Nathaniel Hawthorne was a Liberal Puritan Essay -- essays research pap

Nathaniel Hawthorne's best known short stories including Young Goodman Brown, The Minister's Black Veil, and The Birthmark, should be considered some of the great works of American literature because their exploration of enduring American themes of moral struggle. The short stories demonstrate a masterful command of symbolism and allegory. Nathaniel Hawthorne was born in Salem, Massachusetts in 1804. Descended from a staunch Puritan family, Hawthorne?s father was a presiding judge over the Salem Witch Trials. Hawthorne?s father died when he was young and he spent much time alone during his childhood. He had an introspective nature and was an avid reader. He began to write while he was in college and following graduation, returned to Salem where he entered a twelve-year literary apprenticeship. His first collection of short stories, Twice-Told tales, was published in 1837. Soon afterwards, he joined for a short period an experimental utopian community outside of Boston called Brook Farm in 1841. In 1842, Hawthorne married Sophia Peabody and they moved to Concord, Massachusetts. There Hawthorne wrote many pieces including his next collection of stores in 1846 called ?Mosses from an Old Manse.? From 1846 to 1849, Hawthorne worked in a Salem customhouse. Following his dismissal was a two-year period of intense p roductivity after which he wrote very little fiction, although he did keep notebooks. Hawthorne died in 1864 following several years of inability to complete any of this writings. Much of Hawthorne's work is set in colonial New England and many of his short stories have been read as moral allegories influenced by his Puritan ancestry. He believed that the misfortunes of his immediate family were the result of d... ...esides over a funeral and a wedding, providing no one with any explanation as to his unusual appearance. The only character not afraid of the veil is the minister?s fiancà © but she does ask him to remove it and how his face if only for a single time. He refuses to do so, explaining that the veil must stay on forever in recognition of the time when we will all cast aside our veils. She finally breaks off her engagement with Mr. Hooper since he refuses to remove it. When the minister dies, he is buried with the veil unlifted. Nathaniel Hawthorne?s best known short stories including Young Goodman Brown, The Minister's Black Veil, and The Birthmark, should be considered some of the great works of American literature because their exploration of enduring American themes of moral struggle. The short stories demonstrate a masterful command of symbolism and allegory.

King for a Day :: Rick Reilly Sports Illustrated Athletics Essays

King for a Day Rick Reilly, within his weekly Sports Illustrated column, â€Å"The Life of Reilly† sheds an interesting light onto the LeBron James controversy. LeBron James is considered, possibly, the greatest high school basketball player ever and will, in most scouts’ opinion, will be the first player selected in the 2003 N.B.A. draft. However, after a chain of events involving a gift of $845 worth of free basketball jerseys, James was ruled ineligible for two of his team’s high school games. Reilly explains the benefit another player receives from James’ error. Junior Brandon Weems has the chance to step in the shoes no one can fill and play in front of full crowds expecting to see LeBron. This paper will discuss briefly Reilly’s background as well as whom he has intended to read his piece. Furthermore, it will also discuss the rhetorical appeals Reilly has used and the argument structure that is taking place. Reilly has been a Sports Illustrated writer for seventeen years and has won the award for National Sportswriter of the Year seven times. His career has taken him places such as the golf course with President Bill Clinton, into the cockpit of an F-14 fighter plane, to the daunting task of being present at the Swimsuit Edition photo shoot. Reilly, who started in 1979 with the Boulder (CO) Daily Camera, always tends to put a witty and amusing spin on stories that may seem bland at first glance. It has been said that he has an uncanny knowledge of all sports mixed with the â€Å"timing of Jay Leno and the wit of Johnny Carson† (si.com). The intended audience for the piece, â€Å"King for a Day†, is an intelligent crowd that has somewhat of an interest in sports in general, not necessarily basketball. Any current or former high school athlete can relate to the situation that Weems is in. He is a replacement who just wants to have fun when he gets the chance. Anyone who appreciates the story of an underdog who succeeds will value this article. Reilly’s purpose is to show that there are two sides to ever story.

