RESPONSE PAPER 1, PART 2 POSTINGS
FOR INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE SEE
 http://philosophy.kslinker.com/Response%20Paper%20Instructions%20PHIL%201301.html


A
. Response Paper 1. Part 2.

The Philosopher Credo asserts: Logic, and its applications  have accomplished more than any single intellectual tool for the advancement of human knowledge and well-being, hence it deserves a place in all High School Curriculums as a mandatory subject, and should be the basis for all decisions, not only in regards to scientific knowledge and gaining insights to nature, but as the source for moral decisions and religious ones as well! Those who argue contrary to this view are people of little or no education - probably because they believe education is evil or they always got bad grades, which is an indication that they are stupid, hence their views can be safely ignored.

In reading Credo's argument and evaluating his premises, his arguments have what at first appears to be valid premises.  However, as one breaks down each of his statements, they can be determined to be evaluative statements vice factual statements.  His assertion, "Logic, and its applications  have accomplished more than any single intellectual tool for the advancement of  human knowledge and well-being", is not supported by facts and singling out Logic discounts the importance of contributions of the other main branches of philosophy, Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Aesthetics.  All of which, in concert, have contributed to "the advancement of human knowledge and well-being."  Without any statistical information or facts to indicate which of these branches has impacted the advancement of human knowledge, it is impossible to single out any one branch.  It could be argued just as easily that Ethics or Metaphysics and their applications have accomplished more than any other branch.  As for his conclusion, Logic should be taught as a mandatory subject and the basis for all decisions, scientific, natural, religious and moral, there are a number of factors which would invalidate this conclusion.  As is mentioned in the example response paper, many students are not emotionally or intellectually mature enough for the subject matter for it to be taught as a 'mandatory' subject and the teaching of Logic in high school is better suited as part of an upper level English or Math course, or offered  as an elective or an AP course on Philosophy.  Hisconclusion Logic be the basis for all decisions is also invalid, while Logic aims to considerfacts and standards to reach a logical conclusion, there are cultures and religions where what may be accepted as a standard and therefore valid for each, could well be invalid by others as it violates what is accepted as standard for their cultures or religious beliefs.  Because of these differences, such a conclusion fails to consider the how varying belief systems affect standards and certain statements are then considered evaluative statements vice factual.  There are certain practices considered morally valid in some cultures and religions, yet are considered immoral in another.

The last part of Credo's argument, by stating those who disagree and argue to the contrary, is ad hominem (abusive).  He is attacking the person and their education because they don't agree with his conclusion, asserting they must be uneducated, illiterate, stupid, or lack the mental capacity because they do not agree with his premises, and therefore can safely be ignored.  A person's education, or lack thereof, is immaterial to the argument and does nothing to strengthen or support the premise.  Often, such an attack does more to polarize his audience and turn them away from an intelligent and mature discussion on the subject and brings in to question Credo's knowledge of the subject and practical application of the Philosophy of Logic he is mandating for the basis for all decisions.


 


 

 


B. Philosophy Response Paper 1 Part 2
The Philosopher Credo asserts: 
Logic, and its applications have accomplished more than any single intellectual tool for the advancement of human knowledge and well-being, hence it deserves a place in all High School Curriculum as a mandatory subject, and should be the basis for all decisions, not only in regards to scientific knowledge and gaining insights to nature, but as the source for moral decisions and religious ones as well! Those who argue contrary to this view are people of little or no education - probably because they believe education is evil or they always got bad grades, which is an indication that they are stupid, hence their views can be safely ignored.
Response:
I disagree with Credo’s conclusion that logic should be a mandatory subject in grade school. Reason being that his premises leaves out the crucial detail of logic breeding deferentially. No two people have the same view on any topic when it comes to logic. As such, more High school students are going to disagree with not only with any systems or rules that the school districts put together, but more importantly they will disagree with each other. With more High school students disagreeing with each other, just like a water ripple, deferentially creates tension upon opposing viewpoints. With more tension High school students start to fight. Lastly, with more fights, student morality goes down. Thus contradicting his own premises of logic being a source of moral decisions. 
I believe that not is Credo’s premises lacking, but even his rebuttal for the nay saying people are invalid. Let’s suppose that all High school students were mature enough to be able to coexist with every different point of view from their peers. Sir John Gurdon, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine and has made a miraculous advancement in the new science of cloning, had the worst grades in school. If what his rebuttal of people getting low grades being stupid and can be safely be ignored is true, then one of the few scientist that have made major progress in cloning should be ignored.


