Recent orders
Critical thinking paper
Critical thinking paper
Define in your own words what critical thinking means to you, AND describe in detail a scenario in which your critical thinking skills were fantastic, and another scenario in which they were awful. Refer to assigned materials when appropriate.
According to me, critical thinking is the way of thinking about anything for instance subject, content or problem whereby the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by thoroughly assessing and reconsidering the implications or such. Critical thinking normally involves decision making to improve a given situation or offer a better solution. It relies more of solution finding.
Critical thinking relies more not on just looking at the problem, it entails weighing all options one can access to have a solution to a problem. One has to step out of normalcy and view things from a more clinical and less emotional points of view. One example where my critical thinking skills were applied fantastically was during my job searching. When deciding to change career, I decided to weigh all options involved. I came through a job where the pay was high but there were few benefits and I decided not to take it because it was not better than the one I had. I had also to take into account the effect such a job would have on taxes and I realized it would increase taxes. Making decisions to change career does not rely only on basic salary, and critical thinking has to be involved. T could be simpler to think I would earn more but critical thinking helped me to access all the other aspects and make a better decision. In this case, my acritical thinking skills were well applied.
There was a case where I did not properly apply critical thinking skills. There was a scenario where I was to choose between Dutch and French as second languages. Because of my friends advising me to choose Dutch, I went for it. Along the way, I realized that it is not among the mostly spoken language and its job market is low. In this case I make a wrong choice.
The problems of Gettier or cases of Gettier take after Edmund Gettier an American philosopher who formulated them in the 1960
(Name)
(Instructors’ name)
(Course)
(Date)
Gettier problems
The problems of Gettier or cases of Gettier take after Edmund Gettier an American philosopher who formulated them in the 1960s. These problems function as limitations to the philosophical tradition of describing knowledge of a proposal as validated true belief in that proposition. The problems are possible or actual events in which an individual believes that the evidence supports it, yet which according to numerous epistemologists fails as a form of knowledge. The author’s original article resulted to a wide range of criticism as epistemologist started to attempt to ascertain once more what knowledge means, with most of them agreeing that Gettier had gone against the knowledge’s traditional definition. These epistemologists have tried many times to replace or repair that traditional description of knowledge something that has led a number of new understandings of knowledge and of support to justify these new concepts (Gettier 121- 23).
This paper will act as a response to some of the arguments of the authors of a number of criticisms of Gettier’s work. The response will offer arguments that epistemologists can use to move the debates about knowledge forward.
In his paper, is justified true belief knowledge of 1963, Edmund Gettier raised a problem which he argued and viewed in the traditional knowledge theory, which unto this day has remained unsolved. Many attempts by a number of epistemologists have failed, for example, Thomas Paxson and Keith Lehrer put across a theory, which utilized the defeasibility argument to attempt solving the Gettier problem (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237). One of the many objectives of epistemologists is to come up with a theory of knowledge that specifies the necessary conditions for knowledge. Traditionally, scientists have only agreed to three of these conditions, and they include p is true, s believes in p, and s has a justification to believe in p. according to the theories, if the theories satisfied the conditions then one could say that s knows p. but then Gettier came along with his arguments. In his arguments, he proposed to counterarguments to the traditional conditions, where the theory meets or satisfies the three former conditions with the exception that s did not know p (Gettier 121- 23).
Gettier’s bases his problems on two counterarguments to the analysis by JTB. Both of these arguments depend on the previously developed theory that entailment preserves rationalization, and the further argument that such applies considerably, or can be applied or used comprehensibly to the specification attributed to the putative belief of Smith in regards to one of the two counterarguments: which is if Smith is Justified in believing in p, and he knows that P’s truth contains some truths of Q, then Smith also has a justification to believe in Q. Gettier refers to these challenges as Case I and II (Gettier 121- 23).
In the first case, Smith applies for a job, but he argues that there is a justified belief that another person, Jones, will get the job. The author also beliefs that there is a justified belief that there are 10 coins in Jone’s pocket. Justifiably, Smith makes a conclusion that the gentleman who gets the job is carrying ten coins in his pocket. However, it Smith who gets the job and not Jones, and as it follows, Smith has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore, the belief that the person who got the work had 10 coins is satisfied, but one cannot consider it knowledge. In the second case, Gettier argues that smith has a justified belief that Jones has a ford. Eventually, smith makes the conclusion that Jones has a ford, or Brown is in Barcelona even when there is no evidence or knowledge about Brown. Actually, it becomes clear that Brown is in Barcelona, but Jones does not have a ford. The author argues that though Smith had a belief that had some justification and held true which was not knowledge (Gettier 121- 23).
