Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

A self-fulfilling prophecy is as defined in our reading as “when out exaggerated or distorted expectations reinforce actions that actually bring about the expected even event.” In other words, people can effect the outcome of a situation by reacting in a certain way. One situation where this happens is when a person believes in a certain religion. This is that type of citation because people who believe in gods only believe in them because they have the belief system that makes them believe. Also as the text has explained another type of self-fulfilling prophecy is the stock market crash. People believed that the market may crash and by pulling all their money out of it they actually caused it to crash.

Self-fulfilling prophecies are when people believe something will happen and by doing something they cause it to happen. This happens to people in their everyday life and some don’t even know it like for me I thought that I would be late to work and instead of leaving as soon as I thought that I left later than I would have if I didn’t think that I would have been late. In the end I figured out that I really wouldn’t have been late if I had not assumed that I would have in the first place this makes my prophecy a self-fulfilling prophecy.

UFOs

In the article “Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects”, Condor argues that UFOs may exist and that there should be a public agency researching the different UFO citing individually. Hynek argues in “The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry”, UFOs pose a very real aspect that should be open to a more rigorous and serious studies. Paynter argues in “Physical Evidence and Unidentified Flying Objects” that the scientific community should more seriously investigate UFO citing. I believe that Paynter makes the best argument overall, this is because he refutes both Hynek and also Condor’s arguments which only helps to make his argument better and stronger. Also in Condor’s argument he does not ever truly use conclusive evidence to support his findings. Hynek also does not really argue his subject matter very well having holes in his reasoning and not coming up with a true conclusion. Overall Paynter does the best at arguing and he goes over other peoples arguments which reinforces his argument making sure that he doe not have any holes in it. 

Knowledge VS. Wisdom

I personally believe that knowledge and wisdom go hand in hand. Knowledge is knowing facts about different things. On the other hand wisdom is knowing how to apply that knowledge to different situations in your life and other peoples situations so you can give them advice. I believe that at college I am acquiring both. In classes I am getting the facts that I need to go on to my future life and career. Also I am getting different life experiences in college that help me to figure out how to apply the different information that I am learning so that I can have a greater understanding of how to go through certain situations, in other words wisdom. In this new age of information I believe that we are getting a better understanding of wisdom and that we are getting more knowledge. If you go on the Internet these days you can search almost anything and get a pretty good understanding of it but not only can you do that you can also see what other people have to say about that even see what they have experienced. This gives a person both knowledge and wisdom. 

Deception and Lying

Deception and lying is something that comes along with rhetoric, but the negative connotations are not always intended through rhetoric. However when there is a negative thing it is called deception and lying. Deception is deliberately making someone believe false information. To lie is the exact same thing, telling someone something that is not true. Many people lie and deceive every day but it is not always the intention to deceive to people. Lying can also be something that can help people or it can hurt people like you can help a kid by telling them that the Easter bunny is real but you can hurt someone by telling them you didn’t steal from them when you really did.
 
Deception and lying do connect to other rhetoric devices. like for instance it does correspond with euphemism because euphemism is a way of sugarcoating the truth which in my opinion is a deceptive thing to do. Dysphemisms in contrast is trying to make something sound worse than what it may be to produce a more disapproving effect which is also deceptive because you are trying to in a sense make someone feel worse than they should about something, deceiving them. Sarcasm is used to insult you sometimes without you knowing it kind of playing on a persons gullibleness being dishonest. Hyperbole is basically blowing something out of proportion when telling someone something and that is changing the facts to make them more dramatic for your story which is lying for the stories benefit.

rhetorical device

In the chapter that we read this week we have learned what a rhetorical device really is. I never knew what a rhetorical device was but now I know that it is something that I use every day. Rhetorical devices are uses of language such as euphemism, dysphemism, hyperbole, and sarcasm.

