Production Chain and Sector Matrix Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Production Chain and Sector Matrix - Essay Example 13) in firms. In reaction to the low profits and high cost of capital in the 1980s and 1990s, several firms embarked on a wave of financialisation - creating, buying, or expanding financial subsidiaries to acquire financial assets - for the purpose of giving management greater flexibility in managing earnings, creating shareholder value, and satisfying the capital markets (p. 34). Most publicly listed firms, therefore, were "pressured" to show good results on a regular basis using the basic language familiar to capital markets: stock price reflects shareholder value that is a function of operating efficiency, lower expenditures, growth in turnover and earnings, and a steady flow of dividends. The more consistent the numbers, the better, as Froud et al., (2005) pointed out in their study of the American company GE. The main challenge to managements in a financialised universe of firms was to make ambitious strategic plans and deliver consistently on their promises. Firms became slaves to a ruthless capital market that, with a single recommendation, can punish poor performers by depressing a firm's stock price and raising its cost of capital. In a world obsessed with financial performance, managements searched for suitable analysis and planning tools. The production chain and the sector matrix were two of the many that, in this age of globalisation and management fads, were developed to help firms map out value-creation strategies. We explain each briefly, then compare and differentiate them with examples. The Matrix The matrix is a strategic tool that presents in a grid or table the strategic factors affecting the firm. The coordinates of the grid can vary, as shown in examples of two well-known models. The first is H. Igor Ansoff's product/market expansion grid or matrix (Ansoff, 1957) that recommends four strategies (market penetration, market development, product development, and diversification) a firm can adopt to grow or increase its turnover depending on the life cycle of the firm's new or current products and markets. The other is the Boston Consulting Group's Market Growth-Share matrix (Henderson, 1970, 1976a, 1976b) designed to help the firm identify businesses/product types by market share (an indicator of the firm's ability to compete) and market growth (indicator of market attractiveness). Firms, in effect, can manage their businesses as a portfolio of investments, much like a bank or an investor would hold, buy, or sell financial instruments. Firms that want to grow should hold or buy stars (high growth and high share businesses) or cows (low growth, high share, cash generating businesses), sell dogs (low growth and share), and think of what to do with question marks (high growth, low share, needs cash injections, but risky). Example of Matrix Use A prime example of how the matrix was used for strategic management is recounted in the study (Froud, et al., 2005, pp. 8 and 38) of General Electric (GE) that, with the help of consulting firm McKinsey and Co., adapted the BCG matrix and developed its own Nine-Cell Industry Attractiveness-Competitive Strength Matrix (Thompson and Strickland, 2001, 327-330), a three-by-three grid that mapped out alternative business positions and attractiveness of markets, on which are superimposed several scaled circles representing different markets and their sizes and showing the firm's market share within each market (See Figure 1). [Insert Figure 1 here] GE claimed that the matrix provided at a glance

