THE MYSTERIOUS WORLD. THE WORLD OF CRYPTOZOOLOGY. PT 4. BIGFOOT- SECTION 1.

What awaits us in the Deepest Parts of the Unexplored Forests of the Pacific Northwest?

-  or maybe its the Mountains of Appalachia?

-  Could it be the Remote Back Roads of New England, New Jersey, or New York?

-  What about the Lands around the Great Lakes, and the Upper Mid-West?

Come to think of it, there is one Type of Cryptid that seems to have found a Home in every one of the 50 States in the U.S., and All the Provinces and Territories of Canada.

CRYPTID-  A LEGENDARY OR MYTHOLOGICAL CREATURE WHOSE EXISTENCE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, OR EVEN REASONABLY POSTULATED BY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR TESTING OR ANALYSIS.

Cryptozoology, is the one area where Evidence does not Have to meet any Kind of Scientific, or Critical Thinking Criteria.  So, that is where we find the continued insistence that such Improbable Creatures actually do exist.

The Number of Cryptids that are Promoted as Real by Cryptozoologists are Numerous, and are said to exist just about everywhere on Earth.  However, to begin with, let's look at the Most Famous Example found on the NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT.  I am Referring to the Backwoods Beast known as BIGFOOT.

When Starting a Discussion about any possible living thing, particularly one that is Unlikely to Exist, the MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DO IS TO ACTUALLY DEFINE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE VALID QUALIFYING EVIDENCE PROVING ITS REALITY.  

That is the First Problem, and it Points out something that will be a Detriment when Talking about any CRYPTID;

THAT WITH ONLY PURELY SUBJECTIVE TESTIMONY OFFERED AS THE "BEST EVIDENCE",  A PROPER DEFINITION IS NOT REASONABLY POSSIBLE.  IT CAN BE CHANGED EASILY, SINCE IT IS NOT BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

That brings us to first IMPORTANT QUESTION-  WHEN SOMEONE WRITES OR TALKS ABOUT BIGFOOT...

... WHAT ARE THEY REFERENCING?

SEE SECTION 2.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. RIGHTS- WHAT THEY ARE, AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT. PT 1.

There is perhaps no more important word, when we discuss such issues as Freedom of Choice,

Protection from Governmental Interference into our lives, and yes, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness." Yet, the definition of RIGHTS seems to be something many don't understand. 

Even more alarmingly, there are those who define the term in different ways at different times, depending on the agenda they are supporting in the latest election cycle.

The goal of this article is to define what is meant when the word RIGHTS is used properly, and to shed light on the improper usage of the term.

In general terms, a RIGHT can be referenced and defined in several ways:

-  A Protection against Persecution for certain behaviors, that an individual or group may engage in.

-  The ability to make decisions about ones' own life, free of improper

influence or malicious retribution.

-  Protecting groups that are recognized legally, from hostile actions by those

who desire to inflict harm upon the members, without just cause.

-  Punishment administered to any individual, Either by Government, Social Organization, or Employer must be justified through defined procedures that allow the individual an opportunity to provide a proper defense to any and all charges. Further, that judgment will be based on facts and evidence that were gathered in a prescribed manner.  Of course, the degree to which these are implemented differs from the Public to the Private sector.

When speaking of Rights that are found in the Private Sector, we usually find them to be creations of contractual agreements between Employer and Employee, or in By-Laws that are part of a fraternal organizations code of conduct for members. By their very nature, these Rights affect a very select group.

This is not true in the Public Sector.

End of PT 1.  

Call for Nominations: 2018 Prize for Excellence in Philosophy Teaching.