Individual Final Project Essay

When it comes to the topic of diversity and what is has taught me I really think of a few things. Diversity has really taught me a lot about myself as well as tolerance to others around me. Really there is nowhere in the world today that diversity is not present or has not had some sort of effect on our society as a whole. All in all I think that diversity really just means being different than others in various ways. I think if the United States never had any instances of diversity we would be a pretty boring and simple society. Many of our great minds of today as well as the past where very unique and diverse individuals. Without any type of diversity we would be exactly alike there would be nothing different about each other. The world would be plain and boring as well. I like to think that without any type of diversity the world would be without any type of color or texture as if we were in a 50’s TV show. We are different in race, gender, age, sexuality, religion and a wh ole lot of other things. There will be certain things that we have in common and some things that we don’t have in common. In order to understand someone I believe you need to get to know them better. You need to understand what makes them happy and what really works their nerves. There are so many cultures out here that we really don’t know anything about. It is good to learn about the different cultures that are out here. By learning from the different cultures we are able to see the things that we do that are in common with our culture and the things that are done differently from us. Some things that we do for fun might be something that they don’t approve of. Nowadays people take certain things for granted while in another culture they enjoy it and not abuse it. There are a lot of different things that I have found out about my race. As I was reading back over some of the chapters I see that â€Å"the marriage of a White person and an African American would have been illegal in 22 other states† back in the 1960’s. (Chapter 1 Racial and Ethnic Groups) That is something that I really did not know and was really shocked to find out as well. I did learn an interesting fact about African Americans however. It was interesting to lear n that not all African Americans were brought over here to the United States as slaves or that they were the only slaves. It is a common mistake made that America had only â€Å"Black† slaves. There were many Europeans sent here as indentured servants. They had to work off the trip to America and also some were sent here because of debts and had to work them off. Irish Immigrants were also thought of as lower than slaves. The Japanese and Chinese were both used as slaves and many lost their live building our railroad system. You also must remember there were Blacks who owned slaves. One of the largest Plantation houses in the South was owned by a Free Black Woman. Not all blacks were slaves it is just the way it has been portrayed in History books. As far as trends in the area of immigration I would have to say I agree with the info in the reading material. After looking over the reading material from Chapter 1 there is a pie chart of the population for the years 2010 and 2050. In the chart the prediction for the U.S. population for 2050 states that there will be more Hispanics than there was in the 2010 chart. There will be a decrease in the White Non-Hispanics and the African Americans stays about the same percentage. Although the United States is heavily populated I say that the Hispanics will have overpopulated many of the other races. The United States really has a lot to deal with in the area of diversity and its people. Discrimination is one of the major challenges that we will face because we can’t seem to get along and treat others like we are supposed to be or want to be treated ourselves. I think that the United States will be a lot better if we could all get along and really have a better understanding of the others around us and those who came before us. Like I stated earlier the United States was built on a premise that we are the ultimate dream and welcome people from all over the world. Hopefully maybe one day that will come true but that remains to be seen today and in the future years as well. Prejudice is another challenge that the United States faces due to the diversity of the people and those set in their ways. Stereotyping is another challenge that we face today as well as the past years as well. These things are in my opinion very much taught and passed down from generation to generation. All three of these challenges are serious and need to be stopped because they are all inappropriate in many ways and just plain mean and spiteful. There are plenty more challenges out here that we face on a day to day basis but we have to start somewhere. When it comes to having a diverse society I think there are really several benefits. There really are so many different benefits that we can have. Being that we are so diverse we will inherit a lot of things such as the different foods that all the different cultures have to offer. Each culture has something different than what the other cultures have. Each individual has something different to offer to our society. Being diverse is something special because we can each learn something new from one another. There are different dances, music; we all celebrate different holidays and a whole bunch of other things. The society that we live in has so much to offer and we are too blind to really see what is happening. At times I think the media does a good job of portraying people wrongly and it teaches us to stereotype them as well. We are so quick to judge others rather than getting to know them based on what we have seen or have heard from others. We really need to do a better job and find the best way to foster a good climate of acceptance for those around us and different than we are. It all starts with simply acting in a good civilized manner at all times. â€Å"Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, and their values and practices are accepted by the wider culture.