1.

Give and explain as discussed in class how comparative analysis can be made of
arguments , poems, and songs. Discuss here how logic applies to art.
Philosophical analysis applies to art and music. A poem has stanzas, its words have rhyme
in them and also, it has measure. Music is no different from a poem. If we breakdown
music, we realize that the thoughts contained in its lyrics are recurring. We realize then
that poems and music have the same form and the differences lie in their content and
context i.e. in music, context refers to the different instruments used. These three qualities
also refer to the dimensions of reasoning. With this being known, logic is applicable. The
lines in a song or a poem can be considered as arguments. A line with a correct form is a
valid argument. A line correct form and content is a sound argument. A line with all the
three qualities satisfied is rational. <- Sagot ni mich
2. Give and explain the nature and limits of the scientific method. Discuss here how each
method involves some kind of shortcoming
At its core, the scientific method is a systematized method of induction. It begins by
observation through the use of the five senses. After observing, the next step is the
formulation of the problem based on the observed things. After formulating the problem, a
hypothesis is formulated in order to solve the problem. After the formulation of the
hypothesis, is the experimentation step or the testing of the hypothesis. After the
experimentation, formulation of a theory comes next. Each step has some kind of
shortcoming, for the observation step, bias is not necessarily eliminated because the
observer interprets what he observes in context of some prior or past experience.
Similarly, the formulation of the problem and the formulation of the hypothesis also share
this shortcoming because in the interpretation of the problem and the hypothesis,
language is used which can also be influenced by bias. In the testing of the hypothesis
step or experimentation step, the hypothesis must be testable by observation otherwise it
can't be tested. If it is indeed testable, it will only tell if something is wrong but never
where it has gone wrong. In the formulation of a theory, there should be enough quantity
of observations, there should be an unbiased representative sample of universal discourse
and no observable counterinstance in order for the theory to be accepted.
Since the product of the scientific method are theories, the nature of theories is also an
important part of the nature of scientific method. Throughout the history of science,
theories have been either revised or rejected. From this, it can be said that theories are
not the truth, however it can be said that theories are useful for predicting the future and
that the more theories you have the more accurate the prediction is.
3. Give and explain how a conceptual analysis as discussed in class may be made of the
traditional concept of mind. Discuss here the nature of an alternative to this traditional
concept laid down by Gilbert Ryle.
In the traditional concept of mind, having a mind means having a ghost or a soul in a
machine called the human body. This implies that the mind is treated as separate from the
body. In terms of action, an acting body must have its own volition in order for its action to
be considered rational otherwise it is considered irrational.
In the traditional sense, animals and computers don't have minds and therefore are not
capable of rational action. However, in an alternative sense, aka the dispositional concept
of mind, someone/something has a mind if it can/has the capacity or disposition to take in

inputs, process these inputs and generate outputs corresponding to need. From these, it
can be inferred that animals and computers also have minds in an absolute sense but
when compared to humans they don't have minds because their outputs are incomparable
to human outputs.
4. Give and explain how a conceptual analysis as discussed in class may be made of the
traditional concept of intelligence. Discuss here the nature of an alternative to this
traditional concept laid down by Allan Turing.
5. Give and explain here as discussed in class how long-term future environmental issues
relate to politics. Discuss here how liberal democratic distribution of goods and services
within a society radically differ from sociocentric distribution.
6. Give and explain here how a conceptual analysis discussed in class may be made of moral
issues. Discuss here how logic relates to moral reasoning and philosophical logic.
Moral reasoning is based on the norms of right and wrong. In determining what is right and
wrong, two types of reasoning can be used: teleological and deontological reasoning. In
teleological reasoning, the value of the action, good or bad/right or wrong, is based on the
results of the action. On the other hand, in deontological reasoning, the nature of the
action is independent of its results. For example, a man who reasons with teleological
reasoning who is threatened to the point of losing everything (possession, money etc) he
has, could probably kill if it means saving everything he has. However, a man who reasons
with deontological reasoning in put in the same situation will have second thoughts about
his actions regardless of the results because it involves killing.
7. Give and explain at least three types of proofs for the existence of God discussed in class.
Discuss here the fault of each of these types.
First is the Proof of Design by Thomas Aquinas, in which he states that there is a designer,
aka God which designs the forms of the objects that we see around us. However in 20th
century computer programming, designs can be generated by random patterns/series of
numbers. Furthermore, the design we see in nature is a result of the natural selection.
From these, it can be said that designs can be produced even if there is no designer
behind them.
The second is Proof of Primary Cause which states that events are a product of cause and
effect and the other causes are dependent on some other causes. Going ad infinitum into
the past, a single primary cause would be obtained. Aquinas said that this primary cause is
not dependent on some other cause other than God. The shortcoming of this argument is
that the primary cause does not necessarily follow that God is the cause behind that
primary cause.
The third is Pascal's Wager which states that humans can bet with their lives either that
God exists or does not exist. There are a few possibilities: if you believe in God and there is
a God, then there is no problem. Similarly if you believe in God, and there is no God then
there is also no problem. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and there is no
God then there is also no problem. However if you don't believe in God and there is a God,
then you have a big problem. From Pascal's Wager it can be seen that believing in God
would net you more gains than losses however this kind of argument is always applicable
to all the other possible "gods" which makes this proof invalid.