Gettier himself and a number of other philosophers since he came up with these arguments believe that Smith does not know that the person who finally gets the work has 10 coins in his pouch, because what makes this knowledge true is that it is Smith who finally gets the job and that he has ten coins in his pocket (Gettier 121- 23). Smith, however, does not have any knowledge of what is in his pockets and his fate in regards to the job. The only knowledge one can say he has, is of Jones. So how can one argue that Smith knows that the person who gets the job has ten coins? The answer is quite clear; he does not know any of this, and this point to a problem with the traditionally used conditions of describing knowledge.
Succeeding theories that have attempted to solve the issues the Gettier problem presents have created a fourth condition to make things easier. This fourth condition argues that there is no defeating of the justification in the knowledge. In their paper, Thomas and Lehrer revise their definition of what defeasibility is two times. Their most basic description of defeasibility is as follows. When p justifies s entirely in believing in h, then this justification becomes defeated by q only if one considers q be true and if the conjunction of p and q does not justify s totally in believing in h (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237).
Basically, their description of defeasibility is that when one defeats a justification then the other does not possess any knowledge. These two had an example of their assumptions of the counterarguments provided by Gettier. In most cases, a pyromaniac has always made use of Sure- Fire matches, and they are usually successful. One can, therefore, argue that this justifies him in believing that the match will ignite once he strikes it. Nevertheless, what happens when the match in question has impurities that make it impossible for it to ignite? What if something else ignites the match when he strikes it? His belief in the match igniting on striking has a justification, and he has a justification to belief in it. However, one cannot take this as knowledge as it is not the act of striking that ignites the match (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237). The justification of the pyromaniac gets defeated by the fact that ignition of the match will not result from striking it. This is the condition that Lehrer and Thomas were talking about, which is considerably true, and when used together with p, the evidence of this justification will not unreservedly satisfy s, or the pyromaniac in believing that the match, or h, will catch fire once he strikes it (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237).
This is how these two theorists assumed their defeasibility theory to work. They are trying to suggest that if there are any challenges or issues with justifying a claim then it will automatically get defeated. This theory does not allow us to come by knowledge by chance or luck. There, however, is a problem, and this has to do with the fact that this condition is extremely strict. Numerous things that should be taken or considered as knowledge cannot get a chance to be considered as such under these new conditions, and the theorists acknowledge this. This is because there are numerous reasons available for each justification that can defeat the justification because they are true, but they should also not defeat justifications (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237).
Suppose I have a considerable amount of evidence that train x will come by the station in thirty minutes. My evidence is that it says so on the station’s chart, and the clerk at the station confirmed it. Upon this evidence, I deduce that the train will be passing by my station in thirty minutes. I have a justification to believe that train x will pass by in thirty minutes, but suppose that adverse weather or an accident made the station cancel the time the train passes by my station that night. If I conjoin q with my justification then I will not have enough justification to believe h. even if I did not find information about cancellation my justification will still be defeated, but what if there truly was not accident or adverse weather, or what if the weather was miscalculate or someone was joking about the accident. I knew h all this time, but according to the arguments of Thomas and Lehrer, the conditions defeats my justifications (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237).
The two theorists solve this contradiction by revising their theory about defeasibility. They do this by adding another condition that one has to justify s perfectly in believing that q is not true. This alters the previously stated conditions in the following manner. When p fully justifies s in believing in h, q defeats the justification only if q is valid, s has complete justification to believe that q is not true and if the conjunction between q and p does not justify s fully believing in h, but why do we have to be fully justified in believing that q is not true? The defeating arguments or conditions must be relevant to my knowledge and my justification must result to me believing in a statement that is false or in believing in a statement that is true to be false (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237). This statement usually does not have to be part of the argument or condition that one lays out, but it is a statement that individuals have justification to believe. For instance, Smith has the justification to believe that it is Jones who will get the job, and that in his pocket are ten coins. The pyromaniac also has the justification to believe that the match will ignite, as a result, of him striking it. All these statements are false, but the owners have the justification to believe in them (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237).