† I think as long as we treat everyone they way that we want to be treated then we would be better off. It is really as simple as that and there is no better way to put it. We mainly need to learn to get along and stop all this bickering in addition to the other altercations that are currently going on in this world. The media can be a great to ol when it comes to teaching about diversity as well as a way to portray people in the wrong sense as well. The media perpetuates stereotyping and prejudice a lot sometimes whether it be on the radio or on the television set as well. An example of stereotyping would be portraying all black males as being in different gangs or some type of hoodlum. In Reality the percentage of blacks that are in gangs is not as high as told. In fact not all young black males are in a gang or even gang affiliated for that matter. Take the Treyvon Martin case for example. The thing was so blown out of proportion due to the fact he was a young black male walking around at night with a hoodie on. The media portrays this as a gang member and to some degree it could be the reason he was killed. The hysteria created simply caused Mr. Zimmerman to overreact thus causing him to shoot this teen and cause outrage in the black community. Usually when the television portrays blacks or even Hispanics for that matter it is usually a story about either murder or. You hardly see them advertise anything about a Caucasian doi ng anything unless it is some sort of celebrity or perhaps some weird random story taking place in Alabama or any of the southern states. You really have to do a search for them because I assume they don’t think it is important. It is so much prejudice going on out here in this world until it really doesn’t make any sense. I wish we could all get alone but sometimes that seems impossible. The media really needs to do a better job of providing a better sense of diversity and how we perceive others. I think that the media should help the viewers to understand that not everything you hear or see is really true. If there was a course for everyone to take to let them know that they need to investigate on what they hear or see. Television stations and radio stations need to start appreciating diversity. Diversity is beautiful and needs to be recognized more often. If it was not for diversity we would be all plain and boring. We as a country really need to do better when it comes to the topic of diversity. I wish that we could all get along and be treated as equals but that is simply not going to happen anytime soon. There are still a lot of prejudiced people out here in this world and sadly not a lot has changed over the years. I have had the displeasure of being around some people that were prejudice and it really makes me sad for them. To think that people are so single minded and set in their ways is pretty sad. I don’t really know how we as individuals and the United States work together to reduce prejudice but we need to start somewhere. I think classes such as cultural diversity are a good way to start but there is no way to make people think outside the box. We need to have more educational television shows that will increase the appreciation for diversity. We also need more television shows that can help us to reduce prejudice because it is a serious subject that needs to be addressed. I think when it comes to changing my ways or my behavior there is a few things I can do. I think that if I change my behavior to be more inclusive and pluralistic I would need to think about certain things before I act on them. By simply putting a little more thought into things can simply create a better outcome. I think that I need to get to know other people in different cultures and learn more about what they do and how they function. By getting to know other people in the other cultures will really help me to understand them rather judging them before actually knowing what they are about.

Migrants Hostel Essay

Migrant Hostel is an important poem when expressing belonging and not belonging as both sides of the concepts of belonging are shown through connections with character groups as well as places. It explores the barriers that prevent belonging through a variety of techniques that allow readers to fully understand the types of barriers that can prevent belonging. Stanza 1 and 4 show that characters may encounter barriers which prevent belonging. In stanza 4, the hostel is a barrier that holds the migrants back and prevents them from belonging. The barrier at the main gate is not only physical, but mental as well. It physically holds them back from continuing with their lives; whilst it also prevents them from feeling that they belong due to their lack of freedom. The line ‘A barrier at the main gate, sealed off the highway’ represents the metaphorical ‘highway of life’. The lack of control that they have over their life is what prevents them from feeling that they belong. The barrier holds them as ‘captives’ both mentally and physically. Stanza 1 shows that change can lead to a sense of not belonging. It creates ideas of uncertainty through the use of the words ‘arrivals’, ‘sudden’, and ‘left us wondering’. The changes that happen at the hostel only emphasise the lack of control that the migrants have their, and thus forcing them to