I HAVE SEPARATED THE QUESTIONS.
PLEASE ANSWER THEM WITH YOUR OWN WORD. DON’T USE ANY RESOURCES.
YOU CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ONE TO TWO PARAGPARH EACH AND COMPLETE 275 WORDS IN TOTAL BY ANSWERING ALL THE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
1) Please watch the Ted Talk video below and then read the short article I have linked below from Scientific American magazine about political bias in the social sciences.
Why is it important to have a variety of political perspectives (liberal, conservative, etc.) represented in the social sciences? Write a paragraph or more of your own critical reflections on this topic. Make use of the material on sources of bias and on principles for guiding belief and doubt.
2). First, view the video I have attached highlights of the famous debate regarding the existence of God between William Lane Craig (proponent) and Sean Carroll. You will notice that the presentation contains some scientific details that you might not be able to follow, but don’t worry about that. Just listen carefully to the two speakers and then comment on the argument in question, called the “Kalam Cosmological Argument.”
How would you respond to the claim “God exists”? What do you think of Craig’s premises and Carroll’s criticism? Be sure to also reply to another student, particularly if you disagree, and say why.
3) Please watch the video below and answer the questions with your own word.
What is the “blank slate” theory? What is the political appeal of this theory?
What evidence does Pinker present for rejecting the Blank Slate theory?
Do you agree with what he says about parenting and the arts? What are your reasons?
4). For this one, you can comment about evolution and creationism. Try to relate your comments to one or more of the Criteria of Adequacy (particularly Conservatism, Simplicity, Explanatory Scope, Testability, and/or Fruitfulness) for comparing hypotheses. Here is a link to a short video that you might find helpful (and fun).
The video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
5) State one moral principle and then identify a counterexample that gives us reason to reject the principle. Propose an alternative principle that you think is less vulnerable to counterexamples. As an added challenge, explain how your alternative principle can be used in an argument (try composing an argument).
For example, the principle that “any action that is unnatural is morally wrong” has many obvious counterexamples: wearing contact lenses, driving a car, and skydiving is all unnatural acts but is not morally wrong. Perhaps a better alternative principle is “any action that hurts another person is morally wrong.” But even this principle may need to be refined in order to avoid counterexamples (e.g., boxing, dentistry, and criticism can hurt but they are not morally wrong). Refinement could be the principle that “any action that produces unwanted or unnecessary harm is morally wrong.” Here is an argument that uses this principle:
1. Any action that produces unwanted or unnecessary harm is morally wrong.
2. Corporal discipline of children produces unnecessary harm (e.g., long-term psychological harm).
Therefore, the corporal discipline of children is morally wrong.