text:
User:Talvikki/Dissertation draft

Typography and children with low vision
Typefaces’ user friendliness and typeface design as a solution

I want to do research about the topic of typography in children’s learning books. How are children with a low vision included in the design process of the learning books? The case could be that they aren’t, that hasn’t been seen as an important or influential factor in children’s book design or in typeface design. My interest this topic sparks from an article (G. Douglas, M. Grimley, M. McLinden & L. Watson 2004) “Reading errors made by children with low vision”. The part that caught my eye was mention of children’s reading speed and how children with poor sight start -to read slower, compared to normal sighted children, when they grow older. They didn’t have explanation for this matter. There really hasn’t been much research in this particular field, what the reasons are and how they are linked to typography and typeface design. I want to shed light on this side of the typeface design, designing for certain purposes, and this case for children that have special needs. How children comprehend the typography and typefaces in learning books (including typefaces/ faces/ sizes/ spacing/ colour/ etc.). How could typeface designs help children with low vision to see letter forms better? And reflecting on this subject in relation to my background, started to lose my vision in primary school, it’s a really fascinating and important topic. I want to find out how children can understand visual messages of letterforms easier. It would be nice to develop better tools for children so they can enjoy learning without disturbing factors.

There are different scales of sight, from normal to blind, as Liz Segre clarifies "...Term commonly used among eye care professionals to mean partial sight, or sight that isn't fully correctable with surgery, pharmaceuticals, contact lenses or glasses." Between that line fits in my topic’s focus group, children with sight disability. First of all, to what extent does low vision affects children’s learning process? Can children follow easily teaching in normal school class? The first obvious explanation for this problem could be type size. Early readers (3-5) have bigger sizes in their books than instance three years older children, and that’s way it’s easier to see and read. My question is could this notion be the only reason why children with low vision read slower than normal sighted children? This doesn’t seem to be the case. Zachrisson (1965) counters this by saying, that reading is a complex act which includes many stimuli, not just one. In my project I would like to find out what the other factors are that helps or harms children’s reading act and experience.

I think in my case Empirical method would be the proper approach to this subject. By trying to have some results to make conclusions, I’m not only analyzing some publishers learning book series, but I’m also planning to do experimental tests with children (and filming this test for further analyzing), as well as interviewing professional designers in the field of book and typeface design. With children I will try to conduct a few reading experiments; how they differentiate sans serif and serif types when they are blurred (this test has been done, but not with children?). Test their distance sight; how they see different types. What elements are crucial to have? Do colours help children to focus or is it just distraction? With book designers I would like to talk about their use of certain kind of formulas and schemes for background for their designs or do they use anything. What do they think is important to cover when the design is for children? What typefaces for children do they know, what do they use and why, etc. With typographers (for example, Rosemary Sassoon) there are same fundamental questions, but I also need to know what kind of forms they see to be important when designing types for kids. Do they think it is important to design typefaces for this purpose and why? How could typeface designs help children with low vision to see letter forms better? How could typographers design types that are user friendly and have been made through consideration of children’s special needs? What factors determine good legibility in this case? How can I find out? I think this part, of interviewing designers, should be done in two ways; survey as many designers as I can contact, and then conduct deeper interviews with designers who work with material that are for children. I need to start to compose the questions quite early, at the start of next year, so I can give time for designers to reply them, and have time for myself to go through (and analyse) the answers. I think realistic it is for me to do some tests with children, but the problem could be how to find a good X number for testing a group of low vision children. How I’m going to find the children and how I’m going to decide the age range for the group(s). Contacting right number of designers could be also another problem.

Topic related researches and relevant literature

 * S. Lee, The image and its role in children’s illustrated ABC books 1750-1850. the University of Reading, Department of Typography & Graphic communication, BA 2005
 * G. Douglas, M. Grimley, M. McLinden & L. Watson, Reading errors made by children with low vision, Ophthal. Phusiol. Opt. 2004, Volume 24, pp. 319-322
 * O. Vernon, Typography in enlarged teaching texts for shared and guided reading in primary schools. the University of Reading, Department of Typography & Graphic communication, BA 2000
 * C. Cripps & R. Cox, Joining the ABC, Ebenenezer Baylis & Son Ltd, The Trinity Press, Reprinted 1990
 * R. Sassoon, Joins in children’s handwriting and effects of different models and teaching methods. the University of Reading, Department of Typography & Graphic communication, PhD 1988
 * M. Harvey, The typography of children’s reading schemes. the University of Reading, Department of Typography & Graphic communication, BA 1982
 * P. Phillipps, Children’s handwriting: a study of teaching methods. the University of Reading, Department of TYpography & Graphic communication, BA 1982
 * C.D.Mercer, Children and adolescents with learning disabilities, Charles E. Merrill, 1979.
 * L. Watts, Legibility in children's books : review of research, NFER, 1974.
 * H. Watkins, An investigation into some aspects of the use of colour in illustrations designed for the primary school child. the University of Reading, Department of Typography & Graphic communication, PhD 1972
 * I. Blomfield, A child’s first reading book. the University of Reading, Department of Typography & Graphic communication, BA 1969
 * B. Zachrisson, Studies in the Legibility of printed text. Almqvist & Wiksell, 1965
 * http://www.allaboutvision.com/lowvision/low_vision.htm 27 November 2006 - By Liz Segre

Overlaps in typography in children’s learning and reading books
What typographical elements can be borrowed from reading books to learning books?

I intend to do my research on the topic of typographical overlaps in children’s learning and reading books, and whether these factors confuse or make learning enjoyable. I want to identify the common typographical factors between children’s learning and reading books. How is typography used to help to have a logical learning process throughout out the book, and what typographical factors can be borrowed from reading books to learning books? Are children included in the design process of these books – and how? What kind of research has been made for creating a book that helps children its best way to teach to read? How have the results of legibility researches (example, L. Watts and J. Nisbet, “Legibility in Children’s Books, A review of Research”) been used to create books for children? By reading books I mean books that children flip trough before they know how to read, and by learning books I mean books that children start to learn to read with (like ABC books). And I want to shed light on this side of the typeface design, designing for certain purposes. Reflecting on this subject in relation to my background, I had my own difficulties to start to read, and therefore it’s a really fascinating and important topic to me. I want to find out how children can understand visual messages of letterforms easier. It would be nice to develop better tools for children so they can enjoy learning.

The group I will be focusing on in my research are early readers, 3-5 years olds; the point at which when the learning to read really begins. It’s interesting to see the change from their reading books to learning books, and the similarities between them. Both use colourful pictures, interesting stories and big type sizes; at least they do so in Finland. But my main point of my research is the typography, not the whole layout of the books. By focusing to investigate different factors in typography, I also need to know something of the reading process. Reading isn’t a simple task; it’s a mixture of different neuro-physical functions and visual elements like forms, colour, size etc. Zachrisson (1965) acknowledges, that reading is a complex act which includes many stimuli, not just one. In my project I would like to find out what the factors are that helps or harms children’s reading act and experience.

I think in my case an empirical methodology would be the proper approach to this subject. I’m not only analyzing some publishers learning and reading book series, but I’m also planning to interview professional designers in the field of book and typeface design, who are directly responsible for the typographical language. By analyzing books, I mean going through learning to read book series that are used in the schools in England – at least five publishers. I’m going to compare how typography is used in these books to create a logical process of the understanding of words and their meaning. This means that I should visit “National Centre for Language and Literacy” at the University of Reading in Bulmershe court, who have good collections of different kinds of children’s learning and reading books.

With book designers I would like to talk about their use of certain kind of formulas and schemes for background for their designs or do they use anything. What do they think is important to cover when the design is for children? What elements are crucial to have? Do colours help children to focus or is it just distraction? What typefaces for children do they know, what do they use and why, etc. With typographers (for example, Rosemary Sassoon) there are the same fundamental questions, but I also need to know what kind of forms they see to be important when designing types for kids. Do they think it is important to design typefaces for this purpose and why? How could typographers design types that are user friendly and have been made through consideration of children’s particular needs? I think this part, of interviewing designers, should be done in two ways; by surveying as many designers as I can contact, and then conducting deeper interviews with designers who work with material that are for children. I need to start to compose the questions quite early, at the start of next year, so I can give time for designers to reply to them, and have time for myself to go through (and analyse) the answers. I think it is realistic to be able to contact around 15 designers, but the problem could be whether I have a chance to do good face-to-face interviews or will they co-operate with me – other options for interviewing could be emailing designers or doing voice chat.

