How Bodies will interact in the Future Depends On our Experience on Research Paper

How Bodies will interact in the Future Depends On our Experience on how they have interacted in the Past - Research Paper Example In the field of natural and physical sciences, the law of cause and effect works very well. Events that occur have their causes. Earthquakes are caused by volcanic eruptions; floods may be caused by heavy rains. When one doesn't eat he will surely die. There are several instances illustrating the veracity of these statements. These are simple occurrences that anyone can easily understand. We automatically believe that everything that happens has a cause. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian advanced a totally different view of causation. According to him, causes and effects are not discovered by reason but through experience. When we see that one event "causes" another, what we see is that this event is constantly conjoined to another. Hume believes that there is no reason to believe that one caused the other or but they will be always conjoined in the future. This belief of Hume is somewhat intriguing for what relationship would exist between the occurrences of two unrelated events, one occurring before the other. InductiInductive reasoning works on the principle that past acts are reliable guides to future acts. This is based on the principle of uniformity of nature. Because of this uniformity interactions will be similar. There are numerous instances which illustrate this, but there are also instances where the contrary is exhibited. When the acts have the propensity to renew itself or its operation, we call this the effect of custom or habit. Forms of Induction According to Wikipedia contributors (2007), David Hume's inductive inference comes in two forms:1. Demonstrative or intuitive This reasoning is basically a priori. We cannot determine a priori that the future will conform with the past because logically the world may stop being uniform. This cannot be grounded on a priori reasoning, hence the need to put it aside. 2. Inductive Again we cannot rely on the past to infer that the future will be similar or like it. At first glance, this seems to be a logical theory. We arrive at the truth through induction. Again, the reason is expected as its determining factor in the process, so like the first method, the demonstrative or intuitive method, Hume also discarded.Hume proposed that these two have no rational foundations and therefore cannot be depended upon.

Should censorship be sometimes justified Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Should censorship be sometimes justified - Essay Example The government must have powers to censor sensitive security information, such as the military strategy, deployment of forces, and placement of key weapons systems in times of conflicts and wars. Some people, mainly libertarians who see little or no role for government, argue that the United States has no room for censorship citing the First Amendment to the US Constitution that prohibits restrictions, among other things, on the freedom of speech and the press. However, protecting the United States and American people becomes more important than preserving the freedom of speech in times of conflicts and wars, because giving away sensitive security information could help domestic quislings and external enemies to harm the country and hurt the people. Recognizing this imperative, Congress has enacted several laws, including the Smith Act, Communist Control Act and Atomic Energy Act, which give the US government the powers to impose censorship. Even the criticism of the governmentâ€⠄¢s recent request to withhold the details of the experiment that produced deadly H5N1 influenza virus, which could be used by terrorist, has been made only on a narrow ground that someone had already shared that information at a conference in Malta (Markel). Censorship also becomes necessary to prevent hate speech that destroys social harmony and leads to violence in a country characterized by enormous racial and cultural diversity. Opponents of censorship argue that individuals can make their own judgment and apply self-censorship, and US courts have sometimes put the freedom of speech above the need to control hate speech, such as by upholding the right of the Ku Klux Klan to carry out anti-minority marches. However, personal judgment and self-censorship alone are not enough to prevent hate speech that could disrupt communal harmony and lead people to harm each other due to enmity, bigotry or other narrow interests. The rant against Muslims in public places and in the media in th e wake of terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001 led to violence against Muslims and turbaned Sikhs across the country, which could have been avoided by censorship. Although Congress has already outlawed slander, libel, incitement to riot and obscenity, government should have broad censorship powers to control hate speech and promote social harmony (Stork), a proposition with which I agree. Likewise, the government must have powers to impose censorship to protect the rights, dignity and innocence of children who cannot do it themselves. Those who advocate absolute freedom of speech hold the view that individuals and the media are capable of using their discretion to withhold indecent and obscene information that could harm children. However, there is no shortage of pedophiles, rapists, rogue journalists and other criminals eager to exploit children’s vulnerability and innocence, and the government has obligation to protect children from them, if necessary, by imp osing censorship. I shudder with the fear that my own brothers, sisters and relatives could become victims of such criminals, lured by indecency and obscenity in the media and public places. Recognizing the need for censorship to protect children, Congress has made several laws, including the Communications Decency Act of 1966, that classify films