Interesting Excellent topic related to Race in Research and Health Essay

Interesting Excellent topic related to Race in Research and Health care as summarized in reading Articles - Essay Example article, ‘The conceptualization and operationalization of race and ethnicity by health services researchers’ by Susan Moscou, the main focus is on the racial and ethnic variables. It is stated by the author that in the health services research industry, these two variables are the most common terms that are used and experienced by individuals (Moscou, 2008). It was revealed that race and ethnicity illustrated different meanings as both the terms were not operationalized. For this reason, the results showed that the subtext was unclear. Since the sample was from different geographical regions, therefore, the meaning of race and ethnicity in healthcare and research was different to the majority of them (Moscou, 2008). It should be noted that despite of the fact that all the participants had different perspectives and understandings of race and ethnicity, however majority of them believed that the race and ethnicity was a major cause of discrimination, marginalization, socio-economic disparity, etc. in healthcare and research. Similarly, race and ethnicity were also considered as genuine elements that have a major contribution regarding racial discrimination in the society, particularly the healthcare industry. Thus, the article concluded that the race and ethnicity do have negative impacts on the research and healthcare industry in a variety of ways. However, the work done by the author require further studies and advanced researches on the same subject so that the topic is analyzed deeply and in a much brief manner (Moscou, 2008). In the article ‘Racism in the Examination Room: Myths, Realities, and Consequences’ author Jeanette E. South-Paul has emphasized on the fact that the element of race does not have a good social history. To support her argument she has also referenced a few other articles that have also discussed the same idea. For example the article ‘Family medicine’ by Anderson, the core idea is similar to that that Jeanette’s

African American Social Standings Essay Example for Free

African American Social Standings Essay The progression of African Americans in America began with a practice called slavery. Slavery is the state of a person who is the chattel of another. It began in 1441 when Portuguese men kidnapped 12 black Africans from Cabo Blanco and moved them to Portugal. This opened the door to slavery in the Americas. A British statesman stated that Slavery is a weed that grows on every soil. The first African Americans slaves in America were brought to Jamestown, Virginia as servants and or slaves in August 1619. In order for slavery to work Africans had to made to seem inferior, one of the main an most common ways to show this was through religious racism ( Aretha, David pg. 21 ) The practice of slavery was then sent to the south were they were put on plantations. Plantations consisted of a large mansion like home surrounded by a large farm where slaves planted and harvested crops and performed other jobs which they werent paid for. While on the plantation the slaves called the owner Master or Mistress, they provided the slaves with food housing and clothing. ( David Brion Davis, World Book online Slavery) While on these plantations many of the slaves faced severe consequence for disobedience. They received consequences for not working hard or fast enough, they would also be used as an example in order to control the others. Their harsh punishment would include branding, whipping, mutilation, chaining and sometimes the harshest punishment of all cold blooded murder. Slavery was one of the worst periods in American history. During this period of slavery there were few revolts but many runaways. While slavery continued to spread and get more brutal in the South, the North disagreed with the idea of free labor. Their difference fueled the abolitionist movement. The Abolitionist Movement was the first movement that lead to the African Americans political and physical freedoms from slavery. Antislavery activity began in colonial days. During the 1680s, Quakers in Pennsylvania condemned slavery on moral grounds. In the late 1700s, several leaders of the American revolutionary movement, including Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, spoke out against slavery. (David Herbert Donald, World Book Online? Abolitionist Movement). During the start of the movement there were almost no public newspaper that publicized the abolishment of slavery. William Lloyd Garrison, an American journalist and abolitionist who became famous in the 1830 for denouncing slavery, published the first issue of his abolitionist newspaper The Liberator January 1st 1831, which was at that time the first Abolitionist newspaper. The reason William Garrison published the newspaper was because he was tired of the other methods that many abolitionists had tried. Garrison said slavery should be ended immediately. Another front runner during the Abolitionist Movement was Sojourner Truth. She was an ex-slave and also one of the main figures in the fight for womens rights and equality. On January 1, 1863, the Abolitionist goals were reached when President Abraham Lincoln the 16th president issued his Emancipation Proclamation. It read that all persons held as slaves in rebellious states are and henceforward shall be free (McPherson, James M. World Book Online? Emancipation Proclamation. ) . Around the same time Congress passed the 25th Amendment into Constitution which therefore abolished slavery. Months later it was ratified. Following the Emancipation Proclamation, The North (union) and the South (confederate) began a civil war which lasted from 1861 to 1865. The war ended with many of the major cities in the South in ruins and most of the Northern cities left untouched. The Reconstruction period in the U. S followed the Unions victory over the Confederate Army in the civil war . The period was used to rebuild the south and patch-up the relationship between the North and South. Along with rebuilding and patching up relationships, the North sent teachers to the south to educated the African American ex slaves who had