Topic related researches and relevant literature

 * S. Walker (2005). The songs the letters sing: typography and children’s reading, National Centre for Language and Literacy, Typographic Design for Children
 * S. Walker (2005).’The books that nobody sees’: typography in children’s reading books, Baseline, No 48, pp. 25-32
 * S. Lee (BA 2005). The image and its role in children’s illustrated ABC books 1750-1850, Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, The University of Reading
 * O. Vernon (BA 2000). Typography in enlarged teaching texts for shared and guided reading in primary schools, Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, The University of Reading
 * O. Lund (1999). Knowledge construction in typography: the case of legibility research and the legibility of sans-serif typefaces, Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, The University of Reading
 * R. Sassoon (1993). Through the eyes of a child – perception and type design, In R. Sassoon (ed), Computers and typography. Oxford: Intellect Books
 * C. Cripps & R. Cox (Reprinted 1990). Joining the ABC, Ebenenezer Baylis & Son Ltd, The Trinity Press
 * R. Sassoon (PhD 1988). Joins in children’s handwriting and effects of different models and teaching methods, Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, The University of Reading
 * M. Beaumont (1987). Type and colour, Phaidon Press Limited,
 * M. Harvey (BA 1982). The typography of children’s reading schemes, Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, The University of Reading
 * P. Phillipps (BA 1982). Children’s handwriting: a study of teaching methods, Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, The University of Reading
 * L. Watts and J. Nisbet (1974). Legibility in children's books: review of research, NFER
 * M. Vernon (1971). Reading and its Difficulties, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
 * I.L. Child, J.A. Hansen and F.W. Hornbeck (1968). Age and sex differences in children’s colour preferences, Child Development, 39, I, pp. 237-47
 * E.J. Gibson (1965). Learning to read, Science, 148, 1066
 * B. Zachrisson (1965). Studies in the Legibility of printed text, Almqvist & Wiksell
 * C. Burt (1960). The typography of children’s books – a record of research in the UK, in: Yearbook of Education, pp. 242-56

title: User:Talvikki/Dissertation draft


text:
Materials Science and Engineering/Magnetic Materials

Topics

 * /Giant Magneto-Resistive Tunnelling Effect/

Questions

 * /Saturation Magnetization Near Curie Temperature/

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Electromagnetic relays

Relay is an electrical switch. It opens and closes under control of electric curent applied. The switch is operated by an electromagnet to open or close sets of contacts. When a current flows through the coil, the generated magnetic field attracts an armature, mechanically linked to a moving contact. The movement either makes or breaks a connection with a fixed contact.
 * When the current to the coil is switched off, the armature is returned by a force approximately half as strong as the magnetic force to its relaxed position. Usually it is done by spring, or by gravity.

Relay Contacts
The contacts are either Normally Open (NO), Normally Closed (NC), or Double Throw (also known as "Form C" or change-over (CO)) contacts.
 * Normally-open contacts connect the circuit when the relay is activated; and disconnect when the relays is deactivated.
 * Normally-closed contacts disconnect the circuit when the relay is activated; the circuit is connected when the relay is inactive.
 * Change-over contacts control two circuits: one normally-open contact and one normally-closed contact with a common terminal. Simply speaking they just switch in-between circuts.

Most relays are manufactured to operate quickly. In order to reduce noise in a low voltage application, and to reduce arcing in high voltage or high current application.

 * Suggested reading Relays

AND GATE
In the AND gate circuit, both relays, in series with their own switch buttons are placed (in parallel) independently from each other, yet connected to the same source. The lamp (output) circuit is also connected to the same source. However, the lamp is connected in series with NORMALY OPEN contact of relay A, then in series with NORMALY open contacts of relay B. So the lamp will light up only if … both contacts will be closed. And it will happen only if both relays be activated.

OR GATE
In the OR gate circuit, both relays, in series with their own switch buttons are placed (in parallel) independently from each other, yet connected to the same source. The lamp (output) circuit is also connected to the same source. However, the lamp is connected in series with NORMALY OPEN contact of relay A, parallel to the contactsof relay A the normally open contact of relay B is placed. So the lamp will light up only if either contact of relay A or the contact of relay B will be closed. And it will happen if any one of relays be activated.

NAND gate
In the NAND gate circuit, both relays, in series with their own switch buttons are placed (in parallel) independently from each other, yet connected to the same source. The lamp (output) circuit is also connected to the same source. However, the lamp is connected in series with NORMALY CLOSE contact of relay A, parallel to the contacts of relay A the normally closed contact of relay B is placed. So the lamp will light up only if either contact of relay A or the contact of relay B will be closed. And it will happen if either NONE or just ONE of relays be activated. But not the both, when both normally closed contacts will be open.

NOR GATE
In the NOR gate circuit, both relays, in series with their own switch buttons are placed (in parallel) independently from each other, yet connected to the same source. The lamp (output) circuit is also connected to the same source. However, the lamp is connected in series with NORMALY CLOSED contact of relay A, then in series with NORMALY closed contacts of relay B. So the lamp will light up only if … both contacts will be closed. And it will happen only if NONE of the relays be activated. If some of the relays be activated, it will open the normally closed contacts which comprise the serial circuit with a LAMP (output) so the entire circuit will be open, and the lamp will not light up.

XOR Gate
In the XOR gate circuit, both relays, in series with their own switch buttons are placed (in parallel) independently from each other, yet connected to the same source. The lamp (output) circuit is also connected to the same source.

The contact arrangement is more complex if compared with previous ones. XOR gate outputs 1 if either one of the inputs is one, but NOT THE BOTH. So, speaking in other words, XOR’s output is 0 if both inputs are the same. XOR’s output is 1 if the inputs are different. In our circuit it is achieved by the below-described structure, in series with a lamp: "Two parallel chains of contacts, where in a first chain the Normally Open contact of relay A is in series with Normally Closed contact of relay B; and in the second chain, the Normally Closed contact of Relay A is in series with Normally open contact of relay B"

So, if relay A is activated its contact in upper chain will be closed and its contact in lower chain will be open. And if relay B is not activated its contact in upper chain is closed and in lower is open. It provides a normal conductivity for a lamp to light up.

If relay B is activated, its normally open contact in a second chain will be closed, and normally closed contacts of relay A will be closed (relay A is not activated) and the circuit will work.

If both relays will be activated, the chains will look like this “closed-open” “open-closed” -- neither one provides conductivity and the lamp will not light up.

Varying pull-in and drop-out time of relays
Fast to energize, and slow to de-energize

A capacitor, placed in parallel with relay, acts as a conductor when a voltage is supplied to it. With a passage of time, it becomes charged, and when a voltage on its plates build up as high as relay activation voltage – the relay will pull in. Deenergizing the circuit, the some charge will be still left in the capacitor. When it will discharge through the resistance of the relay coil, and a voltage across its plates will drop below the relay drop-out voltage, the relay will drop out.

Slow to energize (pull in) and slow to de-energize (drop out)
Parallel to relay there is an RC (resistor-capacitor) chain. When the circuit is energized, the voltage across relay coil is a power voltage. Since relay coil is connected directly to the power source (yet parallel with an RC chain) the voltage across it is the same as a power voltage. However, the voltage in RC chain varies (across Capacitor vs. across resistor) When the circuit is de-energized, the capacitor discharges through the resistance of a resistor in series with the resistance of a coil. It takes time for the voltage to drop from a power voltage to the drop out voltage of the relay.

Fast to energize
When a power is suddenly connected to the coil of relay, the current is built up in the coil. The votage in the coil is a Delta I / Delta t … Delta t (change of time) is small, so the big voltage may arise, destroying the relay. So, we need to couple a resistor with relay. In our circuit, the resistor is placed across the normally closed contacts of relay. When the relay is activated they open, “replacing a conductor by a resistor” and all the induction current will be dissipated through this resistor.

Inductor spike suppressor
When a relay coil is de-energized, its electromagnetic field collapses, which induces a brief voltage spike into the coil's wire. This voltage can damage connected components in the circuit. So in order to suppress it, a diode is placed across the relay such that it will conduct current in direction of the spike, effectively short-circuiting the coil in the reverse direction. The energy in the spike is thus converted to heat by the internal resistance of the diode, and dissipated.

title: Electromagnetic relays


text:
Learning Java/Multithreading

Threads - What they are
Threads are a flow of execution. All programs use threads, and you have already constructed a progam that uses a single thread. However, multi threading is more complex. In this section, you will learn why and when to use threads, and, of course, how. The threading concept is pretty easy to understand, and so it should not take too long.