For the most part I use sarcasm. Sarcasm is a type of language that you use when you are trying to convay a topic by saying the opposite thing in an obviously wron way. I use this when I think someone should know the answer to a question they ask like if they ask where is the bathroom at a store and we are standing right b it. I would say something like I don't know but definetly not right under that giant sign. Sarcasm as you can see is not only something that is used when you are trying to say the opposite thing, but it is also something that is sort of meant to insult a person. Like all rhetorical devices it is meant as more of a negative way of speaking down to a person. The other type of rhetorical device that I use is hyperbole. Hyperbole is a device used to exaggerate. When I tell someone a story about something that happened one day I often exaggerate a lot, for instance when I tell people about how tall someone was I may say that they were like ten feet tall when in reality they may have only been like 6-7 feet tall, and because I'm so short that is really tall for me. It seems that I use the differen rhetoric devices every day without giving it a second thought.

Sally Ride

In the article that describes Sally Ride it tells how she is such a celebrated critical thinker because of her skills and the application of these skills toward her career in NASA. The qualities that she seems to demonstrate in this career are analytical skills, effective communication, research and inquiry skills, and creative problem solving.  

Her analytical skills are shown when so many people are there who undoubtedly vouch for the skills that she has when she is problem solving. When it comes to her skills in effective communication they are evident because Ride graduated with a double major one of those being English. Also she was made the capcom of the very first and also second shuttle launches. This shows how well she communicates and it shows that she was recognized by NASA for these skills. When it comes to research and inquiry skills it is not really shown in the article that she has these skills but to have graduated with a double major from a prestigious school they are a necessity. She demonstrates creative problem solving because as said in the article that she can see to the heart of things and in order to see to the heart of problems you need to see things from all perspectives and that is a good demonstration of creative problem solving. All of these skills combine to show that Ride is someone who truly exemplifies the skills of critical thinking.     

Inductive arguments

The main focus of the reading this week was inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are arguments that are not always true; they simply can be more true or less true. This contrasts with deductive argument in which you argue something that you can support by truthful evidence is indeed true. In everyday life I believe that inductive arguments are less effective ways of arguing. However, for the most part they are used more frequently.

Like if you are trying to pick a car out. Honda Civics are reliable cars so you decide to get one because they have such a good reputation for being that way, then six months later you’re in a shop because seals broke on the radiator making the inductive argument of all civics being reliable less true because your car is not reliable. I personally would have tried a deductive argument about the cars reliability looking at that car itself and looking at all the parts on the car. Although, inductive arguments are good tools that you should be able to use because in certain situations it is the only argument that you can use. Like when picking out a birthday present for a friend. There is no way of telling if they will like what you get them but as a friend you should know kind of what their taste is so you can pick a present based on the likes of the person and figuring out if the person is more likely to like one thing more than the other.    

Aquinas and Dawkins

I believe that in the case of Aquinas’s response to Dawkins if he were alive today would be alive today would be an illogical one. However, I may only believe this because I don’t believe in god. That being said there are many perspectives about the existence of a god or gods and others who believe in his or her existence may see Aquinas’s initial argument as being valid but I do not.

                If Aquinas had a chance to respond to Dawkins I think he would argue that the regression of god is not possible because that regression would lead to a true god and the other is not god. Or he may also argue that god was made too and the regression of god is his or her creator. However these are just assumptions based on the reading, I was not raised in a religious family so I don’t know if these are valid points to people who do believe. In my opinion, if there is or was a god and these rules did affect god then that would lead me to believe that Aquinas could thank that the creation of god was another powerful being who made him and that may be the father of god, but honestly this is a difficult question for me to answer since I don’t know about the beliefs of the origin of god or the beliefs of whether god is the last step in the regression of people who had to start the motion of others.  

Reasoning

The type of reasoning that I typically use in everyday life is thinking in the long term kind of way. I always think of what will happen in the future no matter what, I even try not to but it never works but I do. This kind of thinking can distract me because something as simple as my boyfriend not liking fruit pies makes me think of if we have a family together in the future and during the holidays it’s going to take so much more time to make a cream pie. I know a little strange but it’s how I think.

On the other hand this kind of thinking can really help me in my future career aspirations. I have always wanted to be a vet and in this career there are many different types of vet and I personally want to be an exotic animal vet. This type mostly deals with animals that you would see in zoos like tigers and monkeys. When doing this job it is very important to think of what the animal will be doing, for instance if a tiger breaks its leg then I would need to take more care in fixing it and making sure it sets correctly because when that tiger is rehabilitated it will need to be able to climb up trees and be able to pounce to catch the pray they are after. So thinking in the long is a very helpful tool that I will use a lot when I become a vet.