Wednesday, 27 January 2010

Apple launch 2010 Ipad!

Today at the big `Apple launch 2010 press conference´ The all new Ipad was Revealed
Check it OUT!: Here!

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

“What is a worldview and what does changing your worldview involve”
What is a Worldview? Well the dictionary says:

worldview |ˈwərldˌvyoō| (also world view)
a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world : a Christian worldview revolves around the battle of good and evil.

And Wikipedia:
World view
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[1] The term is a loan translation or calque of German Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ( listen), composed of Welt, 'world', and Anschauung, 'view' or 'outlook'. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.

The worldview or your worldview, because it’s your opinion what really matters if someone ask you “what is the point of seeing the world? Many things have a roll in how you see the world; Country, Religion, Family, gender, Habits, traditions, culture, hometown, and many other things. Ex:

I’m a guy from Denmark, a small rich country, we are Christians but it’s the fewest people that take the religion serious in Denmark. In Denmark we are very patriotic, we like to put everything that means just for the smallest thing or victory for our country on a pedestal. Yes we are actually very nationalistic. And we are afraid of changes, if it means we have to give something away like soldiers life, Oil etc. I have a wealthy and healthy family and I would never have to go to bed hungry, I got a computer and luckily I was raised by both my blood parents whom is not divorced.
All this have an affect on me and how I see people in other situations, how I see other societies religions etc., and therefore my worldview may be different to a guy in another country, different to my friends from the same town as me and even I’ve got a different point of view on the world than my own mother and father.

My World view: I really think that religion is cool and it explains many things that the humans have sat questionmark to, but then again I think some people take their religion to serious and let the religion take complete control over your life and in some cases destroy it, like Jehovah witnesses: where they have no Christmas, the kids never gets presents, and even if they would like to make changes in their life and convert to Christians, they will get thrown out of their family AND the society. And when Islam with their religion thinks they are so much better and think they have to kill us all to make the world a better place?
If I should look, down from the sky and on the World. I would say the Humans are the stupidest species on earth: We should be the protectors of the earth, and try keep everything cool. But instead we destroy it. And we keep destroying it, mainly because of the Chinese who just don’t want to be friends with the rest of the world, and the American who just are to fat and stupid…

Everybody is changing their worldview all the time, I think one of the main things that changes our Worldview is the media, it’s the only open line to the rest of the world when you sit on your ass in front of the television the bad things about this is that the media mainly focus on bad stuff in the world and that might drive you to too hasty generalizations and if the media only focus on terrorists from Iraq you might think that everyone from Iraq is a terrorist and that everyone from Iraq is dangerous to be in the same room with. Now that is far from true, so it’s important that you don’t let your worldview change too quick and that you can filter the information given to you. Another way to really change your point of seeing the world is in the school and through your education, I think that the school is here to teach is neutral information about the world and teach us how to filter neutral information from opinion filled information which is more likely to take, because then we don’t have to think by our self, the point of view is already given.

Tuesday, 19 January 2010

Monday, 18 January 2010


Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination.
Fatalism generally refers to several of the following ideas:

1.A flawed perception of the consequences of exercised free will, ignorance, and forgetfulness.
2.That free will does not exist, meaning therefore that history has progressed in the only manner possible. This belief is very similar to determinism.
3.That actions are free, but nevertheless work toward an inevitable end. This belief is very similar to compatibilist predestination.
4.That acceptance is appropriate, rather than resistance against inevitability. This belief is very similar to defeatism.

Saturday, 16 January 2010


nas*cent |ˈnāsənt; ˈnasənt|

(esp. of a process or organization) just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential : the nascent space industry.
• Chemistry (chiefly of hydrogen) freshly generated in a reactive form.
nascence noun
nascency noun
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from Latin nascent- ‘being born,’ from the verb nasci.

Fallacy of Accident

The logical fallacy of accident, also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, is a deductive fallacy occurring in statistical syllogisms (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to the generalization is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation.
For instance:

Cutting people with a knife is a crime.
Surgeons cut people with knives.
Surgeons are criminals.

It is easy to construct fallacious arguments by applying general statements to specific incidents that are obviously exceptions.
Generalizations that are weak generally have more exceptions (the number of exceptions to the generalization need not be a minority of cases) and vice versa.
This fallacy may occur when we confuse generalizations ("some") for categorical statements ("always and everywhere"). It may be encouraged when no qualifying words like "some", "many", "rarely" etc. are used to mark the generalization.
For example:

Germans are Nazis

The premise above could be used in an argument concluding that all Germans or current Germans should be held responsible for the actions of the Nazis. Qualifying the first term:

Some Germans are Nazis

This premise may make it more obvious it is making an (extremely weak) generalization and not a categorical rule.
Related inductive fallacies include: overwhelming exception, hasty generalization. See faulty generalization.
The opposing kind of dicto simpliciter fallacy is the converse accident.

Friday, 15 January 2010

No true scotsman fallacy!

No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy where the meaning of a term is redefined to make a desired assertion about it true. It is a type of self-sealing argument. The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew , Thinking About Thinking (1975)
A simpler rendition often given follows:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.

Student: But my Scottish uncle Scotty McScottscott doesn't like haggis!

Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

This is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy is employed to shift the definition of the original class to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it.
A universal claim is of the form "All x are y" or "No x are y." In the example above, the universal claim is "No Scotsmen are brutal maniacal rapists." The counterexample is given by the Aberdonian, who, it is implied, is a brutal maniacal rapist. The response relies on a continued insistence that No Scots are brutal maniacal rapists, and to thus conclude that the brutal maniacal and rapacious Aberdonian is no true Scot. Such a conclusion requires shifting the presumed definition of "Scotsman" to exclude all brutal maniacal rapists.
In situations where the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the "no true" construction is not a fallacy of this kind. For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is the single thing that precisely defines a person as a vegetarian. In this phrase the qualifier "true" is a comparison to, e.g., "a pretending vegetarian".