monster can be defined as something inhumane, or something
that is not human. Monsters thoughts are purely based on blood and
destruction with no other motive or reasons for their actions. A
monster does not stop until everything is destroyed, it does not have
a certain goal or objective.

4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?
My answer has not changed since my first entry. It has not change
because I still feel as though a monster is just a term used to place
the blame on these two individuals, making them look horrendous
instead of showing their side of the argument and seeing why and
where these cruelties really manifested.

Karadzic is a Monster? How do we know?

The Independent refers to Karadzic as a "Monster." Think back to last year and consider: "How do they know what they know?" How have they attempted to justify their knowledge claims? Please be specific.

The knowers in the two articles are claiming to know what they know from deduction and rationalization. Peter Mass describes his first hand account of his tours through the prison camps and depicts the torture and pain he has witnessed. Clearly only a monster, something that is inhuman, inhumane, could allow something like this to happen. He uses deduction to conclude what is really going on behind the scenes, what is being hidden to make the camps look good. His emotional response as a human to seeing other humans tortured and beat tells him that what is going on is wrong. Being a human and having a disgusted response to what is happening in the authors mind only something inhuman, not humane, could allow a monstrosity like this to occur. Dare I say a monster? The independent uses deduction and authoritative reasoning to claim that Karadzic is a Monster. Similar to Peter Mass, being humans who create the Independent, a normal response to such cruelty and hatred they responded with fear, disgust, confusion, and an automatic bias that blocks their reasoning from seeing Karadzics views on the situation. The fear, disgust, and confusion of how someone could allow this to happen makes the knowers automatically dehumanize him by calling him a monster. Making it easier to hate what him from what he has done. They can claim that they know things also from the images, reports, and other sources of information that they have at thier fingertips to interpret as they wish. Which is authoritative.

OBEY

1. What is your emotional response upon entering the exhibit? Please explain.
My emotional response upon entering the exhibit was intrigued. I didnt really know much about the whole OBEY thing and i was extremly curious. The only artwork i had really seen from him was the Obama add and the famous OBEY poster. Right away looking at the first few art pieces when walking in i was blown away by thier compelxity, then even more amazed when i got closer and saw the more intense detail. Each poster brought a differnet emotion. There was some that brought sadness, pity, and even laughter. When reading about his ideas to create propaganda just to make people think, the posters seemed to create even more of a emotional responce. It created more curiosity for what he was trying to convey with these posters. Some posters even brought a feeling of shame, like the ones that were insulting America and the world. It almost made me shamefull and upset that I am apart of what he is trying to convey.

2. What is your emotional response upon leaving the exhibit? Please explain.

My emotional responce upon leaving the exhibit was intense. I was extremly intrigued by what i saw, and it made me think alot more about the war and the propaganda in our society. The last room left me blown away and speechless. threre was so much detail and so much meaning all around that my eyes could not stay focoused on one area for to long with out moving onto the next with intense curioisity. I felt like the exhibit was also set up to further enhance this sense of confusion and curiosity, with all of the different rooms, it was almost maze like.

3. Does emotion interact with reason, sense, perception and language for you in this exhibit? If so, how?

Yes emotion does deffinatly interact with reason, sense, perception and language in this exhibit. His artwork was designed to envoke an emotional responce from the viewers and have them question the society around them. He purposly manipulated language in some of his works to portray a meaning of stupidty. He also had newspaper clippings that were embedded in the back of the art work to help enhance whatever messsage or emotion he was trying to convey in that piece. The different colors and images greatly targeted your perception of how you viewed the exhibit, and helped to enhance the emotions he was trying to convey.

4. Is this an American culture exhibit? How might someone from a non-Western country respond to this exhibit? Why?

I felt that this is deffinatly an Amercian culture. First of all it deffinatly shows freedom of speech that may not be allowed in other countries, it directly insults President Bush, the war, and calls America stupid. A non-Western country might be bothered by the amount contraversy presented in these images. They also might be upset by the images of asian children holding guns.

5. Can one appreciate theatre, music and art using only the rational mind or must Emotion play a role? Explain.

I do not think it is possible at all to enjoy any type of art with out emotion. All art is created with the intention of capturing some type of emotion, or trying to inflict it on the viewer. I feel that if you are to look at art with only a rational mind, it just wouldnt work. Even looking at a piece of art and trying to analyze it, you can not do so succesfully without being able to interpret and feel the emotions that are being portrayed with in it.

Enron Essay

Informal fallacies are used in everyday life. We are constantly presented them from the media, and other sources of information. They have a huge impact on how we perceive the world around us and how people want us to perceive the world around us.

