David Hume Essay Concerning Human Understanding Example For Students

David Hume Essay Concerning Human Understanding I was from the beginning scandalised, I must own, with this resemblancebetween the Deity and human creatures. Philo David Hume wrote much aboutthe subject of religion, much of it negative. In this paper we shall attempt tofollow Humes arguments against Deism as Someone knowable from the wake Heallegedly makes as He passes. This kind of Deism he lays to rest. Then, diggingdeeper, we shall try our hand at a critique of his critique of religion, ofresurrecting a natural belief in God. Finally, if theres anything Hume wouldlike to say as a final rejoinder, we shall let him have his last word and callthe matter closed. To allege the occurrence of order in creation, purpose in itsconstituent parts and in its constituted whole, regularity in the meter of itsrhythm and syncopations, and mindful structure in the design and construction ofNature is by far the most widely used and generally accepted ground forlaunching from the world belief in an intelligent and omnipotent designer god. One does not have to read for very long to find some modern intellectualinvolved in the analysis of some part of Nature come to the Aha!that theres a power at work imposing order, design, structure and purpose increation. Modern religious piety salivates at the prospect of convertingscientists and will take them any way it can. From Plato to Planck theproblematic lion of religion must be rendered safe and tame. Religion must bereasonable, after all, we are reasonable men. Einstein writes thatthe scientists religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement atthe harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superioritythat, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beingsis an utterly insignificant reflection. We have been struck dumb, however;we can no longer be incautious with such temptations to believe, with suchsirens sounding for sensible, systematic sureness. The Design Argument has beenmortally wounded by David Hume. The god arrive d at by arguments on the one-waystreet of effect to the cause is dead; we should never have allowed him to live. In Section XI of the Enquiry, and throughout the Dialogues Hume subjects theArgument from Design to searching and searing philosophical analysis, to thepoint in his mind that it is forever dead, and to the point in our minds that wewonder why the world has not yet received the obituary. Why did it not die fromthe exposure to which Hume subjected it? Who resurrected this false phoenix? Hasthe Design Argument been forever altered by Hume? Can it render service inpost-Hume discussions? These are the questions we should confront. David Humesphilosophy of religion is fatal to the natural revelation of Deism. Hisarguments the camp of unbelief have appropriated. It is an argument against anyinductive proof for Gods existence. What Hume seeks to show is the failure ofthis argument to establish the type of deity that belief in a particularprovidence or divine action must require one to assert. This he sets out firstand in preliminary fashion in Section XI of the Enquiry and with more plethori cattention in the Dialogues. In both books he employs the dialogue form to embodyhis attacks. The argument of the former is mistitled. Fourteen of the seventeenpages have nothing to do with immortality or particular providence.Humes argument here is from the particular effect to the existence of a causesufficient for its production. Causes are to be known from effects alone; toascribe to it any superfluous qualities goes beyond the bounds of strict logicalreasoning. The imagination must be philosophically bridled. When ten ounces areraised in a balance one can surely surmise a counterbalance exceeding tenounces, but one can hardly offer any justification for the counterbalance toweigh 100 ounces. Transferred to philosophical theology, it is impossible toderive legitimately from a natural theology any relevancy in conclusions arrivedat over and above what can be independently and directly supported by empiricalstudy of the universe. Such innocuous-sounding, even camouflaged assertion s byHume were in actuality a D-Day invasion on the Normandy Beach of the Deists. Thefirst salvo is a statement of the terms of reference: You then . . . haveacknowledged that the chief or sole argument for a divine existence (which Ihave never questioned) is derived from the order of nature, where there appearsuch marks of intelligence and design that you think it extravagant to assignfor its cause either chance or the blind and unguided force of matter. You allowthat this is an argument drawn from effects to causes. From the order of thework you infer that there must have been project and forethought in the workman. If you cannot make out this point you allow that your conclusion fails; and youpretend not to establish the conclusion in a greater latitude than the phenomenaof nature will justify. The cause must be proportioned to the effect. To Hume itis sinful to assume greater effects to an actually lesser cause. No sooner havewe engodded the gods with power and intelligence and benevolence than we summonexaggeration and flattery to supply gaps and tease out the argument. We structure an entire edifice