The two theorists made the final revision to their defeasibility conditions. This revision argued that since we have complete justification to believe that q is false, the condition has no way of linking q to the argument in question. To this last revision they add a fourth conditions which argues that if q fully justifies s in believing in h then q only defeats this justification if c is a logical outcome of q in believing in h, then s is fully justified in believing that c is not true. Though these arguments of Lehrer and Thomas seem to overcome all of the challenges that they saw in their past theories, and their final theory seems to work considerably well with most of the counterarguments of Gettier, it is clear that their theory is too weak to some cases and strong in others (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237). Therefore, it not sufficient to solve the problem posed by the theories of Gettier. Besides the arguments of these two theorists, there are other theories one can use to solve these problems. One of these ways is by analyzing the belief condition. If one analyses this condition carefully, and looks at the counterarguments presented above, then s does not actually seem to believe in h. it seems that there are some elements that the theories we have seen leaves out about the beliefs s has on the situation. We actually considered these we would find that what we believed in is not true (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237).
For instance, if one thinks about it actually well, does it quite seem that Smith beliefs that the person who gets the job will have ten coins in his pocket? What would be more believable is that he believes that the name of the person who gets the job is Smith, and he will have ten coins with him. Nevertheless, this statement is not true as Jones does not get the job, and he does not even have the coins. In addition, in the case of the pyromaniac, the match lights because of some other reason other than the one, he believes in, which is the match, will ignite because he strikes it. This shows that s does not honestly believe in h, and we might even conclude that he has no idea what the h is. One of the theorists who raise this issue is don Levi one of his articles (Levi 45-65).
Though Gettier came up with an article that brought about numerous challenges and doubts about the definitions of knowledge and how we attain it, we can still make use of the arguments of the epistemologists to deduce a number of answers for the questions.
Works cited
Gettier, Edmund. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis 23 (1963): 121-23. Print.
Lehrer, Keith and Thomas D. Paxon, Jr. “Knowledge: Undefeated Justified True Belief.” The
Journal of Philosophy, 66.8 (1969), 225-237. Print.
Levi, Don S. “The Gettier Problem and the Parable of the Ten Coins”, Philosophy, 70, 1995. Print.
DIET AND DIGESTION SLQ 378
DIET AND DIGESTION
Name of student
Name of instructor
Course
Name of institution
Date
Diet and Digestion
The digestive tract is the body system that deals with the digestion of food. It is also called the digestive canal or the digestive tract. It runs like a tube from the mouth where food is introduced to the anus where the food remains, in the form of faeces leave the body. The digestive tract consists of organs and glands that assist it do its function. The organs and the glands have been modified to do their function. The glands produce digestive juices that aid in the digestion of food. This essay aims at exploring the structure and the function of the digestive tract. For a good discussion of the topic, essay divided into sections.
2.1 The need for the digestion of food for the purpose of both absorption and assimilation of nutrients.
The body cannot make use of the food that one eats without it being broken down to small molecules. There are various reasons why human beings consume food. Such include energy for carrying out activities and the energy needed for development and growth. Fats for deposition to provide protection is also extracted from the food particles. In addition, minerals and vitamins also have a role to carry out in the body and are also extracted from the nutrients. For the products of digestion to be useful to the body, the have to be broken down into smaller particles. Starch is absorbed in the form of glucose. Fats are absorbed in the form of fatty acids and glycerol (Hill n.d). Proteins are usually absorbed in the form of the final products of amino acids. The molecules of vitamins, minerals and water are absorbed in the smallest form. The purpose of digestion in the absorption is, therefore, to break down the food that is eaten to the simplest form that can be absorbed. The lining of the intestines is responsible for absorption. The poles through which the particles pass through during absorption are very tiny. These food particles, therefore, need to be broken down in order to pass through these poles to the bloodstream. The bloodstream is not the destination of the food molecules. They have to be assimilated into the cells of the tissues. This means that the molecules have to travel from the blood vessels to the cells. Only tiny molecules can pass through the semipermeable membrane of the cells. This shows the importance of digestion in terms of assimilation. Once inside the cells, the molecules have to be utilized by the cell for many functions. One of the commonest functions is the production of energy. This involves penetration of organelles like mitochondria which even have less tiny poles (Hill n.d). Digestion of food to produce the tiniest molecules is thus of vital importance for the purpose of assimilation and absorption.