Dear DAVID, We are pleased to open the call for nominations for the 2018 Prize for Excellence in Philosophy Teaching. This annual prize recognizes a philosophy teacher who has had a profound impact on the student learning of philosophy in undergraduate and/or pre-college settings. The winner will be awarded $1,000 and a plaque. Eligibility is open to any APA member. The prize is sponsored by the American Philosophical Association (APA), the American Association of Philosophy Teachers (AAPT), and the Teaching Philosophy Association (TPA). Nomination letters should be no more than 2,000 words and should address the selection criteria detailed below. Only APA members may submit nominations; self-nominations are welcome. Criteria to Include in the Nomination Letter Excellence in undergraduate and/or pre-college philosophy teaching, established, in part, by the nominee’s attention to student learning Creative and effective use of high-quality pedagogies Broader impact on the quality of philosophy education through service and/or research The nomination deadline is August 1, 2018. To submit a nomination, fill out the nomination form. After reviewing the nomination letters, the APA committee on the teaching of philosophy will invite selected finalists to submit detailed information. We look forward to receiving your nominations for the 2018 Prize for Excellence in Philosophy Teaching. Sincerely, Alexandra Bradner Chair, APA Committee on the Teaching of Philosophy David Concepcion Associate Chair, APA Committee on the Teaching of Philosophy.

LOGIC. HOW CAN YOU SPOT A WELL REASONED ARGUMENT, OR AN IRRATIONAL ONE? PT 1.

It may be a Local Politician, Co-Worker, Friend, or even a Family Member. Yet, it is Inevitable that occasionally someone you know will Voice an Opinion about an Issue that will be in Direct Conflict with your own.  What should you do? What is at Stake if you Decide to Open up and be Honest?  Before you Decide, try to go through the Following Process, and see what Answer it leads you to. 

1.  Is the Subject Matter of Such Importance that it must be Addressed Immediately?-  What is Important to You, Friends and Family, may not really matter to others.  Pick your Battles.  If You have an Opinion on a Subject, but it lies in conflict with Others, is the Disagreement so Vast that you are willing to make a Stand Then and There?  Can it wait for a Different Time and Place?  What Do You Gain, or Lose, by Postponing such a Discussion?

2.  Many Times it is Better to say NOTHING AT ALL, LET THE SPEAKER MAKE THE CASE FOR YOUR SIDE OF AN ISSUE.-  Are you Familiar with the Saying:   

                 "BETTER TO BE THOUGHT A FOOL, THAN TO OPEN YOUR 

                  MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT."   

How Many Times have you been present at a Gathering or Event, where Someone Attending is making a Fool of Themselves, Blurting out Meaningless Drivel that has everyone Rolling Their Eyes and Walking Away.  If it is within a group of Fairly Well- Informed People, They will see the Individual for what He Is;  Ill-Informed, Ignorant, and Lacking the Basic Skills for Intellectual Discourse.  No Opinion They Offer will be Taken Seriously, and Hopefully, it is on the Opposite Side of an Issue that you land on.

3.  The Most Important Disagreements to Confront Immediately are Deliberate Falsehoods and Bad Information-  Before you can point out an IRRATIONAL AND INVALID ARGUMENT, MAKE SURE THE SPEAKER CAN BACK UP ANY FACTS AND FIGURES THEY ARE STATING AS FACT.  Don't point out the Flaws in the REASONING AND STRUCTURE OF THEIR ARGUMENT, AND IGNORE ANY MISINFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PREMISES.  THEY CAN JUST REFORMULATE THE ARGUMENT TO MAKE IT VALID, BUT IT MAY STILL CONTAIN THE SAME FACTUAL FLAWS.

HERE IS A BASIC EXAMPLE;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A  VICIOUS DOG.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

This is an INVALID ARGUMENT.  SPOT MAY 

BE A VICIOUS DOG, BUT ANY BREED OF DOG 

CAN BECOME VICIOUS, IT IS NOT A BEHAVIOR 

EXCLUSIVE TO THE ROTTWEILER.

TO MAKE IT A VALID ARGUMENT, IT IS CHANGED

TO THIS;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A VICIOUS DOG.

NOW THE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY VALID.

HOWEVER, THE BASIS OF TRUTH FOR THE CONCLUSION

THAT SPOT IS VICIOUS, LIES IN THE PREMISE THAT 

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS. THAT IS A FACTUAL

CLAIM THAT MUST BE BACKED UP WITH PROPER

DATA.