in our imaginations while standing on the porch. Hume countered this thinking because it constructed belief and certainty out ofmere possibility. It is an exercise in uselessness: Because our knowledgeof this cause being derived entirely from the course of nature, we can never,according to the rules of just reasoning, return back from the cause with anynew inference, or making additions to the common and experienced course ofnature, establish any new principles of conduct and behaviour. Experiencemust be the true guide for philosopher and deist. The experiencing one can neverbe held hostage to those armed with theory or conjecture about the nature ofReality. Also, the experiencing one must be careful not to compromise herexperience by inflating it with false conclusions which do not fit the closetolerances of experience. Why torture your brain to justify the course ofnature upon suppositions, which, for aught you know, may be entirely imaginary,and of which there are to be found no traces in the course of nature?Then, Hume raises a n objection. If experience is our only and final interlocutorand arbiter, why can one not use ones experience and say that a half-finishedbuilding, surrounded by all the materials and tools necessary for itscompletion, will be one day complete? Or, cannot Robinson Crusoe, seeing onehuman footprint on the shore, conclude he is not alone? This objection heanswers through his dialogue partner: There is an infinite difference betweenthe human and the divine. With humans one can infer from effect to cause andthen infer anew concerning the effect because we have other corroboratingexperience about humans, from motives to operations. Our inferences aboutprobabilities in human nature and works can be experienced. Not so with thedivine, who is single, suigeneris, neither empirically obvious nor predictable. We have no experience to arbitrate here, there is no existing genus of thought. Conjecture must be arbitrary. To insist the deity is known from design is tosubstitute ourselves and our experience for the deity, and then to assume thisAgent will act as we would. This is speculation, and Hume allows it noauthority. We can never be allowed to mount up from the universe, theeffect, to Jupiter, the cause, and then descend downward to infer any new effectfrom that cause .. The knowledge of the cause being derived solely from theeffect, they must be exactly adjusted to each other; and the one can never referto anything further or be the foundation of any new inference andconclusion. If Hume is right the implications are far-reaching. The firstis embarrassing to those who wield natural proofs of God: we still have no ideaor knowledge from these proofs what this God does, what the deity values, whatIt rewards and what It punishes. We cannot in any sense of logic speak of thedeitys possible or probable attributes or actions. Such a class of topics Humerenders unwarranted. An invalid argument will not support a conclusion, notpartially, not even weakly. It supports it not at all. Hume repeats andamplifies his voice in the Dialogues with the help of three protagonists,Cleanthes, Philo and Demea. Debate still rages on whether Cleanthes or Philomost faithfully represents Hume. No one character fully presents the force ofHumes arguments; his beliefs are on the tongues of all three. Humes purpose isto vitiate the Argument from Design more completely, and to this end heskillfully balances his words among the protagonists; to let the currency of hisargument fall upon the shoulders of one person alone would not only destroy theDialogue by definition, but would also diminish that dramatic interest in itwhich also constitutes its value. Philo begins the engagement of the problem ofnatural religion: When we look beyond human affairs and the properties of thesurrounding bodies: When we carry our speculations into the two eternities,before and after the present s tate of things; into the creation and formation ofthe universe; the existence and properties of spirits; the powers and operationsof one universal spirit, existing without beginning and without end; omnipotent,omniscient, immutable, infinite, and incomprehensible: We must be far removedfrom the smallest tendency to skepticism not to be apprehensive, that we havehere got quite beyond the reach of our faculties. So long as we confine ourspeculations to trade, or morals, or politics, or criticism, we make appeals,every moment, to common sense and experience, which strengthen our philosophicalconclusions, and remove (at least, in part) the suspicion, which we so justlyentertain with regard to every reasoning that is very sub tile and refined. Butin theological reasonings, we have not this advantage; while at the same timewe are employed upon object . . . too large for our grasp. . . . We are likeforeigners in a strange country, to whom every thing must seem suspicious, andwho are in dan ger every moment of transgressing against the laws and customs ofthe people with whom they live and converse. We know not how far we ought totrust our vulgar methods of reasoning in such a subject; since, even in commonlife and in that province which is peculiarly appropriated to them, we cannotaccount for them, and are entirely guided by a kind of instinct or necessity inemploying