Fujiyama Mama

Essay the second, and I'm out! See ya in September... (or later on today).

Bill Gordon puts up a pretty flimsy argument against the justification of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings by the U.S., but it seems to be only partly an argument. The title "Reflections on Hiroshima" says it all, as Gordon muses on aspects of the bombings without strongly comitting or convincing anyone.

He begins by exploring whether the bombings were justified. In his first argument he speaks about the "hatred" many Americans "must have felt" towards the Japanese during this time, referencing a 1945 poll in which 23% of people polled said they wished we had had time to use more A-bombs before VJ Day. While this is slightly barbaric, and reveals a technical racism in a quarter of the concensus, it pales in comparison to the war-like and racist sentiments of post 9-11 Americans, and just doesn't seem so shocking. He goes on to the "deeply prejudiced oppinions" of America's leaders, specifically President Truman. Quoting Truman's diary, the week before the big day, the Japanese people were "savages, ruthless, merciless, and fanatic." Gordon calls the American people and the government racist, and claims this made it easier for them to justify the bombings to themselves. Even if all this were true, it does not determine whether the bombings were justified or not. Gordon is not claiming the U.S. bombed Japan because we hate the Japanese, which would detract from justification, rather just that American prejudice made the bombings more palatable.

Then Gordon claims that the U.S. did not pursue adequate diplomatic ends to the war before resorting to the bombings. However, his premises don't support his conclusion. He talks about how Japan proposed a conditional surrender, where Emporor Hirohito would remain the nation's head. But the U.S. demanded an unconditional surrender. He claims that the U.S. should have been satisfied with the other demands being met, i.e. - complete disarmament, relinquishment of territory seized during the war, temporary occupation of Japan by Allied forces, and justice for war criminals, to name a few. But Japan refused, even after being warned, in writing, of "prompt and utter destruction" by the U.S. The U.S. made adequate attempts at diplomatic ends to the war, but Japan refused, knowing what would happen, or at least that something bad was going to go down. He caps off his anti-argument by stating that 90% of Americans polled supported the "unconditional surrender" policy, the people were behind it too.

Gordon then goes on to say that the motivation to drop the bomb was not military, but political. He says it was done not to win the war, but to keep Communist Russia out of post-war Japan and to give us a head start on the burgeoning cold war. Again, he mentions how popular the decision was, and how Truman had a real no-brainer. Give the people what they want and use the biggest, best weapon there is, which we spent two billion dollars on, and end the war, presumably forever. This is his best argument so far. If countless lives were sacrificed soley for the sake of the capitalist/communist pissing contest, then the use of the atomic bomb was not justified. Talking about how popular the decision was (without drawing attention to the previous "racist" argument) is not very convincing however.

Next, he talks about how he used to believe the bombings were justified, and actually gives a couple good arguments for that side, such as the A-bomb being a weapon of war like any other bomb, gun, etc... and the events shouldn't be judged any different than any other wartime killing, and the bombings ending the war actually prevented what may have been a larger number of total deaths. Then he says he doesn't think those things anymore, and gives two extremely brief but believable premises. That Japan was already on the verge of collapse, and expert leaders MacArthur and Eisenhower thought the bomb to be militarily unecasarry. This is his first sound argument against the necesity of the bombings, even if he couldn't rebuke justification. He knows it, and uses the ad hoc argument that even if Hiroshima was justified, Nagasaki was not, which clearly does nothing to prove that the bombings on Hiroshima were not justified.

At this point, Gordon perfoms a non sequitor and begins to talk about how various books and movies on the topic have effected him, discussing the medium's portrayal of the "human tragedy" caused by the bombings, physical, emotional, psychological, and the way it tore a country apart. This is merely an appeal to pity, tugging at the heartstrings in place of convincing.

Finally, Gordon proposes two alternatives to Truman's method, which was to use the A-bomb in the manner most effective from a military point of view to bring about prompt Japanese surrender while minimizing loss of American lives. Gordon's alternatives: either do not use the bomb militarily but make public the experimental results, supposedly scaring the Japanese reading about it or maybe seeing a video playback of a bomb going off into reconsidering their condition, or maintain as secret as possible and refrain from using the bombs in war, which would have been very humanitarian minded and karmically sound, but that's not the way history went, and does not effect whether dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was justified or necesary.

Check out this sweet new technology they have now: movies that don't actually move.

Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (2004)

Here's the first of two short essays I wrote for my "Critical Thinking" class in lieu of a final.

Yaser Esam Hamdi is a U.S. citizen. From 2001-2004 he was detained indefinitely for being an "illegal enemy combatant." He was detained without the benefit of presidential review, without an attorney, or hearing in front of a judge. Most appalling of all, he was detained by the U.S. government. Though this seems in direct violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Bill of Rights, garaunteeing due process to all alleged criminals, the government claimed it was constitutional. The crux of the Hamdi case lies in how one interprets the constitution.