became newly members of the society. The teachers taught ex slaves reading, writing an arithmetic. The Reconstruction Act called for a new Constitution to be established in each state. It also gave Freedmen the right to participate in voting. The 14th Amendment was also passed and ratified during the Reconstruction period. The 14th Amendment granted full citizenship to all people born or naturalized In the United States of America . Many of the laws passed during this period were set in place to protect the rights of former slaves, such as allowing blacks to vote an giving them many of the same rights as whites and protecting things dear to them such as property and money. During this period many advancements in society were made by African Americans, such as the Self-Leveling Table created by Charles William Allen , the corn planter check rower by Ralph W. Alexander and the spark plug by Edmond Berger these are only three of the more than 200 inventions/advancements made by African Americans during the reconstruction period. These African Americans, lead professions even when high limitations were placed upon them. (Aretha, David pg. 61) Advancements like these opened the door and let people know that African Americans were not incompetent but could actually make a difference in the world. Even though laws were set in place many southern whites still did not want to think an ex-slaves as anything close to equals. This lead to much violence and death of both whites and former slaves. In time, southern whites regained control of their state governments and took away many of the rights that blacks had won during reconstruction. ( Stephen V. Ash, Work book online? Reconstruction). After the Reconstruction period ended and the North soldiers returned back home, which left ex slaves with no form of protection lead to extreme backlash against the African American community by whites. Following the Reconstruction period Jim Crow laws came into effect. Jim Crow laws resulted from the support southern whites and their effort to maintain segregation of blacks. These type of laws plagued the United States during the 19th century. The first type of Jim Crow law was set in place in Tennessee which called for the separation of African-American and white riders on the railway. This practice was soon adopted by other southern states. The spread of segregation laws through the South was supported by a many Supreme Court decisions. ( Joe R. Freagin, World Book online? Segregation) The Separate but Equal Doctrine arose during the period in which Jim Crow laws were on a rise. The Separate but Equal Doctrine stated that African Americans were equal to whites but should be kept separate from whites. The separate but equal doctrine was totally incorrect. For example Blacks and whites were separated in schools but the white schools had busing an the best books and teachers on the other hand the black schools had run down classrooms and unacceptable books. Blacks and whites were also separated in eateries, the White restaurants had the best locations and best accommodations on the contrary the black restaurants were small and modest. Most of these Jim Crow laws were declared invalid by several Supreme Court decisions in the 1950s and 1960s and by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968. ( Alton Hornsby, World Book Online? Jim crow) During the 1950s the Civil Rights Movement took flight along with desegregation. The Civil Rights Movement was just that a movement towards civil rights which were stated to be The freedoms and rights that a person may have as a member of a community, state, or nation. (Bruce Allen Murphy, World Book Online? Civil Rights) The first major event of the civil rights movement was the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown vs. Board of Education, which desegregated public schools across the nation. Schools in the south were very slow in changing their ways and violence usually erupted when black students tried to register. Then, in 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, a seamstress named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus. After she was arrested for breaking the law, the Montgomery Bus Boycott began, For 382 days, from Dec. 5, 1955, to Dec. 20, 1956 blacks refused to ride Buses and carpooled to destinations. It ended Dec 20, 1956 with the Supreme-Court-ordering desegregation of Montgomery buses. The boycott brought fame to a reverend named Dr. Martin Luther King. During the Civil Rights Movement the most effective way to get things done many believed was through non violence. Non violence was not just a way of acting but a state of mind and doctrine which Martin Luther King Jr. took from Mahatma Gandhi he stated that with non violence you can move mountains. Some methods they used to get their point across were sit ins, boycotts, marches and public speeches. Although many activist believed in non violence there was another side to the Civil Rights Movement and that was the Black Power Movement. The Black Power Movement was a more radical movement than the Non Violent Movement. Front runners like Malcolm X and other influential faces such as Huey P. Newton and Bud Siegel who together formed the Black Panthers all believed that the white man was the problem and that in order to win equal rights that African Americans needed to start fighting fire with fire and bullets with bullets instead of the more passive ways of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. ( Aretha, Chronicles pr. 261-300) In conclusion I believe that the law has provided African Americans with equal rights as whites but I believe that they may still appear not to be equal. In the 21st century I believe and know that there are many laws that seem to make African Americans and white equals but there is still much discrimination in the world. I also believe that the racism is not as bad but still exist, it just isnt as blatant and in your face as it was in the past. African Americans still have trouble getting jobs, being accepted into organizations and colleges or university, But I do believe that we have made a 900 degree turn from the time where Colored and White signs decorated the front of every doorway, restroom and waterfountian in the southern U. S.