them. Philosophically, the argument is cast thus: is religion to bethe extension of principles and ideas implicit in daily knowledge of the world?For Cleanthes early on, the purveyor of common sense, religious hypotheses, likescientific ones, are founded on the simplest and most obviousarguments, and unless it meets with artificial obstacles, has easyaccess and admission into the mind of man. Philo maintains his skepticssilence until later in the Dialogues, and speak only to facilitate honestinquiry. In Part II, Cleanthes is drawn out by Philo and by his own growingself-confidence to assert that what is t rue for religious hypotheses also ringstrue for claims about the nature of God. Cleanthes is led beyond the areas hewas able to hold within practical reasoning into areas where he is vulnerable tothe applications of his own reasoning. Ordinary experience, he claims, cansettle the question of God: Look around the world: Contemplate the whole andevery part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine,subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines. All these variousmachines are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which vanishes intoadmiration all men who have ever contemplated them. We are led to infer Poverty Point Culture EssayKeeping a mental finger on this, he then hypothesizes that in order to explainthe operation of many natural laws, we should lay them at the feet of divineactivity; they are not scientifically or empirically obvious. With thisestablished, he then proves how an analogical argument can be designed to showhow evidence confirms the hypothesis. As are caused by Bs. A*s are similar toAs. Thereforegiven that there is no more satisfactory explanation of theexistence of A*sthey are produced by B*s similar to Bs. B*s are postulated tobe similar in all respects to Bs except in so far as shown otherwise, viz.,except in so far as the dissimilarities between As and A*s force us to postulatea difference. In the Design Argument, As are regularities of succession, Bs arethe human agents who cause As. A*s are the regularities of successionexemplified by natural laws and B*s are the rational agents or causes of A*s ofdivine status. Like humans (As), A*s can be somewhat favor ably compared tohumans in terms of free choice and intelligence. The difference is in degree,not kind. The result is a Design Argument, and if true, is conditional upon thestrength of the analogy and upon how coherent empirical matters are processed toa divine cause. 2. A second objection centers in the critique of constantconjunction. Is one instance in itself of constant conjunction sufficient toknow a cause from inspection to its effect? In the Treatise Hume has urged us toconceive of events occurring without any causes at all; anything may be thecause of anything. How do these implicate his Argument from Design? Are ourobservations one-on-one with our experiences? Is the constant conjunction ofevents, which Hume says must be experienced as cause and effect, the onlylegitimate permission we possess for inferring either from the presence of theother? Why can we not infer from the simple and unparalleled fact of theuniverse an equally simple and unparalleled Deity as Cause? 3. A fi nal objectioncomes from science. Every scientific stride has come from its putting forthhypotheses which extend beyond the phenomena observed. A scientific theory thatproceeded only upon existing data would be worthless. It could not as anexplanation guide experiments and research. Scientists must venture out beyondthe already known and infer the unknown. And so do we. We look at our children,grandchildren, brothers, sisters and parents and infer heredity, or morespecifically, genes. DNA is an unostentatious reality, inexperienced, but we seeits effect. Can we not legitimately infer God as a way to account and evenforetell phenomena of the universe? Hume replies: Ok, OK, so I was not ascareful as I might have been in formulating my principle that on the other sideof experience there is no door leading to conjecture or hypothesis. I haveexpressed myself badly in places, but I think I can salvage my cause with a morecircumspect exposition. Mr. Swinburne, my respects. You have scored a goodpoint. But your chessboard of an analogy fails because you are too ready toascribe natural laws to a Deity, when they are pawns unequal to the task ofcheckmating the prize piece. Natural Laws are not empirically obvious: there isyour mistake. When inferring any particular cause, given certain effects, onecannot ascribe any qualities but what are sufficient to explain adequately thecause. Adequately is the watchword. The explanation should be keptas simple as possible. It is unscientific to ascribe certain characteristics toa postulated designer of the universe if those characteristics go beyond what isrequired adequately to explain the facts. And this god of yours, Mr. Swinburne,whence came He? Is not your God subject to creationa causeHimself? I layyour argument to rest at the feet of infinite regression. As to this secondobjection. You have divorced your arguments from the authoritative range ofexperience. My argument is not contained within that old wine skin of analogy. When we face a new species of phenomena, our observation and experience proveunequal to the