Creating a new Thread
If you create a thread, you need to have 2 classes where one is using the other. To take advantage of threads, the two classes must be able to run at exactly the same time. This simultaneous execution is called concurrency.

For example, you have a networked server application with multiple clients. If you use the Input.getUTF method, the server has to wait until the client has sent data and the method returns. However, no other client can be serviced, even if other clients have sent data, while your program is waiting for the method to return.

Now that you know when to use threads, lets get on with it. There are two ways to make a class use a thread: implementing Runnable or extending Thread. Examples: class useThread extends Thread class useThread implements Runnable The rest is the same for both. You will need a method called run. This could run forever. It has no parameters and a return type of void. This is where you put the code that you want to run simultaneously. Note that you only need to create one thread when using 2 tasks! The main thread that is automatically created will continue to run when the other thread is running. To start a thread (ie, get the thread going), use the start method. Example: public class UseSomeThread {  public static void main(String args[]) {     ThisThread prog = new ThisThread; prog.start; while(true) {        System.out.println("Main Thread"); }  } }

class ThisThread extends Thread {  public void run {     while(true) {        System.out.println("This Thread"); }  } } It will print This Thread and Main Thread at the same time. The console should look something like this: This Thread Main Thread This Thread Main Thread Main Thread This Thread This Thread Main Thread This Thread ... It won't be exactly even. Now, you know how to multi thread!

Uses in Networking
The next section covers networking with multi threading. In this place you will learn the uses.

When creating a chat program, you might want threads - the main thread is the server and the other threads are the client connections. For Example: class Connection implements Runnable {  DataOutputStream out; DataInputStream in; Socket sock; //In contructor, make in, out, and sock with in as sock's input stream and out as sock's output

public void run {     try{ in.readUTF; out.writeUTF("Hello"); }     catch ... etc.   } } There are many other programs that will require more than one thread.

title: Learning Java/Multithreading


text:
Talk:Learning to learn a wiki way

Introduction
I think we should keep the discussion pages for discussions about the content of the pages and what changes need to be made. Discussions about the project and its methods should be subsections of the main article as they are part of the project. So I've moved the answers to Why I want to join this learning project? and  What specific outcomes do I want from this learning project? onto the main page as thay are content rather than comment on the contents of the page.

 * Good move. Wikiversity needs to develop efficient ways to integrate discussions into learning projects. One problem is that discussions quickly become large and the context of what is being said is hard for new-comers to sort-out. We need ways of summarizing discussions and integrating those summaries into central pages...the bulky discussions can ultimately be archived on subpages. --JWSchmidt 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Interventions
Under subheading "What is to be Done", it is all about "interventions". What is an "intervention" in this context? Mirwin 08:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Mirwin and welcome to this project. I've added an explanation of this at The second step is to plan a set of interventions on the main project page Mystictim 13:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The section "What is to be Done" has now become The second step is to plan a set of interventions and the explanation of interventions has become a practical description of what they are.

I would like to under take some critical reflection on this subject. On the surface of things making an intervention or taking a particular course of action is just a simple mater of course and effect. It can all be explained away by the application of the laws of physics. However using the laws of physics it would be horrendously difficult to establish the exact chain of events leading to a specific intervention and even more difficult to establish the full consequences of that intervention. Further it is quite conceivable that such an analysis is impossible even in principle for a number of reasons including Quantum uncertainty as outlined in The Emperor's New Mind, chaotic dynamics or that the whole system acts as a Universal Turing machine as described in A New Kind of Science... be back later to finish this of.

Assessing interventions and implementations
If I understand PAR correctly, "interventions" are contributions to parts and pieces of Wikiversity content that are aimed at driving the learning processes toward more effective practices in a deliberate and collaborative way. The collective intention, then, for this project is to look at Wikiversity holistically to see where people's interests are and how we, as a group can better serve the needs. Additionally, we can look at the wider context of mainstream academia to model and set standards for our own online university.

I drafted my perspective of what an "Implementation" might be in my edit early this morning, following the lead presented by the person who came up with the structure of the project page via the section titles (Cormac?). I went ahead and filled in some detail about the assessment of these interventions and their implementations placing my "spin" on it.

I added a footnote-sized look at the Wikipedian example, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 as an example because from my experience, that program was quite successful, particularly in that it "caught on" well and solved a number of problems using a sort of "top down" approach. Meta-topical WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry led the way in creating a valuable toolset consisting of consensus-driven methods for content quality assessment that became "standard equipment" for WikiProjects.

After years of watching, I witnessed the process morphing from a desperate struggle into a streamlined process. From my POV, it looked like a revolution. The bots, grading scales, wikipedia-wide classification structures, taskforce model and inter-project co-operation were indeed remarkable innovations. I don't see why this project can't inherit the properties and attributes of the w:Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. We might even take it up a notch by assessing not only the product (Wikiversity content) but also the process that builds it.

I certainly don't wish to see some evil "cabalish" nature rearing its ugly head, but some responsible leadership is a must for what Wikiversity shall become. I'm thankful that leadership skills are illustrated at such a fundemental level even by the thoughtful and wise choice of the indefinate article, "a" in our title, Learning to learn a wiki way.

If this project is to assume a leadership role, I think it would be wise to examine the page histories of, particularly CORE TOPICS and WORK VIA WIKIPROJECTS. We might consider assessing parts and pieces of wikiversity from small learning groups (Topic: departments) to large teaching staffs (School: facultlies). We might assess them with variables:
 * Academic alignment - how well the project groups align with "standard" academic practice, convention and structure
 * Participation level - content growth and talk page activity percentiles
 * Collaboration - a measure and sense in which individuals and groups cooperates with other individuals and groups (things like accomodating diverse learning paths through relevant links to other projects and such)
 * Civility - maintaining ethical standards, dealing well with controversy, allowing diversity, and so forth.

To reiterate, this project should avoid taking on the nature of a "power structure" or "policing agency", but rather an open, participatory "village pump" styled gathering place for all, whether they simply wander in or enter with an agenda.

The wiki way (from my perspective): Anyone can intervene at any level on anything, implement 'till their heart's content and assess the socks off of anything they care to spend the time and energy on. OK. that's my schpeal. Your turn!

Happy Holidays! :)  19:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User categories
I'm doing some fancy UML mapping in my own personal quest to apply Topic:Computational linguistics and sociology to Wiki-Versity. It is an enigmatic journey into the Deep Thought aspects of the MediaWiki Engine, which I am taking alone at this point despite my own faintness of heart. I'm working in what I call hard hat areas involving Computer Science and other technological high-jinks that I'm not qualified for, but hope to be, with a bit of feedback and guidance.

For this guidance, I've found w:Wikipedia:User categories helpful to locate experts in various fields and track their thought processes by following the breadcrumbs through the Wikipedia. I'm thinking that the new UML/MediaWiki page I'm putting together will offer some clarity about the way USER and GROUP "move" through TOPIC, reading and writing CONTENT as they go.

I'm formulating a strategy that uses Paragraphic illustration to map the primatives involved when a user creates a resource and how that resource is contained in a namespace (main, Topic: Portal: etc...) This methodology (pedagogy? epistomology?) expands to define or at least describe how the user herself or himself becomes an actor within a learning group. For example Schools have a stack of users interested in subjects, topics, areas, specialties and on down the line (general-to-specific).

When the user becomes a "doer" that is, an actual practitioner of some skill or craft, they may qualify to be a certain kind, type, sort... of person such as a musician, journalist, linguist etc.

This may become a method (pedagogical, epistemological, ...) for answering the question of who can, will, wants to, or should do that sort of work. Sure, the practice of claiming to "be something" is prevalant throughout Wikimediate communities, but displaying a userbox and adding yourself to a user category is a trivial, but helpful thing in the aggregation of a real societal entity.