Understanding The Legal Systems Of The World Law Essay

Understanding The Legal Systems Of The World Law Essay I truly believe that our modern society needs Law. Laws are guidelines that set out appropriate behaviour, so we are required to follow this system of rules, in order to keep everything balanced and stabilized. Without the fulfillment of these desired tasks, man simply will become equal to animals or worse still, allow their darker sides to emerge and control their lives. Legal Systems of the World For this purpose every country has a certain system that the all citizens are required to obey: up to date there are about two hundred countries in the world and each of them makes its own Legal System that is based on certain characteristics and factors of the country. The Legal System consists of certain laws and rules that shape the citizens morality and behaviour in the society. There are many academic terms describing what legal system is but from my point of view the best one is the description by J.H Merryman: The three most widespread Legal Systems are: Continental Law Legal System, Common Law Legal System and Religious Law Legal System. Each of these legal systems is unique and has its own specific features and individual structure. Lets take a brief look on each system and see how systems differ from each other or discover their similarities. Common Law Legal System History, sources and structure The common law system prevails in Britain and its former colonies, including Australia, Canada, and the United States. Traditionally, the common law system, as the name implies, was governed not by a code, but by court-made law that developed incrementally over time. It is different from the civil-law system, which is introduced mostly in Europe and in areas colonized by France and Spain. The body of decisional law based largely on custom as declared by English judges after the Norman Conquest of 1066. The common law doctrine of following precedent, known as stare decisis remains an important component of both the English and American legal systems today. English common law was based primarily on custom, tradition, and precedent rather than a formal written legal code. Over centuries of experience, the common law became the major influence on the development of American criminal law both before and after the American Revolution. After the Revolution, the common law continued to be the basic law of most states. However, today almost all common law principles and rules have been enacted by legislative bodies into statutes with modern variations. ). One of the interesting characteristics of the system is that the common-law system allows judges to look to other jurisdictions or to draw upon past or present judicial experience for analogies to help in making a decision. T his flexibility allows common law to deal with changes that lead to unanticipated controversies. Civil Law Legal System History, sources and structure and developed in Continental Europe and around the world. It is divided into two branches: the codified Roman law and uncodified Roman law. The Differences and Similarities between the Legal Systems Common law and civil law legal systems share similar social objectives: individualism, liberalism and personal rights. A major difference between the civil law and common law is that priority in civil law is given to doctrine over jurisprudence, while the opposite is true in the common law: it finds in judge-made precedent the base of its law. The civil law doctrines function is to draw from cases the rules and the principles which will clarify and purge the subject of impure elements, and thus provide both the practice and the courts with a guide for the solution of particular cases in the future. The common law author focuses on fact patterns. He or she analyzes cases presenting similar but not identical facts, extracting from the specific rules, and then, through deduction, determines the often very narrow scope of each rule, and sometimes proposes new rules to cover facts that have not yet presented themselves. Common law jurisprudence sets out a new specific rule to a new specific set of facts and provides the principal source of law, while civil law jurisprudence applies general principles, and that jurisprudence is only a secondary source of law of explanation. Civil law judgments are written in a more formalistic style than common law judgments. Civil law decisions are indeed shorter than common law decisions, and are separated into two parts the reasons and the order. This is because civil law judges are especially trained in special schools created for the purpose, while common law judges are appointed from amongst practicing lawyers, without special training. The method of writing judgments is also different. Common law judgments extensively expose the facts, compare or distinguish them from the facts of previous cases, and decide the specific legal rule relevant to the present facts. Criminal Law and Civil Law Basic Information There are two branches of law: Criminal Law and Civil Law. That means that when a person breaks any law, he or she may be judged according to what branch of law it is. Criminal Law those laws for redressing public wrongs that injure society in general and Civil Law those laws for redressing private wrongs to individuals.  