task; and analogy will fail as a way of explanation as well. Asan argument from analogy the Argument from Design is on serviceable. No matterwhat Ive said elsewhere, experience leads me only to one honest conclusion:While others take their broad-jump leaps of faith and land in the quicksand ofsubjective conjecture, I stand on the rock of experience. Have you experiencedthe universe as a simple and unparalleled fact? Have you faced a new species ofsuigeneris phenomena? If you have, then you must truly be God! Of course thingswill happen without a ready Cause, but that affords you no permission to assigndivine causes left and right, willy-nilly, and certainly no license to worshipthis divinity. Now to the third argument. As some are fond of saying, Yourgod is too small. You take one realm of localized phenomena, and withoutbenefit of experience, you analogize a God. In science, how many falsehyp otheses do you come up with before you arrive at a true one? Are you willingto constitute a religion and call people to faith based on what might be a falsehypothesis? What happens when you find two true but conflicting hypotheses, aswe have with the nature of light? Is it a particle or a wave? As for the DNAmodel of analogy, it wont reward you with a larger version or vision of the godof DNA. Analogies are inductive. Inductions, we have proven over and over, arenot sufficient grounds for the certainty you would require. Induction can onlygive you a probability, and Id like to see you preach a probability! Ha Ha. Allthese slippery objections, specific textual questions and ever-more refinedpoints of logic are nothing but a series of assurances that you can never putone over on me. All reasoning, all inquiries into the nature of the Deity, restson custom and habit. There is no rational foundation for your claims offact. Your measures and claims of fact are not knowledge, objectiveand verifiable, but beliefs. You cannot make causal claims of fact whencausation itself is suspect because of necessary connection. Your DesignArguments are arrested at the very outset at the roadblock of a categorymistake. One cannot synthesize from the parts a whole that has nothing to dowith the parts themselves. This is the mental gymnastics of a finite mind, andthe finite cannot re-present the unknowable infinite. The finite has nometaphysical license to trespass its boundaries. If you do, the best you can dois bag unicorns and dragons; the worst you could do is to divinize yourpassions, lusts, cruelties, vengeance and the most heinous of vices. All yourreligious systems are subject to great and insuperable difficulties. Each willhave its day, expose itself, and die from exposure. But all of them prepare acomplete triumph for the skeptic, who reminds over and over that no system canbe embraced without some troublesome remainder. A total suspension of judgmentis my only refuge, my mighty fortress. It is the only sanctuary I dont have todefend. The purpose of my open mind regarding uncertainty is to close it on thisone thing certain: That the Cause (or Causes) of order in the universe bear noremote resemblance or analogy to humans, animals, plants or nature. What that iswe cant know, for it is parasitic on data we shall never be able tointerrogate. Philosophy

Good News Regarding Vouchers and School Choice Arg Essay Example For Students

Good News Regarding Vouchers and School Choice Arg Essay umentative Persuasive EssaysGood News Regarding School Choice Good News v. Milford is very good news indeed for advocates of school vouchers and faith-based organizations (FBOs). The Supreme Courts 6-3 decision upholding the right of a Christian youth group to meet in public schools after class hours is a significant signal of the Courts willingness to treat religious organizations and viewpoints on an evenhanded basis. In 1992, Milford Central School in New York State enacted a community use policy outlining purposes for which its building could be used after school. Under the policy, district residents could use the school for instruction in any branch of education, learning, or the arts. The school was also to be made available for social, civic, and recreational meetings and entertainment events, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community, provided that such uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be opened to the general public. Several district residents who sponsored the local Good News Club-a private, voluntary Christian organization for children ages six to twelve-submitted a request to the interim superintendent of the district, seeking to hold the Clubs weekly after-school meetings in the school cafeteria. They were excluded, however, because their proposed use-to have a fun time of singing songs, hearing a Bible lesson, and memorizing Scripture-was the equivalent of religious worship. The school authorities claimed that such a meeting was prohibited by the rules that forbid the school from being used by any individual or organization for religious purposes.