feel that their life is not theirs to live. This leads to a feeling of not belonging. The 1st stanza has a negative atmosphere and shows the migrants to be uneasy. The concept of belonging is conveyed through the characters and their relationships in stanza 2. Within the migrant hostel, the migrants seek out people of their own nationalities, as it is human nature to want to be with people that are similar to themselves. This is shown through the quote, ‘Nationalities sought each other out instinctively’. The plural ‘nationalities’ in the first line of the stanza show that there are many people within the hostel, however they have no connection. The simile ‘like a homing pigeon’ represents the human desire to seek out similarities in other people to feel accepted by others. A feeling of unification can lead to a sense of belonging. Shared experiences can also allow individuals to understand one another, leading to acceptance and therefore belonging. The migrant hostel inhabitants share the experiences of war, shown through the last lines of the stanza ‘Partitioned off at night by memories of hunger and hate’. This discomfort is what allows them to understand one another and form relationships, which leads to belonging. The concept of belonging is conveyed through places. Migrant Hostel shows the concept of belonging in places by showing that a place can unite people. The recurring use of the word ‘we’ in stanza 3 and 4 show that the experiences that the migrants have had in the hostel have united them. The hostel, while it is a barrier, it also allows them to come together. The line ‘we lived like birds of passage’ shows the shared lifestyle of the migrants through the use of a simile, as well as the imagery of birds. It represents how they long to have freedom, which is a feeling that all migrants would experience. The lifestyle that the hostel creates for them is compared to the weather in stanza 3. The life at the hostel is a cycle of passage, just as the weather has cycles. The line ‘Needing its sanction to pass in and out of lives’ shows that the migrants are looking for the ‘approval’ of the hostel in order to continue with their lives. From gaining the ‘approval’ of the hostel, the migrants are able to feel that they belong. Migrant Hostel explores the different aspects of belonging and not belonging through the experiences of people who are unwanted and trapped by physical and mental barriers. they are able to feel accepted due to similarities in experience and nationalities, however are prevented from moving on with their lives due to the human wish to feel accepted and that they belong.

Analysis of Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS) is a controversial documentary on climate change by British television producer Martin Durkin1. It first aired on the BBCs channel 4 on March 8, 20072. This documentary argues against conventional scientific understanding of the degree and cause of recent, observed climate change. The overwhelming view amongst climate scientists is that twentieth century global warming is largely due to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from increased industrialization during the last 100- 150 years.His program collides sharply with the premise outlined in former Vice President Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary, â€Å"An Inconvenient Truth,† which presents a bleak picture of how a buildup in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide affects the global climate, with potentially disastrous consequences. Durkin presents an alternative view that recent global warming is neither significant nor due to human activity.The documentary does not attempt to argue the latter view through any critical deconstruction of climate science orthodoxies. Rather, it contends that modern climate scientists are at best seriously misguided in their collective opinion on the nature and causes of global warming, or are at worst guilty of lying to the rest of the community. Publicity for the documentary leans heavily towards the latter, stating that global warming is â€Å"the biggest scam of modern times†.The documentary uses a series of techniques to shake the viewer’s belief in current orthodox understanding and to present an amenable contrary viewpoint. Several experts, labeled as ‘authoritative’, are interviewed to lend credibility to the documentary.These commentators are presented as ‘insiders’ who cast doubt on the integrity   of climate change science and the IPCC assessment process that has led to current orthodox understanding. Alternate scientific contentions are presented in a credible way by selectively presenting facts and heightening uncertainties without context or by specious reference to the actual published science. The motivation and morality of scientists driving current orthodox understanding is questioned through aspersions that are conspiratorial in nature.Many of the people that were interviewed did not have the proper credentials and were under qualified. For example, Patrick Moore is a Canadian Professor who has no training in climate science. He makes public statements in favor of genetic engineering and logging in the Amazon. In 1986 Moore had an altercation with Greenpeace and has since put most of his energies into undermining the arguments of environmentalists, particularly his former colleagues. His main claims involve the idea that environmentalists ‘treat humans as scum’.In the 1990s, Moore worked as a consultant for the British Columbian Timber Products Association, undermining the attempts of Greenpeace to preserve fo rests. Also various large corporations and companies paid many of the people that were interviewed off. Fred Singer is a retired Professor