Civil law attempts to right a wrong, settle a dispute, or honor an agreement. The victim is being compensated by the person who is at fault, this becomes a legal alternative to, or civilized form of, revenge. Criminal law consists of two main branches substantive criminal law and procedural criminal law. Substantive criminal law prohibits certain forms of conduct by defining what acts constitute crimes and establishing the parameters of penalties. Procedural criminal law regulates the enforcement of the substantive criminal law, the determination of guilt, and the punishment of those found guilty of crimes. Criminal Procedure and Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure. The branch of the criminal law that deals with the processes by which crimes are investigated, prosecuted, and punished. Thus, procedural criminal law is the process followed by police and the courts in the apprehension and punishment of criminals from the filing of a complaint by a member of the public or the arrest of a suspect by the police, up to the time the defendant is sent to jail, or, if convicted, to prison. Civil litigation that deals with private disputes between parties is subject to the rules of civil litigation, sometimes referred to as civil procedure. Criminal cases, deals with acts that are offenses against society as a whole, such as murder and robbery, as subject to the rules for criminal law, and is also known as the rules of criminal procedure.

Werner Heisenberg :: essays research papers

Werner Heisenberg One cannot fully appreciate the work of Werner Heisenberg unless one examines his contributions in the context of the time in which he lived. Werner Karl Heisenberg was born in Wuerzburg, Germany, on December 5, 1901, and grew up in academic surroundings, in a household devoted to the humanities. His father was a professor at the University of Munich and undoubtedly greatly influenced young Werner, who was a student at the Maximilian Gymnasium. Heisenberg had the opportunity to work with many of the top physicists in the world including Niels Bohr and Max Born. Like many of the top physicists of the time Heisenberg received his doctorate at an early age. In Heisenberg's case he received it at the young age of twenty three. Heisenberg was not just a researcher. He was also a professor and author. During his career he taught at many prestigious universities, including the Universities of Leipzig, Goettingen, and Berlin. He also wrote many important books including, Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, Cosmic Radiation, Physics and Philosophy, and Introduction to the Unified Theory of Elementary Particles. In 1932 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in Quantum Mechanics. With the Nazi's in power, and World War two on the horizon it was inevitable that his German heritage would play a crucial role in his career. Before Germany's blitzkrieg on Poland Heisenberg decided to make one final visit of his friends in the West. Many tried to convince him to stay and accept a professorship at Columbia, but Heisenberg declined. He felt that it was his duty to preserve the foundation of science in Germany during the war. He also believed that by staying in Germany during the war, he could help individual German scientists. In fact, he did offer jobs to Jewish scientists when they were fired from their posts at other universities. As time passed, Heisenberg found that he was powerless to protect his friends. Heisenberg himself was personally attacked, and his appointment at the University of Munich was blocked. For over a year Heisenberg was attacked in the SS newspaper, which referred to him as a "white Jew." The attack became so threatening that Heisenberg's mother, who had a slight connection to Himmler's family, wrote to Himmler's mother asking Himmler to intercede. Himmler personally cleared Heisenberg of the charges leveled against him a year later, but he was told to study science and avoid discussing scientists. The strain of the investigation surely affected Heisenberg's creativity. During the war Heisenberg worked on the German A-bomb project along with a number of other German scientists.