Article II, Section 1 of the constitution states, "The executive power shall be vested in a President..." In this statement, the term "executive power" is ambiguous. It's meaning could forever be up for debate, but at its base, it gives the President the right to execute federal law. Article II, Section 2 states, "The President shall be commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the U.S." It is the combination of the two that allowed the administration to pervert justice. After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, a frightened, Republican congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Executing this law as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, the president claimed its action constitutional, i.e. - detaining any and all possible terrorists, for as long as necessary, as deemed so by the very same administration, regardless of evidence, and without representation. What this scenario does, essentially, is give the executive branch unlimited power to detain, and what's more, apparently allows a presidential trump of the Bill of Rights.

The problem for the President started when Hamdi attempted to file a writ of habeas corpus. He was picked up in Afghanistan 2001 by the Afghan Northern Alliance, who turned him over to the U.S. military during the U.S. invasion, claiming he was Taliban. Hamdi alleges he was there doing relief work. Without a trial or any representation, Hamdi was kept in Guantanamo Bay, then Norfolk, Virginia, then finally a brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Recognizing his rights as a U.S. citizen, Hamdi had his father file a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf. The District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Hamdi be allowed a public defender, but the government appealed and the higher Fourth Circuit court reversed the order, citing the District Court's overlooking "intelligence and security interests." With this near martial law set-up, it seems any right could be dismissed if "intelligence and security interests" were not fully accounted for.

The District Court naturally disagreed, claiming that the government's evidence for detaining Hamdi was very weak, based on hearsay and possible lies, and demanded documentation which would allow for "meaningful judicial review." Only then could Hamdi's "unlawful combatant" classification be legitimate. The government appealed and the Fourth Circuit responded in a way that only thinly veiled their evil intent, claiming the only concrete fact, that Hamdi was indeed captured in a foreign combat zone, warranted his status. Hence, if they captured a goat, or any given Afghan citizen, or me, or you in a foreign combat zone, we too are enemy combatants and subject to a very broad government's whims. Even more audaciously, the court claimed that under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and, of all things, the principle of separation of powers between the branches of U.S. government, that no court could hear cases which may interfere with national security, as deemed so by the very same administration. This, as the executive branch attempts to wrestle power away from the judicial.

The corruption is obvious. The current administration has done so much to demonstrate the executive branch's power over the Bill of Rights. But, it is unjust. The Bill of Rights in a stop-time representation of what some very brilliant, enlightened men thought universal moral truths would look like on paper. It's direct application in our government guarantees U.S. citizens these rights, universally. What's more, giving the President certain rights does not imply other's can be taken away.

When the lower courts could not decide, the case was brought before the Supreme Court. In an understandable eight to one margin, the court ruled in favor of Hamdi, that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without due process and a hearing in which he is represented in front of some kind of judicial review. Even though the court upheld these rights, they put a somewhat conservative limitation on what the rights entail. The burden of proof would not fall on the government to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Hamdi is an "unlawful combatant," and the trial need not be in front of a U.S. court, but rather by a military tribunal. One can't help but worry that these two ingredients could lead to kangaroo courts, detaining possibly innocent men.

The usually conservative Justice Scalia had the right idea, limiting the power of the executive branch back down to where is proper. Scalia claimed that the government had only two options if they wished to detain Hamdi. One, Congress could suspend habeas corpus if and only if there was an invasion or rebellion on U.S. soil, or two, try him under normal U.S. law, which they wouldn't do without evidence. Scalia felt that it is the court's job to deem the action unconstitutional, not to invent new procedure that would render the actions constitutional.

That is what it all comes down to. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Whether or not Hamdi is an enemy of the state is and has been irrelevant. That is to be decided by the courts, not the president, the press, or the public. As a U.S. citizen, he is entitled to the same basic rights as all of us. Likewise, if any U.S. citizen's rights are deferred, than so could yours or mine. By finding in favor of Hamdi, the Supreme Court protected our rights from our President.

PHIL105 "Critical Thinking" Test Today

Study guides are ultimate fun...

Explain why the mere fact that some datum is consistent with your hypothesis does not mean that it is not evidence against your hypothesis.

Because, if the probability of your hypothesis given the consistent data is less than the probability of any other hypothesis given the same consistent data, it is evidence for the other hypothesis, even if it's also consistent with your's. {P(e/not h) greater than P(e/H)} Consistent data is neither necesarily evidence for or against an argument.

What is an auxiliary hypothesis?

An auxilary hypothesis is a sub-conclusion in a complex argument. It is a conclusion that serves as a premise for another conclusion and must be true in order for the main hypothesis to be true.

Can a theory be weakened if auxiliary hypotheses are used to help the theory to accommodate a troublesome piece of data? Explain.