from the University of Virginia and has never had an article accepted for a peer reviewed scientific journal in the last 20 years. He has argued that CFCs do not cause Ozone Depletion. There are numerous scientific studies that disprove his ludacris assertion. In 1990, Singer founded ‘The Science and Environment Policy project’, which contradicts climate science and has received direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO 2000.Patrick Michaels is another such person interviewed in The Great Global Warming Swindle. He is one of the most prominent climate change skeptics in the US and made the claim (in the movie) â€Å"I’ve never been paid a nickel by the old and gas companies†. This is actually not true as according to journalist Ross Gebspan, Michaels has received direct funding from German Coal Mining Associatio n ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and the Western Fuels Association ($63,000), which is one of the post powerful funders of Global Warming Skeptics in the US. However, one of the more credible people interviewed in the movie was Richard Lindzen.He is a meteorology professor at MIT and is known as one of the most reputable climate change skeptics in the US. Some of his most notable claims include those published in the Wall Street Journal in June 2011 maintaining that â€Å"there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what causes them†. Lindzen is known to charge oil and coal interests 2,500 USD a day for his consulting services and in 1991, he testified in front of a senate committee, after receiving funding from the company Western Fuels. He is a member of the  Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy which receives a large proportion of its funding from Exxon Mobil.In summary the documenta ry is not scientifically sound and presents a flawed and very misleading interpretation of the science. While giving the impression of being based on peer-reviewed science, much of the material presented is either out-of-date, already discredited or of uncertain origin. A number of the graphs and figures used in the documentary are not based on any known or published climate data, while others are presented schematically, and hence may confuse and mislead the viewer.The general arguments in the movie are; that climate change is a natural occurrence, that Global temperature actually dropped during the period of greatest anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions, that carbon dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas that the greenhouse effect isn’t being enhanced and that carbon dioxide concentration increases do not cause increased temperature. The format of the documentary itself is sound in that it shows the opinions of various source, the problem is that the interviews were taken out of context and visual imagery was often manipulated.The documentary attempts to support the claim that temperatures were higher in the recent past with the graph ‘Temp – 1000 Years’ – attributed to the â€Å"IPCC†. This graph purports to show global average temperature between AD 900 and â€Å"now†, with the highest values recorded between about 1100 and 1300 (labeled as â€Å"Medieval Warm Period†).The graph is actually reproduction of a schematic diagram published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its First Assessment Report in 1990 (Figure 2). It is important to note that this schematic is largely based upon early reconstructions of European temperature changes such as that of Lamb (1988). Critically, the 1990 IPCC Report cautioned, â€Å"it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global†, and underlying the fact that neither regional temperature averages nor tem perature records from single locations can be used as proxies for global temperature.This 17 year-old graph has been superseded by numerous more recent studies, with the IPCC successively publishing updated records of â€Å"near global†Ã‚  temperature in its Second Assessment Report in 1995, its Third Assessment Report in 2001, and its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. The most up-to- date figure for the Northern Hemisphere, from IPCC (2007), is reproduced in Figure 3, which shows 12 different reconstructions. These consistently show that, for the Northern Hemisphere, the past century is exceptionally warm, and that the warmth of recent decades clearly exceeds that of the Medieval Warm Period in all cases.The United States National Academies published a report in 2006 (NAS 2006) that reviewed the published scientific evidence on surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2000 years. It found that â€Å"evidence for regional warmth during medieval times [centered around AD 1000] can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain†.Based on a review of the scientific literature, the report concluded â€Å"none of the large-scale surface temperature reconstructions show medieval temperatures as warm as the last few decades of the 20th century.