European Government and Politics Essay

The three forms of government that will be examined in this paper include broadly, the Parliamentary system and the Presidential systems existing in Britain, France and Germany. Any comparative study of governing institutions involves an understanding of the governing institutions prevailing in different countries. All governmental institutions comprise a Legislature, an Executive and a Judiciary. Differences between governmental institutions primarily lie in how these three organs of government are related to each other and the extent of their functions. Traditionally, Britain consists of a parliamentary form of government. A parliamentary government is one where the most important and powerful office belongs to the prime minister. In this form of government, the legislature and the executive arms of the government are closely related, with the executive being involved in the working of the legislature and the executive being formed out of the legislature. In Britain, the legislature comprises the two houses of government, that is, the House of Lords (the upper house) and the House of Commons (the lower house). The House of Lords is a non-elective body and consists of both hereditary and life members who are called ‘Peers’. The strength of the House of Lords is over 900 members and a quorum of 30 members is the minimum for conducting proceedings in the House. The House of Commons comprises the elected representatives of the country. Since Britain has a bi-party system, members of the legislature mainly come from the two major parties, namely, the Labour and the Conservative. Elections for forming the government are held every five years and the party that secures a majority of votes polled forms the government with the leader of the party assuming the post of prime minister. It falls upon the prime minister to form the executive and he appoints his ministers and Cabinet members with the approval of the British Monarch. While the monarch and the prime minister together form the executive in Britain, the monarch is the constitutional head of the government and his powers are mostly ceremonial. It is the prime minister who is the real head of the government. However, there is a close collaboration between the prime minister and the monarch with the prime minister having to meet with the monarch and discuss matters relating to the running of the government. The House of Commons is more powerful than the House of Lords and money bills can be initiated only in the House of Commons, thus the lower chamber of parliament controls the purse of the government. The judiciary is the third organ of government. In the United Kingdom, there is no single judicial system and the judiciary of Britain consists of the judiciary of England and Wales. The House of Lords is the highest court of appeals both in civil and criminal cases. Since Britain does not have a written constitution, there is an absence of the system of ‘judicial review’ which enables the judiciary to act as the interpreter and guardian of the constitution. The courts in England therefore cannot decide on the merit of any law passed by the parliament. An important feature of the judicial system in Britain is ‘rule of law’ which implies that every person is governed by the same law, punishment is meted out only if a breach of law has been committed and the law protects the freedom and rights of the person. The British courts use three types of laws – the Cannon law, the Statutory law and the law of Equity. The judiciary functions on the basis of a jury system and open trial. Germany : In Germany, which is a Federal Parliamentary Democratic Republic, the parliamentary system of government prevails. In contrast to the two forms of governmental systems discussed above, Germany has a multi-party system unlike Britain and similar to that existing in France. In other words, while the political system in Britain is dominated by two major parties, in Germany there are several parties that contest elections. Among these the two main parties are the Socialist Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Union. The other parties such as the Alliance 90 or the Greens, the Free Democratic Party and Delinke support the SPD or the CDU. Another important characteristic is that in Germany, coalition politics has dominated and the SDP and CDU, despite being dominant, have failed to secure a complete majority in the elections. Therefore the other parties have systematically supported either the SDP or the CDU in forming the government. The constitutional framework adopted in 1949 known as the Grundgesetz, or the basic law, has been in effect even after 1990. The executive in Germany is comprised of the Chancellor who is equivalent to a prime minister and holds office for a period of four years and the President who holds office for a period of five years. The Chancellor is the head of the government while the President is the head of the state. Like a parliamentary system, the executive functions in close collaboration with the legislature. The legislature in germany consists of the Federal Diet or the Bundestag and the Federal Council or the Bundesrat. The Bundestag is a directly elected body through the system of proportional representation. The Bundesrat consists of the representatives of the 16 federal states who are also members of the state Cabinet. The Bundestag has the power to remove the Chancellor by passing