One could imagine the following simple, justifiable claim in response to another American mass killing:

“An assault weapon ban would likely have prevented the Boulder mass shooting.”

Now, let’s soft pedal that a bit:

“An assault weapon ban would have helped prevent the Boulder mass shooting.”

Too strong of a claim; let’s water it down a bit more.

“I think an assault weapon ban would have helped prevent the Boulder mass shooting.”

No, still too committal. How about:

I think an assault weapon ban could have helped prevent the Boulder mass shooting.”

No . . . I might get into…


Republicans are indeed sending votes of Trump electors to Congress as I previously predicted, although it’s not apparent that they have been “certified” by legislatures as I suggested they might be:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/14/trump-campaign-assembling-alternate-electors-in-key-states-in-far-fetched-attempt-to-overturn-election/?sh=696ffa893213

But the distinction may not matter: The Electoral Count Act of 1887 says that all purported results are to be considered by Congress. Therefore, whether the Trump electors or the Biden electors are accepted by Congress is a political decision, not a legal one:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15#

Further, according to at least the analysis referenced below, even in a legal sense the Act is ambiguous as to what happens in…


1. Generate sympathy.

2. Biden suspends “negative” ads, slowing down his campaign.

3. Confirming evidence that COVID-19 is no worse than a flu.

4. Confirming evidence for existence of effective drug therapies that should be hurriedly approved.

5. Face-saving excuse for canceling controversial weekend rallies which violated local rules.

6. Distract from negative narrative after last debate performance and recently published books by Woodward and Weissmann.

7. Divide Democrats. Mainstream Dems are now calling those who doubt T’s diagnosis “idiots” and “conspiracy theorists.”

8. Bolster public John Wayne image as tough battle hero.

9. Make his personal mask-wearing dilemma…


Each hand of poker begins with the deal. But the deal is only the beginning of play. Not only is it just the beginning, but the deal is hardly deterministic of who will ultimately win the hand. Rather, the winner is determined in subsequent rounds of betting. We know this to be true because the winner can have an empty hand; or someone dealt a strong hand might be a loser. Indeed, a strong hand on the deal can be a disadvantage, because the player dealt such a hand might inadvertently tip off the others, who then fold leaving a…


Introduction

In this paper, I will suggest that there are no intrinsic values in the world which would guide people to commit to sustainable ecological practices. I will also suggest that anthropocentrism causes many people to have distorted views of the natural environment. They fallaciously assign attributes such as “goodness” and “badness” to natural phenomena, whereas nature itself is value-neutral; such values reside only in peoples’ imaginations. In a similar anthropocentric distortion, many people incorrectly separate the “human world” from the “natural world,” as though humans were not themselves part of nature. If nothing that humans do can be considered “unnatural”…


1.0 Introduction

Autonomous (driverless) vehicle technology (“AV”) is developing at a rapid pace. Waymo has developed software and hardware sensors to detect pedestrians, cyclists, road works, and vehicles (Waymo). Ride-hailing company Uber is committed to buying 24,000 Volvo SUVs which it will equip with AV driving technology (Frangoul). Indeed, self-driving cars are already being tested on the road: GM Cruise vehicles were on California roads (and involved in 13 crashes) in 2017 (Shepardson).

Although safety issues with AV are in the forefront, another significant question is the impact their widespread usage will have (if any) on energy consumption. My research suggests that…


For centuries, Western philosophers have grappled with profound questions. How do we know what we know? When are we justified in claiming we know? Are there universal moral truths? Does the physical world exist independent of human perception? If it does, do we perceive it directly, or only via representations in our minds? Are the mind and body two distinct substances, or are they one physical thing? If they are separate, how do they interact, but if they are identical, where can we locate consciousness in someone’s brain? These problems have yet to be solved, and perhaps they never will…


Background

For centuries, philosophers have debated the criteria for knowledge: When are our beliefs justified? David Hume (1711–1776) turned science upside down by questioning justification for cause and effect in nature. His argument was so effective that Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) felt compelled to respond: “I openly confess my recollection of David Hume was the very thing which many years ago interrupted my dogmatic slumber . . . “ (260). According to Hume, there are two sources of knowledge: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas refers to analytic claims[1] which can be justified a priori, that is to…


According to the verification theory of meaning, a proposition is meaningful if and only if it has a set of possible verification conditions — that is to say, a set of observable physical conditions which, if present, would justify a claim that the proposition is true (Lycan 99). If all of the verification conditions which would make the claim true are present (Hempel 18), it would be justified to believe that the claim is true. Otherwise, the claim is likely false[1]. If there are no verification conditions, then the claim is merely a meaningless “pseudo-statement” (Hempel 17). In this paper…


The traditional analysis of propositional knowledge holds that knowledge is justified true belief (“JTB”) (Crumley II 36). JTB is necessary and may be sufficient for knowledge[1]. Thus, first one must have a propositional belief, e.g., “The earth has the shape of an oblate spheroid.” Second, the belief must be adequately justified, e.g., there is an abundance of scientific knowledge which is taught in schools and available from reputable academic sources online and in print which asserts conclusively that the earth is an oblate spheroid. Third, the belief must be true, i.e., the actual world (independent of the believer’s perception) must…

Michael Robert Caditz

New York Institute of Technology, Vancouver (MS-Energy Management); Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, BC (BA-Philosophy)

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store