† Very clearly, the documentary has misrepresented the early IPCC figure, and ignored all IPCC updates to this figure. The analyses published by the IPCC strongly contradict the documentary. Another such scientific inaccuracy is the claim that the rising temperatures of the planet stared to plateau around 1940 and then didn’t continue to rise again until 1970, and therefore that this represents evidence that human activities don’t influence the climate.This is clearly a tactic employed by the movie’s makers and interviewees to manipulate the audience as the logic behind this is very flawed. The years leading up to and during the second World War were a time of great industrialization for many countries in the northern hemisphere (which contains a majority of the Earth’s landmass), causing large amounts of carbon dioxide to be pumped into the atmosphere. This industrialization also created a large amount of pollutants that stayed in the lower atmosphere which reflect incoming sunlight back into space, thereby causing temporary cooling.These lower level pollutants, including sulphate aerosols only have residency times of a few months (as opposed to about 100 years for  C02) and therefore warming resumes (refer to figure 1 in appendix). The current data from the IPCC shows that since then, the temperature has been increasing faster than it has in the last 10,000 years17. While there were clearly many attempts at manipulations and scientific errors in the Global Warming Swindle, there were a few valid points that were made. The argument that Global warming is (in some cases) being used in such a way that keeps developing countries from the rapid development needed to create better standards of living for the general population in a valid one.It is very simple for the theory to be used in a way that makes actions such as preventing the use of fossil fuels in developing countries seem valid, despite the fact that this often a necessary step in the development process. Developed countries currently emit a vast majority of global greenhouse emissions and the media frequently depicts countries such as China and India as the colloquially termed ‘bad guys’ because they refuse to maintain the necessary reductions in greenhouse emissions. The movie showed a short clip of an interview in a hospital in a rural area of an developing countries where the power from a solar p anel was clearly not enough to power the hospital. Such instances are common in rural areas of Africa where NGOs, in an attempt to reduce Global emissions, install inappropriate technologies.The movie is also has a sound format in that it is in documentary ‘style’ (disregarding the validity of the points presented), and it shows clips from various different scientists and Climate skeptics in different fields. Climate change Skeptic Bjorn Lomborg has been criticized for using very few researchers belonging to a very narrow spectrum of fields to validate his claims18. In comparison, The Global Warming Swindle has presented a decent number of sources and ‘experts’. The general format was also such that it intertwined interviews, narration and visual aids. This method is quite effective in maintaining the interest of the audience throughout the movie.The inaccuracies presented in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ needed to be responded to an d the general idea of creating a documentary to address this issue was a good one. Al Gore only barely presented the other side of the argument and there are some very valid cases relating to the fact that Global Warming may not have anthropogenic causes. In fact, if the Global Warming Swindle is correct in its assertion that Global warming isn’t manmade then there really isn’t much  that can be done and our resources really would be better spent elsewhere and any real action would mean convincing every nation on Earth to cut down on fuel emissions-which data suggests, is unlikely.Despite these valid points, arguments can be made to the contrary, especially with consideration to their presentation and the omission of certain information. The Global Warming Swindle implies that there are official expectations for developing countries to cut emissions by the same amount as developed countries. This isn’t true. The Kyoto protocol explicitly stated that there was nothing expected from developing countries in this regard.This was yet another attempt to manipulate the audience into believing the producer’s agenda. The inclusion of this fact may have made the movie seem a little more credible and balanced but this information is omitted. For the most part, it is now understood that economic development has to go hand in hand with climate policy. There is currently no legitimate environmental movement that says that the worlds less developed should have their access to energy restricted. There is also a very valid argument to the effect that sustainable development is a possible route towards economic development.Regardless, even if sustainable development doesn’t occur, the use of fossil fuels for development in developing countries wouldn’t have a significant effect on the environment. Costs estimate that the upper bound for the annual cost of emissions reductions consistent with the stabilization of CO2 levels would equal about 1% of the world’s GDP by 205020. This shows that, despite the cost, continual development is possible and that these actions will prevent the possible occurrence of Global Warming related phenomena that could have a detrimental effect to global development. The issue about how scientists now use the theory of manmade global warming to fund their research is completely true. On the other hand, this is not a new phenomenon.In order to prove or disprove a theory, scientists need to find sources of funding for their research. Obviously using arguably the most in ‘vogue’ scientific issue of our time is an easy way to get funding. Before the theory of Global Warming was being researched, scientists still had to present their research and find modes of funding. Therefore using this as a way to argue that Global Warming isn’t the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases seems a weak argument that is rather off topic.The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science. Skepticism in science is a healthy thing, and the presence of orthodox scientific skepticism in climate change is ubiquitous. Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views.