a motion of no-confidence. The judiciary in Germany is independent of both the executive and the legislature and follows the concept of Judicial Review. Almost all state actions are therefore subject to interpretation by the courts. In Germany, a complex and hierarchical system of appeals exists with separate branches dealing with administrative, taxation, labour and security aspects. In addition, there exists a Constitutional Court which handles violation of constitutional rights after the regular appeals system has been exhausted. France : Arguably, France is the seat of modern democracy following the French Revolutions of 1789. Like Germany, politics in France in its present form is of recent origin from 1958 to the Fifth Republic. While the government in Britain and Germany is Prime Ministerial, the French government is semi-Presidential. In effect the executive arm of the government consists of two heads of government where the President is the head of state and the Prime Minister is head of government. On the other hand, unlike in Britain and very much similar to Germany, France has a pluralist and multi-party system of politics. The French Presidency is the oldest in Europe. France has had five Republics and the powers and functions of the President has varied in these five Republics. Parliamentary system of government was in order in the Third and Fourth Republics which made the presidential office a nominal one, where as in the Fifth Republic, the President has been vested with more powers. Thus, although there exist two heads of government, the President is more powerful in comparison to the prime minister unlike in a parliamentary system. In addition, where as previously the Presidential tenure was seven years,, it has been cut down to five years. The prime minister is the leader of the majority party or coalition and can be appointed by the president indefinitely. He has no fixed tenure. The prime minister forms and heads the Council of Ministers whose sessions, in turn are chaired by the president. The legislature consists of the National Assembly which is the lower house and represents single-member constituencies and the Senate which is the upper house and represents mainland France and its 13 overseas territories. The lower house is in charge of conducting the daily proceedings of the government while the Senate looks after constitutional and foreign matters. The judiciary in France is composed of a two-tier system, one relating to the judicial branch dealing with civil and criminal law and the other relating to the administrative branch. France has a written constitution and therefore laws can only be interpreted by the judiciary in accordance with the process of judicial review. The Cour de Cassation is the highest court of appeals which is headed by six chief judges appointed by the president. All judicial appointments to the Supreme Court are appointments for life and all former French presidents are de jure members of the Constitutional Court. In conclusion, it can be said that the merits of the presidential system involving a fixed tenure and separation of powers and more important than a parliamentary system. Similarly, a multi-party system offers more representation and accountability than a bi-party system. Refernces Curtis, Michael & Ammendola, Guiseppe. (2002) Western European Government and Politics. Longman.

300 †Rationalism vs Empiricism †Summary and History Essay

What is reality really like? A current running through much of the philosophical thinking around the time of Socrates and Plato was that there is a difference between how the world appears and how it is. Our senses reveal one layer of reality but it is our minds that penetrate deeper. The world of appearances is a world in flux but underneath there must be a stable reality. For there is much that is unchanging. We recognise kinds of things – badgers, daffodils, mountains – and whilst members of these kinds are born, change and die, and differ from one another in ever so many ways, the kind-defining essence doesn’t change. We see here the key rationalist idea that knowledge is a priori knowledge of necessary truths Plato said that kinds were defined by the transcendental forms. He presented a number of arguments for the existence of these things. Prior to our incarnation, our souls existed in the realm of forms where we learned about these essences. In our terrestrial state, we cannot recall what we know. Socrates considered himself a â€Å"midwife to knowledge† instead of a teacher, helping his interlocutors to draw out what they don’t know that they know. The example of Meno and the slave-boy shows this idea clearly. Like many philosophers, Plato was also fascinated by mathematics. We are able to tap into a universe of truths that are non-sensible: we do not see numbers and we do not see the perfect geometric forms. Once again, we see the difference between the powers of the mind and the powers of the senses. It was in the 17th century that the debate between the rationalists and the empiricists came to a head. Philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz emphasised the power of reason over the senses. Descartes argued that our senses were fallible and that we could not rule out the possibility of the demon deception hypothesis on the basis of sensory evidence alone. Descartes argued that he knew he existed, as a mind, on the basis of reflection alone: when I think, I cannot fail to