Informal fallacies are often convincing for many reasons. For one I think it has a lot to do with human flaws. Most people are willing to accept what the majority of people say because it is easier than to cause controversy. Unless a person is looking for a way to piss another person off then normally we tend to agree or not argue with that persons reasoning for things. For example, if a person were to was to state an ad ignorantiam fallacy (claming that something is true because it cannot be proved false.) any counter argument would cause much controversy, and also has no proof to it. Retaliating to something that has nothing to retaliate about would only create a useless argument that has no possibility of a solution. In my opinion, humans tend to avoid pointless arguments that they feel they have no chance in winning. A person is more likely to argue something if they feel that they have the upper hand and will not make a fool of themselves. If a person was to argue back to a fallacy like an ad ignorantiam fallacy then they themselves have nothing to back up what they are stating. Leading to a useless argument with no hope of winning. People are more likely to avoid a situation that they feel would cause useless drama in their lives, so they are less likely to responded to fallacies similar to this. On the flip side of this argument the people who are stating that fallacy are well aware that other people are less likely to respond against it, therefore letting their opinion be made and stated in such a way that they do not have to back up their ideas. In a argument containing an ad ignorantiam the person stating the fallacy would have the upper hand to the person over the person who is arguing against it. Both would have no clear evidence that what they view is correct or incorrect but since the person who started the argument is more likely to be more passionately involved in the statement itself, and would not want to be proven wrong. When people believe something that they have stated and they told it is wrong they tend to go into a defense mode over what was said. The person arguing back is less likely to have as much passion for the argument and since both have a side that can not be proved the less passionate person is the one who is more likely to give in.

Informal fallacies can also be plausible for many reasons as well. One of the more important reasons is authority. The movie talked about an experiment called the Milgram experiment. This experiment tested how far a person would go with shocking another person when it came to being told to do so by a ‘seemingly legitimate source’. Most of the people in the experiments were willing to shock to the death as long as they were being told it was ok by some higher and seemingly legitimate source. This is how fallacies are able to become plausible. Some higher or ‘seemingly legitimate source’ can make a type of fallacy statement and have no one speak up against them since people are much more willing to place the blame in someone else. Since the person in the Milgram experiment had more authority then the people in the experiment they were willing to behave inhumanely as long as they were told if it was ok and that the responsibility wasn’t on them. Our society is based off of responsibility. Punishment and law enforcement only takes place when we are not responsible and do not follow the laws. Our system is based off of us being responsible for our wrong actions, and when we commit theses wrong actions we are punished. However if the responsibility is lifted off of our shoulders and we are told a ‘bad deed’ is ok to do, then what is stopping us? In our society if we are not responsible for something then the results of what ever that something is does not matter to us. If you have a test in Latin on Wednesday, and someone in your class fails, it does not matter or effect you at all. However if you were told to tell this person about the test because they were not present when it was announced, and that was your responsibility (and you did not), then you are extremely likely to feel some amount of guilt when they fail. When responsibility is taken away from us, we are more likely to behave in a way in which we do not think about the actions that may occur. When a fallacy is used that takes away responsibility to think choose etc from the person it is being told to they are more likely to go along with it. This works even more when it is coming from some higher authoritative source that is thought to be trusted. This is how Enron was able to use so many fallacies and have the accepted by people.

Enron had many fallacies that they used to try and keep their charade of a good business going strong. They used ad homenium (supporting the person rather then the argument) to try to make Ken Lay seem like an innocent person who could never be involved in any of the corruption and crime that surrounds Enron. They played up the fact that he was the son of a preacher’s man. Here instead of trying to place facts about how he was not corrupt they played up how being the son of a preacher he could/would never be involved in such a thing. They also used false dilemma (assuming that only the two black and whites exist) with their employees. They created these ‘vacations’ in which people who were invited had to do crazy and risk taking stunts. If you said no to an initiation to one of these trips (even if you were only doing so out of fear of being injured) then you were viewed as against the company. This put employees in a place that forced them to have not be able to choose, so they would not be viewed as against the company. The company had a very Darwinist view. That only the strongest would survive. Employees would grade each other on a 1-5 scale and based on that scale 15% of people would get fired. Now being viewed as against the company, no matter how untrue or how much of an asset you may be, would significantly lower you in the eyes of your fellow coworkers. This could only decrease your chance of being able to hold onto your job for much longer. Another fallacy that was used was ad ignoratum (claming something is true because you cant prove it’s false). This was mentioned in both the movie and the Gladwell excerpt. Both go into detail about Mark to Market accounting. Mark to market accounting made it so Enron could make deals based off of predicted measurements of the stock market and make money that way. They wanted to have investors and other companies ‘forget about how much oil there really is’ and to believe that the stock would continue to keep rising, ‘you can’t prove I’m not gonna make it in the future.’ When explaining mark to market Gladwell states, “You aren't going to get paid for another ten years, and you aren't going to know until then whether you'll show a profit on the deal or a loss.” Here Gladwell shows how uncertain mark to market accounting is. However by using ad ignoratium Enron was able to get people to invest and believe in what they were doing because they had so much success in the past.