2.2. Physical processes involved in digestion and their importance.
The first action in eating involves introducing food into the mouth through a process referred to as egestion. It is a process which makes use of the hands, and the opening of the mouth to receive the food. From the mouth to the intestines, the processes of physical and chemical digestion go simultaneously to complement one another in the digestion of food. This section looks at the physical digestion of food.
The first process after foo has been introduced into the mouth is mastication. It involves the teeth and the tongue, as well as, the walls of the mouth. The walls of the mouth are muscular, and they help in the mixing of food (ABPI 2012). Mastication involves breaking down of the ingested food into smaller particles using the teeth. It is accompanied by several other processes. Mixing of food is done by the tongue and the movements of the walls of the mouth. Chewing is another process that involves getting small particles out of the ingested food. The processes result into small balls of the ingested and masticated food that are referred to as boluses. The boluses are ready for swallowing.
Swallowing comes with another physical process of digestion referred to as peristalsis (ABPI 2012). It has also been referred to as propulsion. The walls of the gut contracts and relaxes enabling the food bolus to be propelled down the digestive canal. From the mouth to the stomach through the esophagus, it is the process of peristalsis that aids digestion. Physical digestion also takes place in the stomach. The walls of the stomach move by contracting and relaxing to aid in the churning of food and combining it with the digestive enzymes. At the intestines, the muscular movements are also present. The villi lining of the intestines also moves enabling separation of food particles easing absorption by the bloodstream. The release of digestive juices by the glands is also a physical process of digestion. An example is bile that is released by the gall bladder through the bile duct.
2.3. Sites of production of digestive juices and enzymes and their role in digestion.
Digestion cannot take place were it not for the digestive juices, hormones and enzymes that aid the process. The sites of production are located throughout the tract. In the mouth, digestive juices are produced by the salivary glands. There are three main salivary glands: the sublingual glands, the submandibular glands and the parotid gland. The salivary amylase is a digestive enzyme that aids in the digestion of starch. The enzyme also performs the function of moistening food so that swallowing would be easy.
The stomach lining is another site for the production of digestive juices. An example of an enzyme produced in the stomach is gastrin that digests protein. The walls of the stomach also produce an acidic medium that aids in the breakdown of food. The acid is bacteriostatic thus functions to kill the bacteria present in the food. Activation of protein-digesting enzymes is also achieved by the hydrochloric acid (Hill n.d). The lining also produces mucus. Mucus prevents self-digestion of the stomach wall. Intrinsic factor that is involved in the absorption of vitamin B12 into the intestines is also produced by the lining of the stomach.
Another production site for digestive enzymes is the pancreas. It produces sodium hydrogen carbonate which helps in the neutralization of hydrochloric acid that is produced in the stomach. Pancreatic amylase also produced in the stomach helps in the digestion of starch. Trypsin comes in the form of an enzyme that is produced in the pancreas that helps in the digestion of complex molecules of proteins into peptides. Pancreatic lipase is an enzyme also produced by the pancreas, and it helps in the digestion of fats into fatty acids and glycerol.
The gallbladder is also a site of production of digestive juice that is called bile. The goal bladder produces the juice and releases it through bile duct to the liver during eating. The bile performs the function of breaking down fat in the stomach.
The small intestine also counts as a site of production of digestive juices. The duodenal mucosa produces cholecystokinin, which is responsible for inhibiting the stomach’s secretory activity. It also produces secretin, a hormone that increases the production of bile when it acts in the liver. Histamine is a substance produced by the stomach wall (Santos and Danac 1999). It causes the stimulation of the release of hydrochloric acid from the inner wall of the stomach. The wall of the small intestine also produces a substance called gastric inhibitory peptide. Its role is to act in the pancreas to stimulate the release of insulin.
3.1. Main organs of the digestive system and their functions.
The mouth is the first recognizable organ of the digestive system. Its recognizable features are the tongue and the teeth. It is also endowed with salivary glands that produce saliva and digestive enzymes. The mouth starts the digestion process. Mastication, which is the most important process in physical digestion, takes place in the mouth. The digestion of starches begins in the mouth with the help of salivary amylase.