God and Philosophy Essay

Many philosophers will say that God plays an important role in a person’s mental being. Others will argue that he doesn’t and that we decide by our own mentality. The three thinkers that will be discussed in this paper made a large impact in the philosophical world with their theories and reasons. Descartes, Kant, and Hume are all important players in the world of philosophy, but according to other philosophers, so is God. Rene Descartes, a noted French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician, coined the Latin phrase â€Å"Cogito ergo sum† (I think, therefore I am). He â€Å"refused to accept the scholastic and Aristotelian traditions that had dominated philosophical thought throughout the medieval period† (www. iep. utm. edu). He frequently contrasted his views with those of his predecessors. In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of God’s act of creation. In 1641, he wrote Mediations on First Philosophy, which he employed a method called methodological skepticism; where he doubts any idea that can be doubted. God, in Descartes’ metaphysics, is the bridge from the subjective world of thought to the objective world of scientific truth. â€Å"The mind, owing its existence to God, is innately programmed with certain ideas that correspond to reality; hence the importance, in Descartes’ system, of proving the existence of God, the perfect guarantor of our ideas, so that the mediator can move from isolated flashes of cognition to systematic knowledge of the nature of reality† (Cottingham, 31). In Meditations, he mentions the idea of a benevolent God. â€Å"Because God is benevolent, he can have some faith in the account of reality his senses provide with a working mind and sensory system and does not desire to deceive him; however, this is a continuous argument, as his very notion of a benevolent God from which he developed this argument is easily subject to the same kind of doubt as his perceptions† (www. wikipedia. com†). Descartes sought to retain the belief in the existence of innate ideas together with an acceptance of the values of data and ideas derived from an experience. Next up is Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher that held that there is an objective moral law. Most philosophers view morality very differently. Some think there is an objective moral law, but that it depends on God’s will. â€Å"Others thought morality was to do with reason, but that the reasoning was all about how to promote some objective, like one’s own happiness of welfare of society† (Walker, 5). Kant rejected these ideas, because morality is depending on something outside itself- God’s will. Kant inquired whether it could be possible to ground synthetic ? a priori’ knowledge for a study of metaphysics, because most of the principles of metaphysics from Plato through Kant’s immediate predecessors made assertions about the world or about God or about the soul. Kant’s works of 1755 reveal more of his originality and his enduring themes. Universal Natural History, deriving the present state of the planets from postulated initial conditions by reiterated applications of the laws of Newtonian mechanics, manifests not only Kant’s commitment to those laws, for which he was subsequently to seek philosophical foundations, but also his commitment to thoroughly naturalistic explanations in science, in which God can be the initial source of natural laws but never intervenes within the sequence of physical causes. Kant still holds that the existence of God can be proved as a condition of the possibility of any reality. Finally, Kant further develops his argument that scientific explanation cannot allow divine intervention in the sequence of events, and that God must be seen only as the original ground of the laws of nature. The existence of God is therefore to Kant a necessary assumption for what he sees to be an objectively valid morality. Lastly, David Hume, British philosopher, is considered one of the most influential religious philosophers. Hume questioned the process of inductive thinking, which had been the hallmark of science. He criticized the standard proofs for God’s existence, traditional notions of God’s nature and divine governance, the connection between morality and religion, and the rationality of belief in miracles. He also advanced theories on the origin of popular religious beliefs, grounding such notions in human psychology rather than in rational argument or divine revelation. For Hume, all objects of human reason are divided into two kinds: Relations of Ideas and Matters of fact. All reasoning of matters of fact is founded on Cause and Effect. Cause and Effect play a big role in Hume’s philosophy. Hume wrote The Natural History of Religion in 1757. Its main theme is the causes and consequences of the religious development of mankind from polytheism to monotheism. â€Å"Belief in a god or gods is not natural like belief in an external world, since there are races in which it is not to be found† (Quinton, 52). Contrary to many critiques Hume does believe that there is a God, however he does not believe that God is all greatness like society commonly assumes and accepts. Hume argues that because one sees an effect that doesn’t mean that we can automatically know or assume its cause. This argument can be used to explain the creation of the world. As influential as Hume was, he remains an academic skeptic, making the reasonable judgments of an ordinary life, regardless of lack of academic knowledge. God played an important role in every philosopher’s thinking. They either tried to provide proof that he does or does not exist, or tried to decipher why so many people followed a man whom they have never even met. Nevertheless, God played an important role in Kant’s, Descartes’, and Hume’s philosophical thinking. Works Cited Burnham, Douglas and James Fieser. â€Å"Rene Descartes (1596-1650). † The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. < http://www. iep. utm. edu/d/descarte. htm>. Cottingham, John. Descartes. New York, Rutledge: 1999. Quinton, Anthony. Hume. New York, Rutledge: 1999. â€Å"Rene Descartes. † http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Descartes. Walker, Ralph. Kant. New York, Rutledge: 1999.