Entity relationships are key elements in Object Oriented Software Design using UML. That's where I pretty much dwell these days in formulating my monsterous strategic map via Topic:Perl, Topic:Object-Oriented Programming, and my MediaWiki Project involvement. Applying this majick to things like Jamming Online and a Sonic user interface for MediaWiki are local current manefestations of my obsession. Unfortunately, I'm learning not to expect a reply – I'm just venting and thinking out loud. I'm nothing. Participation is everything. 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * A major problem we face is that Wikipedia culture has always emphasized the content of the encyclopedia over the expertise of contributors. Wikiversity is in position to shift some emphasis from wiki content to the wiki participants themselves since it is in our mandate to support communities of learners within Wikiversity, not just create static learning resources. The Wikiversity community needs to find ways to identify participants who have expertise and find ways to support participants with expertise as they contribute to the community. As far as I know, the most advanced steps in this direction are the "wikiprojects" that were invented within the Wikipedia project. Some Wikipedia wikiprojects have elected "directors" who can act as stimulants for content development in particular topic areas. Wikiversity has positioned itself well by creating our system of "School:" and "Topic:" content development projects, but it may be wise for Wikiversity to invent a new type of "functionary" who is recognized by the community as having expertise and who is called upon by the community to apply that expertise for the good of the Wikiversity project.--JWSchmidt 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Action/intervention
A thought is buzzing round my mind - what do we mean by "action" (or "intervention") in an action research design, particularly in a wiki? Action research is generally about planning a set of actions, and then reflecting on these actions in order to set up the next phase of planning and action etc. But what I want to know is how, specifically, does an action fall within the action research design, and is not simply an action that anyone might take at any time (which is the wiki way). Do we simply act, and then, if we feel it's appropriate, retroactively include the action within our action research design (ie our observations and reflections)? Or do we need to specifically plan and agree on an action/intervention before it is to be considered part of the research? I'm posting this also on Talk:Developing Wikiversity through action research - we might discuss this question in a general sense, and also how it could relate to individual projects. I'd be very curious to hear what people think, and to continue the "Interventions" section above. Cormaggio beep 15:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Mentoring
This article at Wikibooks implies that various forms of peer mentoring might be useful in wikis where peer groups can easily form. Mirwin 03:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Feedback Requested
If the participants of this project could check out the new learning project Self Paced Reading Labs and leave some thoughts on the discussion page or pitch in I would appreciate it. Watching how it evolves when it starts to successfullyt attract more students than content developers might teach us something about how to use wiki effectively. Mirwin 04:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New interventions; a personal approach
--Jolie 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Generality 4 almost too specific
 * Engaging  3 neutral.  (I fear my objectivity on this criteria)
 * Clarity   3 (I think the plan can be followed but the analysis is vague)
 * Relevancy 2 (I'm not so sure I understand the goal and the previous methodology)
 * Comments: (none)
 * I'm not sure I understand your review scale. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, just read new comments on page. I see.  I'm not sure about the generality scale, however:  the other scales are 1 (worst) to 5 (best).  The generality scale is 1 (worst) to 3 (best) to 5 (worst).  Doesn't fit with the others.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * correct... engaging, clarity and relevancy, the scale goes from 1 to 5

 * I need to know if I hit a 'good balance' between too general and too specific read it as
 * 1 Too general
 * 2 a little too general
 * 3 balanced
 * 4 a little too specific
 * 5 too specific
 * --Jolie 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, for consistency, the scale should be considered "scope", and 1 = inappropriate scope, and 5 = appropriate scope? That would be consistent with the other scales, and the user could comment on whether or not the scope is too general or too specific?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I love it! thank you.  we'll call it scope.--Jolie 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Learning to learn a wiki way


text:
Talk:Software testing/Introduction

navigation bar
A good testing of the software... test the one that lays out the page. Where do you get the Nav class in the german wikiversity?--Rayc 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Rayc, the navigation bar was made by Exxu. He is a very helpful guy. And also other people here, because the navigation bar works now. you can see the template here, if you would like to use it. --Erkan Yilmaz 08:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I made a mistake: it was done by ManWing2. Since ManWing2 did not do much in the course, I actually blacked him out :-( So, please adress to him for issues regarding the navigation. --Erkan Yilmaz 08:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

background info: the intention behind this story
Hi, The reason for the story is, to show: we can test everything and I use the fairy tales, because (probably) many people know it and if not, there is a similar fairy tale probably in the culture available. It should also show, that things, which we see as obvious (like stories which we heard in our past as children) can be viewed from different points, which is also one important thing for testing. About the story "princess and the frogs": this was not selected by me - it was selected by another tutor. Actually I like another story from below (guess which one :-) ). But the advantage of this story is: there are aleady comments available, which can guide people for their answers.

This would be the other stories: Hansel + Gretel the kings meals Snow White also other stories with fairy tales are planned (e.g. Rapunzel)

BTW: the "new" versions of the stories is from me (not the stories itself, they are from e.g. Brothers Grimm). So, I guess I am not harming any copyright here. And if so, I will adapt the stories. --Erkan Yilmaz 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Inter-lingua

 * The discussion in German.

How much testing would you like?
Thanks for this course. I worked many years as a system test manager. I was often pressured by management who continued to ask "why does the testing take so long?" or "when will the testing be done?" or "Everything is done except for the testing, so get going", etc. It took me many years, but I finally figured out what the problem was. I began to ask people "How much testing would you like? and things turned around fast! The insight is this, it helps to be clear what the risks are, who is assessing those risks, how are those risks communicated, and who is assuming the risks. The major risks are: 1) launching with unacceptable bugs, and 2) Delaying the launch unnecessarily. The system test organization can report on the scope of testing performed, the bugs found, and functions not yet tested. None of this is a risk assessment. By being clear who is taking the risk by asking "How much testing would you like?" the conversation quickly shifts to productive topics. I hope this helps. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Software testing/Introduction


text:
Talk:Basic atomic physics

I am very confused. Only one sentence in the whole page is about atoms.--Hillgentleman|User talk 01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Basic atomic physics


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS1a.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS1a.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS1b.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS1b.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS1c.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS1c.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS2.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS2.jpg


text:
Historical introduction to philosophy

Welcome to Historical Introduction to Philosophy.

Subpages
These are actually subpages of Historical_Introduction_to_Philosophy. See PrefixIndex

Introduction: What is Philosophy?

 * General Introduction
 * Philosophical Method
 * Presocratics and Socrates

Philosophy of Religion

 * Faith and Reason
 * Arguments for God
 * The Problem of Evil

Epistemology

 * Epistemology
 * Truth, Objectivity, and Relativism
 * The Challenge of Skepticism

The Philosophy of Mind

 * The Mind-Body Problem
 * Theories of Mind
 * Personal Identity

Free-will and Determinism

 * Determinism and the Problem of Free-Will
 * Libertarianism
 * Compatibilism

Ethics

 * Ethics
 * Formalism and Deontological Ethics
 * Consequentialism

Metaphysics
What exists, what are the most general properties of things, is there a god, is life an illusion, what can be said to be real?

Logic

 * Logic

Other subpages
See List

Related pages

 * Introduction to Philosophy
 * Descartes

Subpages of Historical Introduction to Philosophy

ko:포털:철학/철학 입문

title: Historical introduction to philosophy


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS3.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS3.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS4.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS4.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS5.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS5.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS6.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS6.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS7.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS7.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS8a.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS8a.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS8b.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS8b.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS9.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS9.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS10.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS10.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS11.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS11.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS12a.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS12a.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS12b.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS12b.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS13a.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS13a.jpg


text:
File:FrameForgeSBTDS13b.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to create 3D storyboards with FrameForge 3D Studio Demo Version.

title: File:FrameForgeSBTDS13b.jpg


text:
Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Determinism and the Problem of Free-Will

Home Back Forward

Free will: Key terms and theories
Determinism is a philosophical position which holds that every event is determined by natural laws. In this view, nothing can happen without an unbroken chain of causes that can be traced all the way back to the beginning of time and space. The opposite of determinism is sometimes called indeterminism. It is important to understand that free will is not necessarily the opposite of determinism. In fact, some people believe free will and determinism are wholly compatible. This belief is called compatibilism.

Free will is the ability to make something happen without the influence of the environment or heredity. The opposite of free will is hard determinism, the belief that all our choices are caused. Libertarianism is the belief that free will is true, and that there is no way for free will and determinism to both be true.

Additional Reading:
 * Determinism and Freedom Philosophy -- Its Terminology

Introduction
It is popular to believe we have free will. Many people believe they can hold other people (and themselves) personally accountable for their actions. Without free will, this would be impossible; we can not be held responsible for actions we did not cause. Though free will may seem attractive, there are some problems with the idea. We may ask ourselves:
 * Are some of our choices caused by other people or the environment? All of them?
 * Is it possible that free will is an illusion?

Hard determinists say free will is an illusion. Why would they make such a statement? As you will discover in this historical view of determinism and free will, people have long disputed the possibility of free will. The nature of philosophy is to provide reasons for beliefs. Therefore, we will focus on the reasons our philosophical ancestors gave for their beliefs about free will and determinism.