be aware of myself as existing as that thinker (cogito, ergo sum). Having proved that he exists, Descartes argued that God exists. Since God is no deceiver, he would not have given us senses that systematically mislead. But let us not overemphasise the powers of the senses. Descartes argued that even with material things, it is reason that exposes their essences. In his piece of wax reasoning, he argued that the senses merely reveal a succession of impressions: it is reason that grasps the underlying and enduring substance as extended (and filled space). Plato and Descartes believed that we are born with concepts and knowledge. In Descartes’ case, there was a religious motive: we are all born in the image of God. We discover more about the world primarily through metaphysical reflection. The philosopher Francis Bacon, an early empiricist, famously dismissed this rationalist approach to knowledge. He compared rationalists to spiders who spin â€Å"complex metaphysical systems out of their entrails†. Empiricists get their hands dirty: like bees gathering pollen, they gather knowledge about the world and only then reflect on it. Around the same time as Bacon, many new discoveries were being made that shook the prevailing views of reality. The Earth was dethroned from its position at the centre of the universe by Copernicus. A new star (a supernova) was observed by Tycho Brahe in 1572 – yet the heavens were supposed to be timeless and unchanging. Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter – again, everything clearly didn’t revolve around the Earth. Later in the 17th century, scientist-philosophers such as Newton, Boyle, Gassendi and Huygens would revolutionise our understanding of reality. The original empiricist manifesto was written by John Locke. In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he sought to show how a mind that was blank at birth – a tabula rasa or blank slate – could come to be filled. His first targets were the innate concepts and knowledge (‘ideas’) of the rationalists. There are no such things. There are no truths everyone agrees on. Many people fail to grasp the supposed metaphysical truths. Instead, our senses deliver ideas to us. We store them, abstract from them to form general ideas, and compound and mix them to generate new ideas. Like Lego bricks, we build the meagre sensory data into ever more complex structures. Even Leibniz thought Locke was onto something here. He claimed that our minds were like blocks of marble that had to be carefully chiselled at to reveal the hidden structure (the innate truths). It is hard work and not everyone will end up well-chiselled. Hume took empiricism to its limit. Where Locke talked indifferently of ideas, Hume distinguished impressions and ideas. Impressions are the direct deliverances of the senses and are forceful and vivid in comparison to ideas, which are the copies our minds makes. (He also agreed with the Empiricist Berkeley that Locke’s theory of general ideas was wrong. We do not abstract from particular ideas to a general idea but use a particular idea in a general way via a general name. ) What about the precious necessary truths philosophy is supposed to study? Locke argued that once we have ideas in our mind, our mind will perceive the necessary connections between them – e. g. that a triangle has internal angles that add to 180o? But where does the idea of necessity come from? Hume provided an answer. He distinguished statements into two categories: those expressing relations of ideas (analytic) and those expressing matters of fact (synthetic). The analytic truths express mere definitions: we simply are aware of an association between terms. The synthetic truths are the contingent truths. So what happens to interesting necessary truths, such as God exists or nothing exists without being caused to exist? Hume argued that if these weren’t analytic – and they aren’t – they aren’t necessary. We feel that they are necessary and this is all necessity is: a psychological property. When we say that X caused Y, we think we have said something about the universe. We think we have seen an example of a law of nature (e. g. the water in the bucket froze because it was cold exemplifies the law water freezes at 0oC). Science investigates these laws. Hume said that causation was â€Å"all in the mind†. We see one thing after another and when we’ve seen instances of a regularity enough, we develop the feeling that one thing must be followed by the other. Hume, like Locke, emphasised how all we can be certain of are our impressions – how the world seems. Scientists are really investigating how the world appears: they can never be certain that the world really is the way it appears. So, empiricism seems to lead straight to scepticism about the external world. Kant objected strongly to this. Science really is studying the external world and there really is an external world for it to investigate. Kant brought about a revolution in philosophy (he called it a â€Å"Copernican revolution). He argued that the empiricists and rationalists were both right and wrong. The Empiricists were right: science requires the study of the world and the world is brought to us via the senses. The Rationalists were right: our mind is not blank but contains structures that enable us to interpret the stream of data from the senses. We may liken the mind to a mould and the data to jelly: one only has something structured by combining both. Or: the mind is a computer with an operating system and the data is the input from the user. A computer with just an operating system is inert. A computer into which data is inputted but which has no operating system is just data: it cannot be interpreted. Only when you combine both do you get something useful. Our minds contain the â€Å"structures† for space, time, objects and causation, for example. (In Kant’s terminology, space and time are the pure forms of intuition whereas the structures for objects and causation are pure concepts of the understanding. ) This means that we experience a world of spatio-temporally located objects in which causation happens because this is how our minds make it appear. Does this mean that the world as such is â€Å"all in the mind†? Or is the mind somehow â€Å"tuned† to the structure of reality, so that our pre-programmed minds mirror the structures of reality? This is a very difficult question over which there is no agreement amongst experts. The Empiricist movement came back with a vengeance in the 20th century. Philosophers such as Bertrand Russell agreed with Hume that our knowledge begins with our knowledge of sense-data (classical empirical foundationalism). Armed with new discoveries in mathematics and logic, and backed by the successes of science, the logical positivists argued that the only proper way to investigate the world was the scientific way. If I say p and p is synthetic and there is no objective, scientific way to verify my claim that p, then my claim is meaningless. (This is the celebrated verification principle). So, if it is true that there atoms, we should be able to find empirical – sensory – evidence of them. If it is true that nothing happens without being caused to happen, then we likewise need scientific evidence for this. We cannot discover whether it is true by pure reason. The Logical Positivist movement failed. There is much that seems meaningful that is not objectively verifiable by the senses, such as the occurrence of private sensations. The principle makes it impossible for general claims such as â€Å"all mammals are warm-blooded† to be true, as we cannot verify all of them. The very verification principle itself fails its own test! The Logical Positivists responded by watering down their principle: a meaningful claim is one we could gather some evidence for in principle and the principle itself is special – exempt from this rule. But it was not enough. (* Then Quine argued that the fundamental division between analytic and synthetic sentences was incorrect. Analytic sentences cannot be false. But no sentence enjoys this privilege. As we learn more and more, truths we thought were beyond doubt are rejected. Once upon a time, we would have thought it analytic that no object can be in two places at once or that there is no fastest velocity. Quantum physics and general relativity theory show that they are not true. Instead, we should have a â€Å"web of belief†. At the centre are those sentences least likely to be revised – our â€Å"core beliefs†. As we move out, we find those sentences that would be easier and easier to accept as false – that would cause less and less disruption to the rest of what we believe. ) In the 1950s, Chomsky became famous for suggesting that we are not born as blank slates when it comes to language. We are born knowing the fundamental structures of human language. When we are young, we hear our mother tongue and use our knowledge of language to pick up our language very quickly. (At 24 months, the average child understands 500-700 words; at 36 months, 1000; at 48 around 2500-3000; at 60 around 5000 words: that’s around 7 words a day between 3 and 6). More recently, studies have shown that children are born with brains structured to â€Å"expect† the world to behave in certain way. Very young children expect objects to persist over time: not to disappear and reappear at two different places, for example. Is this a revival of rationalism? Not according to many people. Rationalists argued that we had innate concepts and knowledge. By reflection, we can discover them and manipulate them to gain new knowledge. But our â€Å"knowledge of language† is altogether different. None of us can easily articulate the rules we follow in generating syntactically-correct English. (And certainly none of us at all can articulate the â€Å"common structure rules† to all human languages. ) Our brains are certainly pre-programmed, but only perhaps in the same way that a computer is pre-wired: clearly something has to be there but nothing as advanced as software. So where are we today? No side is â€Å"victorious†: this would be to grossly over-simplify the debate between the empiricists and the rationalists. We definitely have minds in some way â€Å"ready† to receive the world – hardly surprising, perhaps, given the time it has taken for us to evolve. But when it comes to working out what is true? Few philosophers are rationalists in the old-fashioned way. There is no sharp division between metaphysics and science: our study of reality cannot be done from the armchair alone. But our capacity to grasp abstract mathematical truths has always been difficult to explain from an empiricist perspective. We seem to have an access to a mathematical realm and a cognitive or intuitive access instead of a sensory one. You can’t see numbers, after all, and it is not easy to say what we could â€Å"see† that would lead us to generate the ideas of numbers.