(1) The Court, per Justice Clarence Thomas, found Milford to have created a limited public forum-in essence, a standing invitation to use public property for the designated purposes. When the state establishes a limited public forum, the state is not required to and does not allow persons to engage in every type of speech. However, said the Court, the states power to restrict speech is not without limits. Such restriction must not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint, and the restriction must be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.(2) Relying upon two earlier but more narrowly written opinions, the Court found the school district to have discriminated against the proposed religious speech in Good News. In Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches (1993), the Justices held that a school district violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it excluded a private group from presenting films at the school based solely on the films discussions of family values from a religious perspective. Likewise, in Rosenberger v. Rector (1995), the Court held that a universitys refusal to fund a student publication because the publication addressed issues from a religious viewpoint violated the Free Speech Clause. The majority concluded that Milfords exclusion of the Good News Club based on its religious nature was indistinguishable from the exclusions in these cases, and held that it constituted viewpoint discrimination. The result in Good News is significant for what the Court refused to do: namely, indulge the notion that some protected religious speech is too religious. The Court expressly disagreed with the idea that something that is quintessentially religious or decidedly religious in nature cannot also be characterized properly as the teaching of morals and character development from a particular viewpoint. Said the Court: What matters for purposes of the Free Speech Clause is that we can see no logical difference in kind between the invocation of Christianity by the Club and the invocation of teamwork, loyalty, or patriotism by other associations to provide a foundation for their lessons. (3) Federal judges are expected to play many roles, but attempting to differentiate between religiously informed moral instruction and unambiguously religious practice or instruction is not comfortably one of them. Indeed, even contemplating such distinctions is theologically perilous, for while some religions treat ethics and religion as distinct subjects, the adherents of many mainstream religions of the West (including Judaism and Christianity) hold ethics and religion to be inseparable. The lower court had presupposed that morality is independent from divine will, but that is not so for many believers. Indeed, had the Supreme Court not disavowed that specious notion, it would have rightly been seen as improperly taking sides over religious doctrine. Hackers EssayS. Treasury. As noted above, the Court has moved away from using the Establishment Clause to invalidate monies disbursed evenhandedly to a broad range of competing groups, religious and nonreligious alike, but why invite trouble by having disbursement come from R. Barry Bureaucrat, rather than John Q. Public? It is likely this direct delivery of funds that explains the Houses unfortunate censorship of FBOs, which itself is constitutionally dubious. And whether or not it is, it certainly invites all kinds of burdensome federal auditing and entanglement, along with subtle pressures on churches to modify their teachings as an implied grant condition. The way out of this morass is not to abandon the creative social service potential of FBOs, but rather to fund them indirectly. Simply allowing taxpayers an enhanced tax credit for donations to the FBO of their choice would eliminate any residual church-state questions. The House measure appropriately expanded deductibility for charitable giving in general. The Senate should complete this work by providing a credit specifically for FBO donations. The case for school vouchers is also strengthened by Good News. The Court is presently being petitioned to review the constitutionality of a school voucher or scholarship program that makes taxpayer education funds available to low-income families seeking to avoid the troubled Cleveland schools. Contrary to favorable voucher rulings in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Illinois, the lower federal courts struck down the Cleveland program because the public schools refused to actively participate in the voucher program, even though the law authorized them to do so. The absence of public participants troubled the lower courts, since it effectively meant that only private religious schools received vouchers in Cleveland. An important side note in the Good News decision suggests that this should make no difference. The Court observed that when a public benefit is offered for actual use by groups presenting any viewpoint, the Court would not find an Establishment Clause violation simply because only groups presenting a religious viewpoint have opted to take advantage of the benefit at a particular time. In other words, the fact that only private religious schools have cared enough about the educational fortunes of the least advantaged children cannot be used against them. After all, the law should not be structured so that there is a preferential option against the poor. WORKS CITED: (1) Supreme Court Decisions http://supct.law. cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZO.html (2)Ibid. (3) Ibid.