The first to consider physical determinism were Leucippus and Democritus, the first to theorize the existence of atoms. They reasoned that everything that happened in the world was due to the interaction of atoms. This theory was unpopular at the time, but it picked up popularity later on. Philosophers have pondered the implications of determinism in many contexts. We will consider Western thought on determinism in logic, theology, ethics, and physics. Then we observe determinism in Eastern thought, and contemporary issues involving brain science. Additional Reading:
 * Free Will and Determinism

Logic
The Stoics thought that determinism was supported by logic. The logic they saw behind determinism was the true/false nature of statements about the future. For example, either Jane will jump off a cliff tomorrow, or she will not. In this view, there is no “maybe”. We can claim either scenario to be true, but only one will turn out to be true. The same is true for all future events; they will happen or they will not, no matter what we believe. As a result, all future events are determined(1).

Diodorus Cronus, one of the Stoics, argued the following: Whenever something happens, it was going to happen before it actually happened. Therefore, nothing is going to happen except what actually ends up happening. This means no person can choose to do anything because once they have done something, that was what they were going to do, and there was no “maybe” as to whether or not they were going to do it(2).

Cronus’ conclusion brought about “the idle argument," which concludes that men should always be idle rather than bothering to prepare for the future; after all, events in the future will happen in the way they will happen despite our efforts to prepare for them or our attempts to prevent them. Another Stoic, Chrysippus, suggested that this “idle argument” did not take into consideration the interdependence of events. For instance, it may be true that John’s straw hut will survive a hurricane tomorrow, but it may also be true that John’s straw hut will only survive the hurricane tomorrow if he installs a steel netting around his hut. Thus, it can not be said that John’s hut will survive the hurricane whether he prepares for it or not(1).

Aristotle was critical of the Stoic’s position on logical determinism. He was not inclined to think that all possible events are true or false before they occur. In particular, he thought that events depending on the intentional decisions of humans were neither true nor false before they occurred. In this view, events resulting from intentional human decisions may or may not occur, depending on the free choice of the human(1).

Additional Reading:
 * Problem of future contingents

Theology
Some philosophers and theologians have reasoned that God exists, and that God truly knows everything that is going to happen in the future. If God knows what we will do in the future, then we can not choose to do anything other than what God knows we will do. If we can not choose to do anything differently than what God knows we will do, we can not choose freely (this is referred to as the Principle of Alternate Possibilities). On some elaborations of these basic premises, some have concluded that determinism is true(6).

Many Stoics believed that the world is in the only state it could possibly be in; how could God, being perfectly good, make anything but a good world? The Stoics considered God or Zeus to be the origin of the state of the world, and because no one can change God’s will to be less good, no one can change the state of the world. Therefore, enlightened people should seek to find their determined place in the world and embrace it(1).

St. Augustine believed that God existed and knew everything, including every action we will take in the future. From this belief, he reasoned that it would be impossible to act in a way that God did not foresee. However, St. Augustine did not believe this was a problem for free will. That is, he did not believe that our actions are determined by what God knows we will do; rather, God knows what we will freely choose to do. In defense of this belief, Augustine compared God’s foreknowledge to our memory of the past. We remember what we did a few seconds ago, but our knowledge of that does not imply that what we did was inevitable. In the same way, God’s ability to “remember the future” does not imply any inevitability of our future actions(1).

St. Anselm believed that people have free will in that their will has the power to do what it ought to do, or what it was designed to do, for the sake of doing what it ought to do. Drawing on Aristotle’s teleology, St. Anselm believed that everything has a purpose. The purpose of the will is to be just and judge the morality of things. Justice is doing what one ought to do. In judging the morality of things, the will judges whether things are in accordance with their purpose, or if they are otherwise. Freedom for Anselm is the power of the will to do what it ought to do for the sake of doing what it ought to do, rather than for the sake of bribery or for the sake of obeying authority. Interestingly, Anselm held that freedom of the will is not freedom to choose to do what something was not designed to do; he believed free will could exist without the choice of going for or against one’s purpose. In other words, Anselm argued that the will is free because it can choose between what it ought to choose for the sake of choosing what it ought to choose, or for the sake of something else.

Additional Reading:
 * Foreknowledge and Free Will

Ethics
Socrates’ view was that when people become aware of good, they become incapable of choosing to think or act in a bad way(3). Plato agreed with this, and believed that knowing good makes it impossible to choose bad(1). To illustrate, if a noble soldier thought he could save his comrades by jumping on a grenade, he could do so. If he did not think he could save anyone, or bring about any good greater than his own life by jumping on the grenade, he would be incapable of jumping on it. This view suggests that people’s choices are determined by their knowledge of good and evil.

Aristotle did not adopt the views of Socrates and Plato on ethical determinism. In his view, people’s minds are influenced by reason and desire/appetites. One can rationally determine an action to be bad, but desire to perform the action. The person has the ability to choose between these conflicting influences, and is thus free to choose good or bad behavior. John Locke illustrated this view with the scenario of a drunkard: He is aware that his excessive drinking behavior is bad for him, but he chooses to act on his desire to drink(1).

Additional Reading:
 * Nicomachean Ethics, Book VII

Scottish philosopher David Hume had his own take on the idea of free-will and determinism. Hume makes a great effort to make note of another conflict in this area. Hume states that free-will is incompatible with indeterminism. Try to imagine that your actions are not determined by what actions or events had taken place before, it would seem then that your actions would be really completely random - so you have no control over your actions still. Also, a point that is very important for Hume, is that these actions are not determined by what might be described as your character. Therefore, how can we hold someone responsible for their actions that did not seem to result from his character? How can they be responsible for an action that possibly could have randomly occurred? According to Hume, free-will requires determinism. So now most everybody seems or wants to believe in free-will. Hume's view is that human behavior, like most everything else, is caused.

Physics
Nowadays, when people argue for determinism, they often make reference to laws of physics. These laws were not recognized until their formation in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Once these laws were established, people began seeing the universe in terms of physical laws that could be stated precisely. Early adopters of physical determinism began substituting physical laws for supernatural forces in their arguments for the inevitability of human actions.

The Epicureans (philosophers who followed the ideas of Epicurus starting in late 4th century BCE) believed the most basic, fundamental unit of matter to be the atom. They reasoned that the soul, which causes human actions, was entirely made up of atoms (because it was able to rouse the body to action quickly, the soul could not have been made up of larger particles which take a longer time to accelerate). These atoms, they believed, moved according to their speed, direction, and shape, and did not change direction unless bumped by other atoms. That meant the soul could not make its own decisions. This became a problem for them, so they reasoned that atoms were able to change direction without a cause.

Thomas Hobbes was a materialist. He rejected the idea that there was an immaterial soul or any other external forces controlling our behavior. He thought all our actions were the result of particles moving around in our brains, and that those particles obey the same physical laws that all other matter obeys. The only kind of “freedom” Hobbes recognized was the freedom of matter to move in its natural way without some outside force holding it back. For example, a rock that breaks free from the top of a mountain is free to tumble down to the base as it naturally will, unless someone catches it, a bear eats it, or some other external force acts on it, preventing it from reaching the base of the mountain.

However, Hobbes did not reject free will (see Compatibilism). His theory for an action to be free had two conditions: 1) that we desire to perform the action and 2) nothing may restrain us. This theory was adopted by many philosophers after him. To this day many philosophers believe Hobbes’ idea resolves the problem of free will.

Additional Reading:
 * Epicurus' Theory of Soul

Free will from the perspective of eastern history
The concept of determinism appeared in the East in the Buddhist doctrine of Dependent Origination. This is Buddha’s theory of the cause of all things. The theory posits that all action in the universe is dependent upon a complex of causes, none of which can be removed without also removing the action. No effect exists independently of multiple causes. These causes are not random, nor are they necessarily predetermined; they result from a complex of other causes. In Buddha’s words, “Because of this, that becomes; because of that, something else becomes…”(5)

In Hindu philosophy, there are several conceptions of free will. The beliefs of the Samkhya, a school of thought in Hindu philosophy, fall under hard determinism, while those of Advaita Vedanta, another Hindu school, fall under libertarianism. Free will is necessary for the Karma doctrine of the Vedanta; by exercising free will, we determine our soul's fate in future lives.

Additional Reading:
 * Buddhist Philosophy
 * Advaita Vedanta

Contemporary problems
Most scientists who study the brain believe we make decisions with our brains. This belief is supported by repeated studies demonstrating activity in certain areas of the human brain as it caries out certain thoughts or activities (including decisions), and careful studies revealing the necessity of specific brain regions for initiation of thoughts and behaviors. The brain is physical, subject to the same physical laws as the rest of the universe. This suggests physical determinism of our thoughts and actions.