 


 

C. Philosophy Response Paper 1 Part 2

The Philosopher Credo asserts: Logic, and its applications have accomplished more than any single intellectual tool for the advancement of human knowledge and well-being, hence it deserves a place in all High School Curriculums as a mandatory subject, and should be the basis for all decisions, not only in regards to scientific knowledge and gaining insights to nature, but as the source for moral decisions and religious ones as well! Those who argue contrary to this view are people of little or no education - probably because they believe education is evil or they always got bad grades, which is an indication that they are stupid, hence their views can be safely ignored.

Credo places no facts/statistics to back up his point in stating that "logic and its own applications have accomplished more than any single intellectual tool for the advancement of human knowledge and well being". Credos’ reasons for stating such are not known. Logic and its applications are not the only means of advancement of human knowledge and well being. The advancement of human knowledge may come from a wide variety of aspects of ones life, which varies from person to person.  Ones reactions to their own lifes experiences differ in their reasonings, their conscience decisions, versus unconscious decisions, gaining insights from learned mistakes, versus rewards of the making sound decisions in any predicament vary for each individual. There is not just one intellectual tool for human knowledge and well being.  Reactions are based on individuality. Reactions to circumstances bring about different outcomes. It’s a choice humans have. Stating that "logic should be the basis for all decisions" is not valid . Not all life circumstances are black or white. Time to refer to logic in an instant is not always there for everyone, so it can’t always be "the basis for all decisions". Credos argument is invalid for these reasons, and more.

Secondly, I will argue on his statement that "logic deserves a place in all High School curriculums as a mandatory subject". This too is invalid. High School students first need to learn the basics, and for many this in itself is enough for the time being. Getting through the basic classes in High School is not always the case for each person. Life circumstances are not the same for everyone. Not all High School students have the opportunity to attend all four years of High School. Circumstances vary for each individual. For some, logic can and/or may play a roll in their lives. No specific given time is known when this may happen. Logic is different for each one person. For example, lets suppose that the father of a young man in High School dies. This young man has four younger sisters and now a widowed mother. The grief is strong for all members of this family. High School is now secondary for him at this time. The young man culturally is now the man of the house. Realistically bills are still due, not to mention new added finances of the cost of a funeral (he hears his mother crying on the phone talking to people about this). This young man is given an opportunity to work. In his mind he wants to finish High School, but the fact remains he wants to help his mother and sisters the best way he can. He drops out of High School to help support his family. For him this is reality. This is his logic. It may not be the right thing to do. His morals are that his family comes first. this is morally the right thing to do for him. This works for him and his family at this time. Everyones logic is based on a case by case basis. Morals are the same, based on case by case basis. Logic does not have to be mandated in High School, because life is what is mandatory.

Thirdly, according to Credo, logic should be the source for religious decisions. My argument is to prove logic is not the source for moral decisions. For example, the same young man now working to help support his family has come to hate the God he knew. In his mind his God took his father from him and his family. Religion is not a part of his life anymore. Some would argue that this is the time he needs God the most. To him at this time in his life he morally, and logically is doing what he feels needs to be done. To him, religion is not important right now, however this does not mean to say that he will never turn to religion at a later point in his life. That will again depend on his life circumstances. There is no way of knowing for a fact that logic should be the source for religious decisions, therefore Credos' argument is invalid.

Finally, according to Credo he states that those who argue contrary to this belief are people of little or no education-because they believe education is evil or they always got bad grades, which is an indication that they are stupid. Credo has no way of knowing why one would argue contrary to this belief. For him to assume it is an indication that they have no education, believe it is evil, got bad grades or is an indication that they are stupid shows an indication that Credo himself may not understand the many faces of logic and an individuals thought process. This makes his assertion invalid.