Watergate chronology Essay Example For Students

Watergate chronology Essay January20,1969 Richard M. Nixon elected the thirty-seventh president of the United States 1969 Ehrlichman suggests to Caulfield that he leave the White House and set up aprivate security business that would provide security to the 1972 Nixoncampaign. This project, Sandwedge, would be similar to the Kennedy securityfirm, Intertel. June 5, 1970With the goal of increasing cooperation between various intelligence agencieswithin the government, a meeting was called in the Oval Office. Those inAttendance: Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Helms, and chiefs of theNSA and the DIA. Nixon aide Tom Charles Huston was assigned to work withthe heads of these agencies to facilitate increased cooperation. We will write a custom essay on Watergate chronology specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now early July,1970The Huston Plan sent to the President. This plan was an addition made byHuston to a plan endorsed by Hoover and Helms (NSA and DIA as well?). Hustons addition called for electronic surveillance, monitoring activities,surreptitious entries, recruitment of more campus informants, et al. July 14, 1970Nixon endorses the Huston PlanJuly 27, 1970Hoover visits John Mitchell. Mitchell hears about the Huston plan for the firsttime. Mitchell later goes to Nixon and urges the President to Stop the plan. Nixon later cancelled the plan. September17, 1970Mitchell met with John Dean. Mitchell discussed the poor job that the FBI wasdoing in the area domestic intelligence. This followed a conversation betweenMitchell, Helms and others from the CIA on a similar topic. September18, 1970John Dean sends a memo to John Mitchell in which he offers a plan forintelligence gathering. The most appropriate procedure would be to decide on the type ofintelligence we need, based on an assessment of the recommendations ofthis unit, and then to proceed to remove the restraints as neccessary toobtain such intelligence. May 3, 1971Following Nixons decision concerning Laos, Anti-Vietnam activists attempt toshutdown Washington by blocking roads with stalled cars, human blockades,garbage cans, and other materials. The protests result in over 12,000 arrests. John Dean headed up the White House intelligence gathering during this protest. June 13,1971The New York Times begins publication of excerpts from The PentagonPapers. The Pentagon Papers was a 7,000 page document that was first commissionedby Robert McNamara in June of 1967 for future scholars to use. The Paperswere leaked to the Times by Daniel Ellsberg. Although there were many crucialdocuments that were not included, the Papers did include documents from theDefense Department, the State Department, the CIA, and the White House. June 14,1971John Mitchell sends a telegram to the New York Times. Arthur Ochs SulzbergerPresident and PublisherThe New York TimesNew York New YorkI have been advised by the Secretary of Defense that the material published inThe New York Times on June 13, 14, 1971 captioned Key Texts FromPentagons Vietnam Study contains information relating to the national defenseof the United States and bears a top secret classification. As such, publication of this information is directly prohibited by the provisionsof the Espionage law, Title 18, United States Code, Section 793. Moreover further publication of information of this character will causeirreparable injury to the defense interests of the United States. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you publish no further information of thischaracter and advise me that you have made arrangements for the return ofthese documents to the Department of Defense. John W. MitchellAttorney GeneralThe New York Times declined Mitchells request. July, 1971 Ehrlichman appoints Young and Egil Bud Krogh, Jr. to direct a S pecialInvestigations Unit to investigate the leak of the Pentagon Papers. Young andKroghs group become known as the plumbers. August 16,1971John Dean writes the memorandum Dealing with our Political Enemies wherehe describes how we can use the available federal machinery to screw ourpolitical enemies.Sept. 3, 1971Break in of the office of Lewis Fielding, Daniel Ellsbergs psychiatrist, in LosAngeles led by Hunt and Liddy. The goal was to seek information that wouldbe damaging to Ellsberg. .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 , .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 .postImageUrl , .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 , .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04:hover , .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04:visited , .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04:active { border:0!important; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04:active , .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04 .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ua06d3d31eb234d0e58f5c5ebe924ee04:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Plagiarism Activity EssayOctober,1971 Colson asks Dean to investigate the Happy Hooker ring in New York tosee if

Antrax essays

Antrax essays Antrax is a rough infectious disease caused by Bacillus anthracis, a positive gram bacteria, aerobe formed from endospores, encapsulated, that can be half ordinary cultivated. The vegetative cell is large (1-8 microns in longitude, 1-1.5 microns wide). The size of a spore is approximately 1 micron. Spores grow rapidly in all cultivated ordinary labs at 37degrees celcius. Its cell morphology and colonial allows its identification by an experienced microbiologist, even though few microbiologists outside of the vetinary community have seen antrax colonies more than in text books. The three virulence factores are: the edema toxin, the deadly toxin and a capsular antigenic. Etymology: Anthracis originated from the Greek word for carbon, anthrakis, because the disease causes black superficial injuries like carbon. The toxic properties of B. anthracis were not recognized until 1954. Previously, due to the tremendous number of observed bacteria in infected animal blood (>109 bacteria/ ml), it was supposed that death was due to the capillary obstruction, But experimentaly it was demonstrated that only approximately 3 million cells/ml are necessary to cause the animals death. Besides, the animals plasmic infection cells contain a toxic that causes antrax symptoms when it is injected in normal rabbits. From these observations it is concluded that exotoxin plays an important role in the pathogeny of antrax. Cepas: There are two even varient colonial(s) a rough(r) that are related with the ability to form a capsule. The R varients are relativaly avirulent. The capsule is not toxic, it acts as protectionj against phagocytosis and it plays its most important role during the establishment of the disease, and a less significant role in the last phase of the disease that is measured by antrax toxin. An antrax toxin component has a deadly action form that at this time is not discovered. Death is apparantly due to th ...