Recent studies have revealed that the brain may begin initiating behaviors before we are consciously aware of it. In popular science, this is often taken to indicate that our brains 'know what we are going to do' before we become consciously aware of it, and hence that there is no free will. However, the outcome of these studies, if anything, only indicates that conscious awareness may sometimes be lagging behind a little bit, that there is a very slight delay between processes in the brain and processes in conscious experience. Although reinforcing the idea that physical processes (in the brain) underly mental processes, it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of free will.

Additional Reading:
 * Neuroscience and free will

Questions for review

 * 1) What is the opposite of determinism? Why is it not defined as free will?
 * 2) Why did the Stoics believe determinism was a logical truth?
 * 3) On what theological premise did the Stoics conclude the impossibility of free will?
 * 4) What is the idle argument? How did Chrysippus deal with it while maintaining determinism?
 * 5) How did Augustine use analysis of past events to support his belief that God's foreknowledge of the future does not imply determinism?
 * 6) What did Anselm mean when he referred to the "freedom" of the will?
 * 7) Why did Socrates and Plato believe our moral judgments are determined?
 * 8) What "inner conflict" did Aristotle and Locke refer to in support of free will?
 * 9) Why did the Epicurean's belief about the nature of the soul create a problem for free will? How did they attempt to resolve this problem?
 * 10) How did Hobbes attempt to reconcile physical determinism with free will? Is his idea plausible?
 * 11) How might modern-day neuroscience challenge free will?

Work on this page
/Content to be Synthesized/

Home Back Forward


text:
Historical Introduction to Philosophy/General Introduction

Home Back Forward

Recommended resources for the beginning philosopher:
 * An Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options, By: Stanley M. Honer, Thomas C. Hunt, Dennis L. Okholm, John L. Safford.
 * Also: Doing Philosophy: An Introduction Through Thought Experiments

What is Philosophy?
What is philosophy? This is a question best answered by what it is not. Philosophy gave birth to all the other disciplines and so what is not now covered by physics, biology, grammar, mathematics, etc., is what is left for philosophy. To the ancient Greeks philosophy was the love (philo) of wisdom (sophia). This is essentially true today. The philosophy of today gives one an avenue to enquire about life's BIG questions. If this is not the pursuit and love of wisdom, then what is?

Philosophy in the West started with a man called Thales--yes Thales, not Socrates. Thales, and all philosophers after him up to Socrates, are called the Pre-Socratics. These Pre-Socratics were mainly interested in the physical world.

It is Socrates who revolutionized philosophy by taking examination off of the physical world and applying it to mankind itself.

Plato, Socrates's pupil, sought to give an objective basis for Socratic Ethics and developed comprehensive Epistemological and Metaphysical theories.

Aristotle, Plato's pupil, was more empirical (requiring of evidence) than his predecessor. Because of this Aristotle developed Science. He sought to give a physical base for the world rather than the metaphysical one that Plato had constructed.

It is on this trinity--Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle--that the entire foundation for Western Philosophy is laid. Every Western philosopher since has used the work of these men as a starting point. It is in the ideas of these men that we see the seeds of the topics which have become central to philosophy as we know it.

Educational Task: Philosophy is something that you "do", not simply study. In light of this, completion of the following exercise is recommended:

For this chapter, as well as the following ones, see if you can explain what you have learned to someone else. Better yet, see if you can find someone to join you in this course. Explain what you have learned but be sure to allow them to form their own thoughts about the ideas you are expressing. If they have an opposing view point this is so much the better for you. If you have learned well, and are able to convey ideas in a way they can understand, discussion can then begin. Voila, you are philosophizing! (A great man once told me that one cannot philosophize all by himself.)

These next two sections will give you a more in depth analysis of philosophy, its early players, and its methods.

 * Philosophical Method - Mondragon
 * Presocratics and Socrates - Robinson

Real vs. Unreal
The study of any academic field, such as Philosophy, usually begins with its definition. However the philosopher's first difficulty is exactly that: to define what philosophy is. And the answer to this question will depend upon how one goes about doing philosophy - what methods are appropriate to find out the truth, and what can be taken as true in advance of inquiry. For that reason, philosophers will define their field differently. But to start you off, here is mine: 'Philosophy is the art of the separation between what it is REAL and what is UNREAL'.

As that isolated sentence doesn't, perhaps, say a lot by itself I'll expand on it by telling a story of the origins of philosophy. Over millions of years, the Earth became inhabited by numerous animal species. Some of those species dwindled to extinction, others survived relatively unchanged through the eons, still others evolved into new species. What is now Homo sapiens has evolved considerably from early ancestors to ensure its survival.

The concerns of these animal species, which nothing moved, were two namely:
 * 1) Survival of the individual: the search for food, shelter, and safety from predators;
 * 2) Survival of the species: finding a sexual partner with which to produce offspring, and caring for these offspring until sexual maturity.

Eventually, some homo-sapiens groups came to adopt an agrarian lifestyle, instead of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of their ancestors. By living off the land in a single place, which led to the development of trade and the division of labour, more time became available to socialize, think, and observe. And through the observation of the unknown phenomena, members of these societies began to ponder questions:

Lacking our modern scientific outlook, they attempted to explain these important events in anthropomorphic fashion: that human-like characters were the cause of the events, but much more powerful than themselves. And so mythology was born.
 * 1) Where do our offspring come from?
 * 2) Where does the rain come from? Can it be predicted? Why do thunder and lightning sometimes accompany it? And so many other questions as these.

However, as the abilities of humans to reason grew through a shared cultural heritage, and technology began to assist our reasoning, mythological explanations began to cede ground to naturalistic ones. It was observed that certain phenomena would recur over time (such as the changing of the seasons), and that one phenomenon might follow some other particular one (a red sky indicates rain to come). Humans began to codify these observations in terms of laws. But what could explain these laws in turn? The success of naturalistic explanations over mythological ones left us unsatisfied with appealing to the characters of myth to explain these laws. And so they began to PHILOSOPHIZE: to try to understand what lay behind these laws, without the appeal to mythology: here begins the Philosophy of the Pre-Socratics.

So we can see that already philosophy is defined in some way by what counts (or is thought to count) as a philosophical explanation. The story just given tells us that philosophy and mythology are two opposite kinds of explanation: a philosophical explanation is not a mythological one, and vice versa.

Let's return to the REAL and UNREAL. Why should we wish to separate these two opposites? The obvious answer is that, by separating the two, we learn what reality is like, and knowing this, we can work out how to act so that our desires are met. But how do we go about separating these two opposites? One easy test is to make note of the opinions of other people: if all people agree that some phenomenon occurs (or some sequence of phenomena), then this is a possible indication that the phenomenon is a REAL one. On the other hand, if opinions vary over the phenomenon, and whether or not it occurs (or whether a particular sequence occurs), then we have a possible indication that the phenomenon is UNREAL. Yet these are indications only, since people, even a large number of them, may be deceived. We cannot forget that before Galileo almost all people thought the Sun orbited the Earth. Therefore, this test is not infallible, and the philosopher must use other means to find out what is real and unreal: he must look for the reasons people believe as they do, and judge their value. To do so, he applies SYSTEMATIC DOUBT: taking the attitude that some phenomenon is unreal, he weighs whether the reasons given by others in favour of its reality can convince him that the phenomenon is indeed real. There is of course much more to be said, but that is, today, my view of philosophy. Tomorrow it may change. But it should be apparent that at the heart of philosophy is the desire to understand what is real, and it is this desire which motivates our study of it.

"Philosophical systems are wholly true only for their founders. For all subsequent philosophers they usually seem one great mistake..." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.
This quote does not mean that philosophical problems cannot be solved but rather, that every philosopher thinks that they have solved such problems until their successors point out why they have not at which point said successors think that they have now solved said problems. It is somewhat amusing to 'see' this phenomenon play out time and again since the birth of philosophy.

Philosophy of Religion
Questions to Think About: Are faith and reason compatible? How do we know that God exists and what is his nature? Why would God allow evil? Does the presence of evil show that there is no God? Would God's existence preclude free-will and choice?