Yes, the more auxilary hypothesese introduced, the weaker an argument becomes. It's inherant probability lowers with each auxilary. For instance, the probability of (H1) is inherantly higher tha the probability of (H1 & A1) which is higher tha (H1 & A1 & A2) etc...

What is Occam’s razor? Explain its relevance to evidential arguments for God’s existence.

Occam's razor is the theory that favoring the simplest explanition is the preffered method. In reference to the evidential argument, it is pointed out that pain and suffering in the world are morally random. This makes metaphysical naturalism more likely, because if theism were the case, pain would be allotted to the morally negative, and pleasure to the morally good. Just the existence of evil in a world created by an all-good loving God seems contradictory. The simplest explanation of the moral randomness of suffering and pleasure is that there is no God to care about or regulate it. The probability of theism given the evidence of pain and suffering is less likely that the probabbilty of matephysical naturalism given the same evidence. {P(p&s/theism)less than P(p&s/metaphysical naturalism)} The theory that posits the fewest unknown entities or phenonmena wins.

Explain: For any datum e and hypotheses H1 and H2, e is evidence favoring H1 over H2 if and only if P(e/H1) > P(e/H2).

e is evidence for an hypothesis iff the probability of the hypothesis is higher given e is than the probability of the hypothesis alone. {P(H/e)greater than P(H)}
Conversely, it is evidence iff the probability of e given the hypothesis is greater than the probability if e given not the hypothesis, any other hypothesis.
Given two hypothesis, if the probability of hypothesis one given e is greater than the probability of hypothesis two given the data, than e favors hypothesis one by fifty percent or more. It has the most explanatory power.

Explain Draper’s formulation of the argument from God’s hiddenness.


Why, if God exists, can science ignore him and still explain so much, so successfully? Science has had extreme success using naturalistic explanations to solve life's mysteries, and given this evidence, it is less probable that theism is correct than it is that metaphysical naturalism is correct. (P(success of naturalistic explanations/theism) less than P(success of naturalistic explanations/metaphysical naturalism)

Explain the wider teleological argument for the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe.

Wider Teleological Argument -
The universe is made up of numbers, constants on which a livable cosmos depends. Humans can't theoretically predict these constants, they must be measured, experimented upon in order to know them. There is no necessity to the values these numbers have. If their values were any different, our cosmos would be unimaginably different and indeed unlivable, incapable of supporting rational animals who could even question the different universal constants.
Metaphor of the cosmos producing machine- machine with many dials that determine the base constant features of a cosmos. If dials were slightly differently set- no life. But our's is set to enable it to contain life.

Teleological Argument - Irrational objects act towards an end. Always behave the same way, the way that produces the best result. By design. An irrational thing can not direct itself. God directs it.

Proof of fine tuning argument is that the universe has been fine tuned. Since the large scale constants have been fine tuned for life, and rational life does exist, the life too must have been fine tuned by the same designer.

Teleological argument doesn't posit/prove omniscient, omnipotent, all-good god, eternal and perfect.

Objection - our fine tuned cosmos is no more or less likely than any other combination of constant dials.

Straw analogy. You're forced to draw a straw out of a trillion straws. Only one short straw, if you don't get it, you will cease to exist. You do get it! It is likely to conclude, given the infinite odds that the draw was not at random, but you were helped by some mysterious unseen benefactor. Is it unimportant because it was equally likely you'd draw one of the trillion minus one longer straws and cease to exist? If a very good explanation can be offered, it is preferable to no explanation at all.

Explain Van Inwagen’s "multiverse objection" to that argument. Explain the "this universe reply" to the objection.

MULTIVERSE OBJECTION -

The cosmos is only one in a vast number of actual cosmoi which exhibit a vast number of cosmos designs. Cosmos machine is random and non stop in producing cosmos, or a vast number of machines each producing a cosmos. With that many cosmos being produced, it stands to reason that some or at least one would be completely suitable for rational life. (We can not observe the cosmoi not suitable for such life. We can only see our cosmos - observational selection effect.)

Either this is the only cosmos which some rational being has fine tuned in such a way that it is suitable for life, or this is one out of a vast number of cosmoi, a few of which are suitable to life.
While van Inwagen admits that it is less likely that a designer designed given that at least one universe is life permitting than it is that there are random multiverses, he claims that it is more likely that a designer designed given this universe is life permitting than it is that there are random multiverses.

THE PROBABILITY CALCULUS.

restricted conjunction rule - P(A and B) = P(A) x P(B) independent events
general conjunction rule - P(A and B) = P(A) x P(A given B) events together, not independent
restricted disjunction rule - P(A or B) = P(A) +P(B) mutually exclusive events
general disjunction rule - P(A orB) =P(A) = P(B) - P(A and B) not mutually exclusive
negation rule - P(A) = 1 - P(not A)