Classical Era Reflection Paper Research Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Classical Era Reflection - Research Paper Example The major theorists of scientific (management) perspective believed there is one best way to do everything – and that is the most efficient way Those theorists believed they could determine that method via whatever means they were using or purported was the best method to study the task. Those theorists of the scientific perspective discussed first are F. W. Taylor, H. L. Gantt, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, and Hugo Munsterberg. Frederick W. Taylor’s philosophy led the way for many others in using scientific and mathematical methods applied to workers, attempting to match a person’s abilities to a job in the best way possible, instituting a mutual self-interest mind-set that had never existed and improving employee productivity through incentives (Locke, 1982; Wren & Bedeian, 2009). Crain (2003) says that Taylor was noted for his scientific approach, his ability to solve problems, and his ability to invent things. His thought was that â€Å"measurement increased productivity† (p. 45). In one example, the test subject â€Å"increased production by 400 per cent while receiving 60 percent more in pay†. Taylor was best known for his stopwatch, but he believed that money is what the workers craved and they were determined to get it. Companies at that time glossed over the downside of Taylor’s efficiency gains and put increased productivity over ethics. Philosophical discussions took place and he wrote about it in The Principles of Scientific Management. He believed that ultimately improving efficiency improved society. Hodgetts (1995) analyzed ten U.S. organizations against Taylor’s principles and found that â€Å"each in its own way used Taylor’s four principles to help focus their total quality management strategy† (p. 218). The four principles are summarized as follows: 1. Develop a science for each part of a person’s work, replacing â€Å"a rule of thumb method† (p. 218). 2. Scientifical ly pick and train employees rather than allow employees to arrive and work as they wish. 3. Cooperate with employees to ensure work is done according to scientific guidelines. 4. Divide work as equally as possible. Allow management time to oversee the work of the employees and shoulder the responsibility of holding others accountable. Henry Laurence Gantt worked closely with F. W. Taylor. Gantt brought a human quality into the scientific side of Taylor’s work. Gantt developed a bonus pay structure for the employee who completed their piece rate work for the day and was able to complete more than the assigned tasks. With Gantt’s methods of the use of incentives for employees â€Å"production was often doubled† (Wren & Bedeian, 2009, p. Fax 2). Frank Gilbreth differed from Taylor in that Gilbreth used time motion studies where Taylor used a stop watch and was using only time rather than time motion. Gilbreth was best known for establishing the hope of finding the one best (most efficient) way to do any and every task (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). Lillian Gilbreth, PhD, continued the work the two of them conducted even after Frank’s death and she later became published. Hugo Munsterberg was the father of industrial psychology as we know it today. He believed psychological themes could be applied in the workplace. In 2009, The New Yorker published an article describing in detail the events of Classical

Universities and how they are funded PowerPoint Presentation

Universities and how they are funded - PowerPoint Presentation Example The same applies to several Master’s programmes for EU-EEA, Swiss and Finnish students. Erasmus Mundus programmes attract fees for non-EU students, but eligible to Erasmus Mundus Scholarship by application. In general European Union students have the same rights in another EU State. Thus, European Union citizens are involuntarily entitled to education in other European Union’s member states: therefore should not be paying more tuition fees and they must always be able to access a residence permit. Despite European Union financial crisis, its government has managed to present multi annual financial framework for 2014 to 2020 to its Education system that proposes to increase education and training funds by 70%. This is equivalent to 17 billion Euros to support cooperation between institutions, transnational learning mobility, implementation of education policies in the Member States and modernization of education. Alzheimer Europe, 2009, August 21, â€Å"The four main approaches,† Retrieved July 5, 2012, from Alzheimer Europe: http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Research/Understanding-dementia-research/Types-of-research/The-four-main-approachesAtwater, M., Freeman, B., Butler, B. & Draper-Morris, J. (2010). A case study of science teacher candidates’ understandings and actions related to the culturally responsive teaching of ‘Other’ students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education , 5 (3),

Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 2

Management - Essay Example Enron was a Fortune 500 company and was in #7 in 2001 was deleted from New York Stock Exchange. According to the mangers of Enron who reviewed the accounts of the company, during California energy crisis Enron has kept undisclosed reserves of up to $1.5 billion in trading profits. Enron came under fire from politicians of price gouging. The hidden reserves would have doubled the Enron's reported profits. It is also reported that Enron manipulated reports on reserves to have steady profit growth to Wall Street and credit rating agencies. The executives also claimed that the reserves were held back and used to fulfil the political and financial ends. In 1990 Enron reported its total revenue as $10 billion and in the next subsequent ten years it grew by $101 billion. It emerged as one of the fast growing companies in the United States. The main reasons for its collapse is not due to the core energy operations but the company's new ventures in dot com sector and investments Internet and communication business. According to investigators of the security of exchange commission gone into investigate the case, have interviewed witnesses to come to a conclusion that the methods or practices violated the laws for doctoring quarterly earning refers to start cookie jar reserves. The existence of Enron reserves puts strange twist to it.