In this section you will be introduced to the philosophies of Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm. Augustine was a Platonic theologian and philosopher. In taking Plato's Great Chain of Being, and replacing the Good with God, Augustine found a rational basis for Christianity. On the other end of the spectrum was Anselm. For Anselm, Aristotelian logic seemed a better means for proving the existence of God. His argument was based on the logical necessity of there being a God who was "that, than which nothing greater can be conceived". For most, the sharp division between Platonic and Aristotelian justifications for the existence of God did not seem to make sense. It was Thomas Aquinas who was able to synthesize the two seemingly disparate methods of thinking and brought a more unified philosophical background to religion.

Educational Task: Don't forget the assignment given to you in the introduction. The further along you go the more important and helpful the practice will become.

 * Faith and Reason - Hartline and Kellaway

 * Arguments for God - Hartline

 * The Problem of Evil - Kellaway

Epistemology
Questions to Think About:

Epistemology: the study of knowledge. What do we know, what can we know, how do we know it, how do we know we know it? When we 'learn' are we 'remembering' what we already know or, do we actually 'learn' new things? What is 'truth'? Are there such things that are true for everybody all the time (objectivity) or does it change from culture to culture, person to person, situation to situation (relativism), etc.? What happens when we say that there is no way to know if we know anything?

It was not until after the Medieval period that epistemology became a core element for the development of philosophical ideas. Before then, epistemology was just one of many branches. Of course, even the epistemological foundations that were so dominant in the Early Modern Period had their roots in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Plato was the forefather of rationalism. Briefly, rationalism is the idea that true knowledge can only be had of the types of things that one can reach by reason alone. In addition to this, our knowledge consists of innate ideas that every developed mind possesses, whether they know it or not. Empiricism, founded by Aristotle, takes a much different approach. Rather than negating the senses empiricism uses reason to make sense of observable, objective phenomena in the natural world. Through empiricism we can have knowledge of things through sensory input.

Educational Task: Once again, practice, practice, practice. This is truly the best way, not only to see if you are learning, but to actually expand what you have learned.

 * Epistemology - Rogers

 * Truth, Objectivity, and Relativism - Labriola

 * The Challenge of Skepticism - Keine-Deters

 * /Nietzsche on Epistemology/

The Philosophy of Mind
Questions to Think About: What is the mind? Is the mind distinct from body? Is the mind a physical, material thing, or is it immaterial?

Educational Task: Must I say it again? I think not. If you have made it this far I am sure you know the value of engaging conversation.

 * The Mind-Body Problem - Nelp

 * Theories of Mind - Aquinto

 * Personal Identity - McCahan

 * /Nietzsche on the Mind/

Free-will and Determinism
If I could will it, there would be a cartoon here. It seems determined not to be.

Questions to Think About: Are our decisions caused by external factors? If we base our 'decisions' on the potential outcomes then they are in fact caused by those potential outcomes. If so how can we say that we have free-will? Can everything, including human behavior be explained in purely mechanistic terms? When considering the notion of an omniscient God are we eliminating the possibility of Free-Will? Are our lives predestined, are we fated to our future?

Educational Task: Guess what! I have something new for you this time. Scenario: Man A and Man B.  Man A is sitting alone in a room. Man B wants to talk to him. Man B comes into the room; closes the door; sits down; and the two men begin to talk. During the course of their conversation Man C comes along and locks the door to the room from the outside. Neither Man A nor Man B realize this. Are they still exercising Free-Will while continuing their conversation? Remember that they are locked in the room together and, while they may not know it, they no longer have the choice to stay or leave. (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke. Book II-Of Ideas.  Chapter XXI-Of Power.  Section 10.  )
 * Determinism and the Problem of Free-Will - Schmurr
 * Libertarianism - Stone
 * Compatibilism - Peirsall
 * /Nietzsche on Free-Will/

Ethics
Questions to Think About: Do objective morals exist? What is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? What do I value? Why do I value it?

 * Ethics - Gallet
 * Formalism and Deontological Ethics - Aylsworth
 * Consequentialism - Pfeffer
 * /Nietzsche on Ethics/

Metaphysics
Questions to think about: Do I have 'free will'? Is there a transcendent reality? Does God exist? Does each person have a soul?

 * Metaphysics

 * /Nietzsche on Metaphysics/

Logic

 * Logic

Home Back Forward

beta:포털:철학/철학 입문/전체적인 입문 ko:포털:철학/철학 입문/전체적인 입문


text:
Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Presocratics and Socrates

Home Back Forward

Thales 624-545 B.C.E.
Thales was born in Miletus (the New York Harbor of its day) and had the opportunity to participate in society and was encouraged to. His main interests were natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy. He wrote “On Nature” and with his use and understanding of physics, he was able to measure the Egyptian pyramids by using a stick, ratio and the geometrical shape of a triangle. He studied weather and was able to make money after predicting an early harvest by renting all of the area's olive oil presses. His name is included in most of the lists of the seven sages of Greece. One of his finest accomplishments was to redirect a river for King Croesus’s army to cross. Another was his prediction of a solar eclipse in 585 B.C.E. He was in search of the arche or first principle of the universe. His conclusion was all is water. From water we come to water we go. His idea was that the world rests on water and has a soul or spirit. Observing that life comes from motion, he concluded that the magnetic motion of iron in the earth is what brought life to the world.

Anaximander 610-540 B.C.E.
Anaximander was possibly a student of Thales and showed great interest in geometry, astronomy, and philosophy. Anaximander was the first to write prose specifically for Philosophy. He invented the sundial, giving the Greeks a way to measure time. He was also the first Greek to give us a map of the world. His main argument was that all is the “boundless” and has no specific qualities, therefore, creating opposites. Water is wet, fire is dry, and water puts out fire. It is eternal because it gives rise to opposites. Divine because it is deathless and indestructible. He believed that the world is surrounded by concentric circles made up of the earth in the center then water, air, fire. Thus using the idea of four elements, two pairs, and opposites, all things happen through time mixing together creating change and cycles. Conflict leads to resolution and the unbounded is cyclical and continuous. Keeping the earth up because of the balance, it creates. He argued that the earth was the center of the cosmos and has no reason to move.

Anaximenes 545 B.C.E.
Anaximenes too was a student of the philosopher before him. He believed that all is air, and it has no limits and never dies. His empirical research led him to believe that what is alive breaths and has a soul. He felt that this must also be true of the cosmos. Arguing that what happens to the smallest creature must also happen on a greater level. Condensation of air creates water to snow then ice. Like Thales, Anaximenes believed that, the earth rested on something and his something was air.

Xenophanes 570 B.C.E.
Xenophanes, a traveler and roaming poet, was born in Colophon not far from the city of Miletus. Xenophanes was interested in poetry, religion, and natural philosophy. He was the first to try to discredit the gods. His main argument was that humans project their thoughts and actions onto the gods. That is, humans believe the gods look like them, and every society describes the gods differently according to how the people look. He believed that humans have knowledge from experience, or perception is different for each human. Many historians believe that he was the teacher of Parmenides.

Pythagoras 570-497 B.C.E.
Pythagoras was the leader of a popular religious cult named after him. He and his followers called the Pythagorean Brotherhood lived a regimented life in Croton Italy. They shared material possessions similar to the idea of a commune. He believed in reincarnation and the transmigration of the soul. The soul is immortal and humans can reunite with the divine if they are perfect and purify themselves. That incarnation is punishment for bad things humans do. In order to be worthy of the divine we must think, act, and live correctly to end the cycle of rebirth. His main argument is that the world is a place of order, and that order comes from numbers. He studied math and furthered the study of geometry. He developed a system of harmonics using a 2:1 ratio. For the Pythagorean Brotherhood the sacred number was 10, the sum of 4+3+2+1. The Brotherhood believed that math and numbers are the ultimate stuff of the universe and incorrectly thought that all numbers could be written as one whole number divided by another.

Heraclitus was a Greek philosopher born around 540 B.C.E. in Ephesus, a city located in what is now modern-day Turkey. He is known for his belief in the ever-changing nature of the universe and famously proclaimed, "You cannot step into the same river twice." This statement reflects his view that everything is in a state of constant flux and nothing remains the same. Heraclitus believed that the only constant was change and that this was the fundamental nature of the universe.

In addition to his philosophy of change, Heraclitus is also known for his belief in the unity of opposites. He believed that everything was made up of two opposing forces, such as hot and cold, light and dark, and life and death. These forces were in a constant state of tension and balance, and it was only through this balance that the universe could exist. Heraclitus saw this balance as a source of harmony and order in the universe, and he believed that it was through understanding this balance that one could achieve a deeper understanding of the world.