The esophagus is tube-like, and it joins the mouth to the stomach (Hill n.d). Its main role is the process of digestion to enable food to pass down to the stomach. It does the function through the process of peristalsis. In between the mouth and the esophagus, is the pharynx. It holds the epiglottis. It functions to prevent food from entering the windpipe during swallowing. The esophagus has muscular walls that enable it to perform the function of peristalsis by relaxing and contracting.
Stomach is a muscular bag that stores food for some time. Both physical and chemical digestion happens here. Mixing and churning of the boluses into boluses is done in the stomach. For it to conduct its function better, the stomach is endowed with muscular walls and has many layers making it elastic. The muscular walls contracts and relaxes to perform the functions of churning and mixing of food. Its walls are enriched with glands that produce digestive juices. The walls also have mucus that prevents auto digestion or damage by the hydrochloric acid (Sullivan 2004).
The intestines are divided into sections. There is the large, and the small intestine. The small intestine has the duodenum and the ilium. The small intestine performs most of the absorption. The action of the enzymes is also present in the intestines to aid digestion (Santos and Danac 1999). The lining of the intestines is endowed with millions and millions of microvilli that help with the process of absorption. The microvilli make movements that enable separate food particles for easier absorption. The wall of the intestine is muscular and has many layers as an adaptation to the process of absorption. The area underlying the microvilli is full of blood vessels and lymph vessels to maximize the surface area for absorption. Fats are absorbed through the lymph vessels. The intestine is also coiled to increase the surface area for absorption. This also ensures that food travel slowly through the intestine for easier absorption. The large intestine is divided into the transverse section, the descending section, the sigmoid colon and the ascending colon. It is performs the function of absorption of water (Waugh 2010). The large intestine also performs the function of holding faeces for some time before it is released out of the body. It also includes the anal canal, caecum and the appendix. The anal canal leads to the outside of the body. It completes the digestion process through the process of egestion. The muscular wall of the large intestine helps the process of movement of faeces and the process of egestion. Bacteria that can survive with oxygen, or without, are believed to reside in the large intestine (Sullivan 2004). They are responsible for the decomposition of faeces before it is expelled out of the body.3.2. Layers of gut wall, and relation of parts to function.
The histological structure of the gut wall is in such a manner that it favors the function that the structure should perform. Most of the organs are covered with a visceral peritoneum. The very inner layer of the canal wall is referred to as the mucosa. It performs the function of production of hormones, mucus and enzymes. It is responsible for the protection against disease, and absorption takes place in it. Submucosa is the layer below mucosa. It is rich in blood supply and lymph supply for the purpose of absorption. Muscularis externa is a layer of muscle whose function is segmentation and peristalsis (Waugh 2010). The outermost layer is referred to as serosa. Its main function is maintenance of stability and protection to the inner layers.
Every part of the digestive tract is adapted to its function in a particular way. For example, the mouth has the teeth, which perform the function of mastication. The esophagus has a strong muscular wall which performs the function of peristalsis. The muscular walls of the stomach enable it to perform the functions of churning and mixing of food. The endowment of the structures with glands enables the production of digestive juices and enzymes. The stomachs layer is fed with mucus that prevents self-digestion by the digestive enzymes. Small intestine has a number of adaptations too. It has many microvilli to maximize the area of absorption. It is also fed with many blood vessels in order to allow absorption to take place. It is also coiled allowing more area for absorption of nutrients. The large intestine is also coiled to enable it have a large surface area for absorption of water. Its muscular wall enables it to expel the end contents of digestion from the body (Waugh 2010).
REFERENCES
ABPI. 2012. Resources for schools: Diet and digestion. Retrieved online from HYPERLINK “http://www.abpischools.org.uk/” http://www.abpischools.org.uk
Hill, M. n.d. ‘Chapter five: Digestive system and nutrition’. Retrieved online from HYPERLINK “http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072347325/80938/mhb8ch05.pdf” http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072347325/80938/mhb8ch05.pdf
Santos, C.N. & Danac, C.A. 1999. Biology II for high school. Quezon City: Rex Bookstore Inc.
Sullivan, R.J. 2004. Digestion and nutrition. New York: Info base Publishing.
Waugh, A. 2010. Ross and Wilson anatomy and physiology in health and illness (11th ed). London: Elsevier.