My Response to Q1

Q1:Afterreadingthroughthediscussionaboutthedifferentepistemologicalviews
(Objectivism,Pragmatism,andInterpretivism/Constructivism),whichofthese
perspectivesabouttheoriginandnatureofrealityandknowledgedoyoufeelmost
closelyrepresentsyourownviewpoint?Explainwithaspecificexample.Note:This
questionisintendedtoencourageyoutothinkmoreaboutthesedifferent
perspectives.It'sOKifyouarenotcertainthatyoufullyunderstandeachone.
OR
Q2:Pavlov'sClassicalConditioningtheoryisdiscussedinthelatterpartofthe
chapter.Developanoriginalexampleofhowclassicalconditioningmightbeinvolved
inalearningsituationthatyoumightbeassociatedwith(eitherasthelearnerorasthe
"instructor"),notingandexplainingeachofthe4specificcomponentsofclassical
conditioning(UCS,UCR,CS,CR)inyourexample.
In thinking about how I would rank my viewpoints in life around the different
epistemological views, I find myself thinking in terms of optimism and
pessimism. It seems this topic comes up a good bit at work with some of my
top IT peers and at home with my wife. I find myself surrounded by
optimists. They usually claim me to be pessimistic. While I do understand I
lean more towards that direction than optimistic, I really think I find myself to
be more realistic in nature. I certainly dont go around thinking everything
is going to work out just fine. It seldom does. I am quite happy to take a
view on something as it might possibly work and I hope that it does. I dont
usually think something is absolutely fail every time, although sometimes
that is my outlook on subject matters. So, when I think about Objectivism,
Pragmatism, and Interpretivism, I find myself thinking of my viewpoints more
towards Pragmatism. I dont believe there is an absolute truth or answer out
there for every single thing. I also dont believe that I can necessarily
construct my own realities to situations to match up with Interpretivism. I
find the definition and application of Pragmatism close suited to my way of
thinking and processing. I think there are some answers out there that once
explored and studied enough can lead to answers, whereas others are bigger
than what we can understand and even explain with science. No doubt
scientist will decide on something, only to be proven extremely wrong years
later. I dont think everything necessarily has to have an answer. I liken my
viewpoints similar to some who describe Pragmatism as being the middle
grown between tough minded thinkers and tender minded thinkers. I am
religious, but I also struggle with my own intellect in understanding
everything in these terms. I do my best to accept some explanations that we

have to date on some topics. I think for some things we have to do this in
order to function in society and explain things that we will encounter in life.
There are those other items that I dont really understand or buy the current
thinking on. I have to believe that those may be revealed to us at some
point, but perhaps never.
If you take a major disease for instance, say Cancer, I hope that there is
indeed a cure to this terrible disease that has just eluded us for so long and
with so many billions being poured into it. It is so prevalent in our world
today affecting so many people, including children. I dont know that we will
ever completely eradicate the disease. I certainly hope that we will. I am not
sure if it is not everything in our environment that we cause ourselves. On
the religious side, I cannot help but wonder why a loving God would allow
this to happen to innocent people and certainly children. When you ask this
question you will get the typical religious minded answers. Those are still
hard to understand. I have to accept this as true if I am to believe and hope
for the cure, but also wonder if there is any hope for a cure. I find myself in
the middle of the argument and having to take the pragmatic approach in
order for me to cope with the issue.