Parmenides of Elea 515-445 B.C.E.
Parmenides was born in Elea, Italy and was most likely a student of Xenophanes. Like many of the philosophers before him was interested in finding the “one”. He was considered to be the first rationalist. For many students of philosophy his argument is extremely difficult to understand. "What is, is, and What is not, is not" was Parmenides main argument. Therefore, if we say nothing exists, we are in fact acknowledging something because nothing is in fact something. We (people) cannot think outside the box, because there is no box. He believed that two ideas cannot be true at the same time. For him the “one” is the mysterious X factor, that is, appearance is not actuality. He believed that knowledge comes from reason not perception. If something is different, it cannot be the same and if we have change then nothing can be the same for it is dynamic. Therefore, all is an illusion and there is no beginning and no end. The world is eternal, whole, unique, immovable, indivisible, and homogenous. The mysterious X factor is “Being”.

Zeno of Elea 490-430 B.C.E.
Zeno was born in Elea in 490 B.C.E. and was a student of Parmenides. He is famous for his paradox of the turtle and Achilles and using it to defend his teacher Parmenides. Imagine Achilles and a turtle are in a race, the turtle gets a head start. For Achilles to catch up to the turtle he must travel half the distance of his intended goal. The turtle is still moving, so again he must travel half the distance. As you can see, he will never catch the turtle, therefore motion is an illusion.

Empedocles ???-440 B.C.E.
Empedocles seems to have tried to merge the ideas of Parmenides with those of Pythagoras. He asked what accounts for change and concluded that the four elements are the cause. For change to occur, there must be forces to move elements. Those forces are love and strife. Empedocles gives up the idea of the “One”. Let us use cake as an example of change. In order to have cake we must have the correct proportions of cake elements. The universe must have both love and strife to move the elements. Again using the cake example, we love to eat cake, but cake is unhealthy and full of calories, so if we want to continue to be healthy we will not indulge in the cake. Love attracts unlike elements, strife attracts like elements. This fight between love and strife is and kablam we move to something new.

Anaxagoras 500-428 B.C.E.
Anaxagoras was born in the city of Clazomenae in Ionia. He used Parmenides’ idea of the mysterious "X" factor, and may have been writing an answer to Empedocles’ idea of change. He agreed with the idea of the four elements and believed that any kind of stuff we have has always been there. Using cake as another example: if we have cake, we have cake stuff. One of his main arguments was that substances do not change, they do not just suddenly come into being but they are uncreated and indestructible. In fact, he thought that there are an infinite number of elements. For things to be created there must be the correct ratio of elements demonstrating the Pythagorean influence. Another of his ideas was that there is no smallest only smaller. He was disliked and put on trial for saying that the sun was not a god.

Leucippus (dates widely disputed), and Democritus 470-360 B.C.E.
Both Leucippus and Democritus are known as atomists who believed in the great void and that atoms are the only things that exist. They concluded that the “divine” equals immortality, and power. In addition, they believed, nothing happens randomly, but rather everything happens from necessity. Democritus was a professional student and wrote more than fifty books. In the fourth century, Christians destroyed his work. Think of the earth as a circle, if the circle is full then stuff cannot move around. If we have space, we have room for movement. Think of the mind as the circle if atoms bounce around this leads to thought.

The Sophists
They were not interested in facts. Actually, they were interested in making money by teaching citizens to win argument by any means. Mostly by making the opposing person's argument weak. Some of the most famous sophists are Protagoras 490-420 B.C.E. Famous for his quote “a man is the measure of all things.” Gorgias 483-375 B.C.E. Antiphon and Thrasymachus show up later in Plato’s Republic.

Socrates 469-399B.C.E.
Socrates was born in 469 to a middle class family in the city of Attica. During the Peloponnesian War, he served as an infantryman and was recognized for his courage. He did not record his ideas and much of what we know of him comes from the writings of his student, Plato.

Socrates became famous for strolling around the agora (marketplace) and questioning citizens about ideas such as “What is justice,” or “What is knowledge,” and challenging the person by questioning every answer he/she gave in response. This great philosopher was put on trial for “corrupting the youth” and “questioning the gods” and he was subsequently found guilty on these trumped up charges. He had the choice of being exiled or drinking Hemlock, a poison that would kill him. Remaining true to his beliefs, he drank the hemlock.

Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” He believed that knowledge is virtue and humans never intentionally do wrong. In addition, that ignorance is evil and in order to be moral, humans must educate themselves. He believed that the only thing he really knew was that he knew nothing. In addition, that being true to yourself was the most important thing a man could do. His method of questioning frustrated most anyone he encountered. This “method” would lead men to reevaluate their answers and truly examine their beliefs. Basically, these people suffered from buyer’s remorse. They bought into false beliefs and came to regret their choices after being questioned by Socrates. He is still a great influence for many people.

Quiz
Based on the book Landscape of Wisdom by Christopher Biffle.

{Imagine you are standing and looking forward, now imagine you are Thales seeing many things unified by “one”. You say to the person standing next to you that all (or many) is_. - Fire. - Earth. - Air. + Water.
 * type=""}

{Next, you are Heraclitus talking to your neighbor and you say “I believe all is .” - Crap. - Cake. + Change. - Carbon.
 * type=""}

{Lucky you! Now you are the great philosopher Parmenides on the subway talking to the person sitting next to you and he/she asks you what you “the many” or “all” is, and you reply_. - Who is Mary Cordova? - Have you seen Donnie Darko? - Marketing. + Illusion.
 * type=""}

{Following your exhilarating subway adventure you are dressed in a pinstriped suit and Italian shoes, no you are not a lawyer, but close you are a sophist. You start collecting money from those around you and offer to teach them. - how to do the Macarena. - to hail a taxi. + truth is not important, winning arguments is what counts. - How to get a table at Rao’s.
 * type=""}

{After your subway ride you are transformed into the philosopher Socrates walking down fifth avenue, you start asking the people passing by___. - for the time. + to forget about the one, and ask “what is holy?” - how you got here in the first place? - for the directions to the Guggenheim.
 * type=""}

Work Cited

 * Landscape of Wisdom, Christopher Biffle
 * The Story of Philosophy, Brian Magee
 * Get a Grip on Philosophy, Neil Turnbell
 * Looking at Philosophy, David Palmer
 * Longmans Standard History of Philosophy
 * Philosophy 101, Sparkcharts
 * Great Ideas of Philosophy, The Teaching Company Dr. Daniel Robinson

Home Back Forward


text:
Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Philosophical Method

Home Back Forward

The Philosophical Method "Those who are eager to learn because they wonder at things are lovers of wisdom." - Alexander of Aphrodisias

Doubting and Questioning
Philosophy begins with wonder, but goes further than that. It is an attempt to formulate, understand, and answer fundamental questions in life. Socrates is famous for his Skepticism. He would approach popular people who were considered wise, and ask them to justify their beliefs. They would provide him with various attempts at justification, but Socrates would not accept their words without further probing for reasonable justification. In Metaphysics, Aristotle described how wonder fit into the philosophical method: “For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe” (Metaphysics, Book I). Philosophers clarify their questions and claims to remove ambiguity. As part of the great conversation of philosophy, a question must be understood in terms people can agree on. To pose a proper philosophical question, one must be able to make distinctions between conceptual questions and those that can be answered with empirical evidence. "Somehow it fills my head with ideas, only I don't know exactly what they are." - Alice in Wonderland

Reading Philosophy
In order to participate in the great conversation of philosophy, and to apply the philosophical method in a meaningful way, one must become familiar with the conversation. Reading philosophy is often a challenge, but it has the intrinsically motivating factor of revealing thoughts on things that matter. In approaching primary sources in philosophy, a method can help one to extract meaning from the words: Read and re-read the material. Analyze the works, separating them by their distinguishing features and essential elements. Criticize the works, applying reason to your evaluation of the authors' arguments.

Argument
Argument is essential to philosophical inquiry. Logic is the study of correct argumentation. Aristotle is generally credited as being the first to formalize logic. He devised ways to analyze and evaluate arguments. His main work was in what is called syllogistic logic, in which the primary constituents of arguments are terms, which are judged to be better or worse depending on the way in which they are arranged. His works On Sophistical Refutations and Prior Analytics address this.

Definition
The method of definition involves seeking out the meanings of words, and figuring out how meanings can be identified. Socrates and Plato brought a new method into philosophy with a search for definitions. By seeking to clarify the meaning behind grand words like "holy" and "just" (in Plato's Euthyphro and Republic, respectively,) they introduced a new way of investigating the fundamental questions in life.

Home Back Forward

ko:포털:철학/철학 입문/철학적 방법