Does Word Length or Orthographical Neighbourhood Size?

Does Word Length or Orthographical Neighbourhood Size Effect Working Memory? Abstract Baddeley, Thomson and Buchanan (1975) were the first to systematically examine the effect of word length on memory finding that short words were recalled more easily than long words. This became known as the word length effect (WLE; Baddeley et al. 1975). Since this study WLE was further examined and presented mixed results (e. g. Baddeley, 2000; Cowan et al, 1992; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2009; Lovatt, Avons & Masterson, 2000).In 2011 Jalbert, Neath, Bireta, and Surprenant suggested that previous research conducted may have been subject to a confounding variable, orthographical neighbourhood size (ONS). In a study by Jalbert, Neath and Surprenant (2011) it was concluded that neighbourhood size, not length of the word, is important; therefore forgetting in short-term memory may be due to other variables than decay. The present study was further investigating the effect of word length and ONS by using 2Ãâ€"2 within groups ANOVA. The independent variables were word length and ONS.They both had two levels: 1 syllable (short) and 3 syllables (long) for word length and 3-5 neighbours (small) and 7-9 neighbours (large) for neighbourhood size. Words for the ONS were selected using MCWord, an online orthographic database (Medler & Binder, 2005). The dependent variable was the number of words successfully recalled in the correct order. It was hypothesized that short words would be recalled better than long words, and that words with a large ONS would be recalled better than words with a small ONS.There will be no interaction between the two groups. There were eight participants (Leeds Met undergraduates) selected through convenience sampling. The experiment was run with the use of E-prime (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002). Participants were presented with six words then words were displayed on the left side of the screen, participants were asked to indicate the order in which th ey had been presented in. The number of correctly recorded words was used as the measure of the accuracy of their memories.Results showed that there was no significant effect on the ease of recall relating to either word length or ONS, therefore not supporting the hypotheses or previous research. This could be due to a small sample size. The different stimuli used may also have been problematic as previous research indicates (Bireta, Neath & Surprenant, 2006). This may imply that there is another reason for why forgetting occurs and it is not specifically related to decay or ONS. Further investigation into this is recommended. References Baddeley, A.D. , Thomson, N. , & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 575–589. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423. Bireta, T. J. , Neath, I. , & Surprenant, A. M. (2006). The syllable-based word length effect and stimulus set specificity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 434–438. Cowan, N. , Day, L. , Saults, J. S. , Kellar, T. A. , Johnson, T. , & Flores, L. 1992). The role of verbal output time in the effects of word length on immediate memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 1-17. Jalbert, A. , Neath, I. , Bireta, T. J. , & Surprenant, A. M. (2011). When does length cause the word length effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 338–353. Jalbert, A. , Neath, I. & Surprenant, A. M. (2011). Does length or neighbourhood size cause the word length effect? Memory and Cognition, 39, 1198-1210. Lewandowsky, S. , & Oberauer, K. (2009).No evidence for temporal decay in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Association Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1545-1551. Lovatt, P. , Avons, S. E. , & Masterson, J. (2002). Output decay in immediate serial recall: Speech time revisited. Journal of Memory & Language, 46, 227-243. Medler, D. A. , & Binder, J. R. (2005): MCWord: An on-line orthographic database of the English language. Schneider, W. , Eschman, A. , & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime User's Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.