I think fallacies are completely justified. We live in a society of free speech, and should be allowed to use fallacies in any way we want. Fallacies are used a lot when it comes to speeches and public advertising, just like in Enron. People only became upset with Enron’s fallacies when they claimed that they were not being told the truth, when in fact they were just to lazy to uncover it. Its sad but the use of informal fallacies helps to make our society thrive. Politicians put them in constant use, helping them gain support through vague promises and other fallacies like circular reasoning. It would be interesting to see how an election would pan out if every single candidate did not use and fallacies and directly stated their views and plans. It would be extremely harder to win over votes of the majority of the people, with out offending, or even including a group. Also it would be interesting to see if commercials would work as well if there were no fallacies used. I have not seen a single charity commercial that does not have some type of fallacy used that makes people feel guilted into donating money. It would be interesting to also see if these charities would thrive as much as they do with out fallacies. I think fallacies are defiantly justified in using because we know they are there. We could easily find truth to what is being said behind the fallacy if we merely looked. I fully agree with Gladwell when he says “Its your fault as well”. People could claim that fallacies should not be used because it tricks us into believing things, but however all that has to been done is question what is being presented in front of you. When fallacies are presented to us we make the conscious choice of whether or not to believe them. Fallacies are completely justified to be used; it is up to us how to take them.

I have used informal fallacies before many times whether or not I was conscious of the fact that I was using them. I think that there most likely is not a single person who has not used one sometime in their lifetime. When I was little I probably constantly used ad ignoratum to prove a point. Being little I didn’t know I was using a fallacy but when one of those “nuh uh….yeah huh” arguments would come across I would say “prove it” when in fact it could not be proved.

Over all fallacies are something that we are presented to in everyday life. What really matters about them is what we do with them. If we chose to accept them, or if we chose to find the truth behind them.

Enron #3

1. What does Gladwell mean when he says that, 'Puzzles are "transmitter-dependent"; they turn on what we are told. Mysteries are "receiver dependent"; they turn on the skills of the listener.'?

When Gladwell says that puzzles are transmitter dependent because in order to figure out the end result of a puzzle the outcome is completely dependent on the person who made it, not the person who is solving it. Mysteries are receiver dependent since it is up to the receiver to understand the information and be able to find the outcome.

2. Why didn't Enron have to pay taxes on their S.P.E.'s? What would be Enron's defense? Can you name the Illogical Fallacy present?

Enron was able to get away without paying taxes on its S.P.E’s because it wasn’t real money, so it couldn’t be taxed. Enrons defense was that they could still post it as a gain in the stock market, since they would eventually make the money. The Fallacy would be Equivocation because the idea of earnings is viewed in two different ways here. The IRS looks as earnings as something that is real or tangible while the stock market does not.

3. Did Enron try to hide the fact that they weren't paying taxes?

Enron tried to hide the fact that they weren’t paying taxes because people would start to question why, and learn about all of the “fake money” being made in S.P.E’s

4. Why does Gladwell claim that, 'Woodward and Bernstein would never have broken the Enron story.' Why don't you think anyone asked about Enron's financial statements? Is there a fallacy at work here?

Gladwell claims that ‘Woodward and Bernstien would have never broken the Enron story’ because he feels that they only had the pieces to put the puzzle that were given to them from a source. Woodward and Bernstein would have had to interpreted the information that was given to them, since Enron is a mystery not a puzzle. I think no one questioned Enron’s finical statements because they were such a large and trusted company. This is a fallacy of circular reasoning.

5. Gladwell claims that, 'Mysteries require that we revisit our list of culprits and be willing to spread the blame a little more broadly. Because if you can't find the truth in a mystery—even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it's not just the fault of the propagandist.It's your fault as well.' Do you agree with the implications of this statement?

I do agree with this statement. In a mystery it is up to the people who are solving it to find the truth. If all the information is there for it to be solved, but no one is willing to search hard enough for the truth, then it is his or her fault as well. Since they are letting whatever happen happen while the information is right there.

6. What was the advice of the Cornell students to anyone who held Enron stock?

The advice of the Cornell students to anyone who held Enron stock was to sell it right away since their investigation started to show that there was something strange and not right for the company to have grown so quickly