Career Development Plan Essay Example for Free

Career Development Plan Essay The recent merger of InterClean and EnviroTech (ICET) has opened many opportunities for employee promotions. In an effort to stimulate our employees, focus on their strength and talents, and teach them new skills that will assist in our overall success, management has decided to revamp the way training’s been done in the past by implementing a new training performance format. Our new training module will focus on sanitation standards, communication, customer service and satisfaction and networking. The program will consist of 9 steps that will key in on industry knowledge. The training format will consist of new training evaluation and mentoring needs, focus on objectives of training and mentoring, reviewing performance standards, analyze delivery methods, examine contents for training and mentoring, address time frames and evaluation methods, feedback, and lastly explore alternative avenues for further development. Once this program is implemented, we believe our employees will develop an expertise in their respective areas that will have a positive impact in ICET’s organizational competitiveness, performance and productivity. The new training and mentoring needs The new training format will impact the way ICET does business. The focus of the new three week training will be to teach our sales associates about sanitation standards, communication, customer service and satisfaction and networking. Each step in the new training format will help us attain overall success that will benefit the employee and our company as well. However, training alone will not offer one on one simulation. Therefore, we are implementing a mentoring program that will give employees accessibility to learn and work with mentors that have specific knowledge about interested areas for a period of six month to ensure well rounded working knowledge from key experts. Objectives of the training and mentoring program The objective of training will be vital to attain future success. Therefore, the first objective will be to learn about the sanitation standards and regulations so that we will be well informed as we cross over into health care service solutions. The second objective we will focus on is communication. The key concentrations will be listening, and planning to attain effective decision making. The third objective will be customer service and satisfaction as related to personal attention and quality service and lastly the fourth objective will be on the importance of networking to build relationships with key industry contacts. With regards to the mentoring program our focus will be to combine all the aforementioned above that will blend with our new mentoring program. This will allow employees to focus on their specific career development goals they would like to accomplish within the organization by working aside once a week for six month period with a mentor that is an expert in the chosen area. Performance standards The performance standards will be rated based on job role expectations. The indicators for example in sales will be based on revenue generated. This will be measured by how many sales deals were closed and the type of products. Market integration or expansion also be measured. Here the ability to find new perspective customer or even cross over into other types of health care businesses such as nursing homes or medical rehabs will be taken into evaluated and lastly customer retention based on quality customer service and feedback will also be considered. We feel all expectations will be reasonable and attainable once training is completed. Delivery methods Delivery methods are vital when training is being implemented. The focus is to keep the trainee interested and integrated during training. Therefore, we will focus on three training methods; experimental, integrative and reinforcement. For sanitation standards we will train with fact sheets, videos and or pamphlet and booklets. This will fall under the reinforcement methods. For the communication objectives, we will use skits because it will teach the trainee real life simulations which can be critiqued to help improve and fine tweak any area that need improvement. This delivery method will fall under the experimental method. As for the customer service objective, we will use dialogue. This will allow the trainee to participate and improve their delivery when meeting a customer and or closing the deal. This style will fall under the integrative methods and lastly we will use networking via conventions and or conferences so the trainee can interact with other business professionals. As for the mentoring program we will offer face to face interaction once weekly with expert mentors by area. Content for training and mentoring To achieve the best outcomes for ICET, we believe the content of the training program should be closely correlated tot to our business strategy and organizational goals. Therefore we will evaluate the skill and ability of employees that best match the open positions. This will be done by evaluating experience, worker, and occupational requirements. For example, experience will evaluated based on former training, experience, certifications or licenses. Worker requirements will be based on basic skills, cross functional skills, knowledge and education and lastly occupational requirement will be measure by general work activities, work and organizational content (Cascio 2005). Time frame Setting realistic time frames for employees to be trained properly is an important part of a successful training and mentoring program. Forming new habits or learning new methodologies take times which is why we have decided that employees will receive three week training so they feel fully acclimated and comfortable when they are out on the field. As for the mentoring program, we have decided to make it a three month program because we feel in order to appreciate and truly learn hands on the employee should be exposed to the daily routines of the mentor. Once the employee gets a good grasp of each section during the allotted training time, we believe they will be motivated and continue to develop their skills via applied experience they attain while working. Evaluation methods A good evaluation will most often use multiple methods because a well rounded objective decision can be archived. Therefore, we have decided that we will evaluate employees by these three standards; group interviews so we may see how the candidate behaves and reacts to intimidating settings, person to person simulations to see how the employee performs when selling a product and lastly via personality questionnaire to see if the employee characteristic match up with the extroverted personality we are looking for. Feedback Constructive feedback can make all the difference if you want to keep employees motivated. Therefore, it is our commitment to make sure that all feedback is constructive and address all the good quality the employee posses as well as the areas of improvement that will develop them further. Hence, we will sit with employees and perform verbal feedback that is clear and precise so that there is no room for misunderstanding. We want the make sure the employee is encouraged and understands that we are committed and interested in their career development and well being. We would also like to get feedback regarding the training program and any areas of weakness that can be improved. We will build an anonymous questionnaire so that the employee can be candid and honest without feeling as if there are attached strings. Alternate avenues for those who need further development Lastly, we would like to provide alternate avenues for employees who would like press further. Therefore, we will provide access to continuing education course twice a year. We will also have updated listing of conferences and training that will go beyond on internal training so that employees will be aware of the latest trends, approaches, and opportunities in their specific field. We believe this will help the employee morale as they will have access to any continuing education as needed. In conclusion, we believe our new training module will teach and provide the employees with all the necessary tools to become and maintain success.. Our focus on sanitation standards, communication, customer service and satisfaction and networking will set our employees apart from the rest because they will be well rounded and well informed. Once this program is completed, the employees will develop an expertise in their respective areas that will have a positive impact in ICET’s organizational competitiveness, performance and productivity. Reference http://www.indiana.edu/~uhrs/training/performance_management/define.htm

Silas Marner And Hard Times: Redemption Essay examples -- Silas marner

Silas Marner And Hard Times: Redemption The discussion will take place first in Silas Marner novel. It is taken to be first since it needs full concentration of the reader. Two characters are going to be in â€Å"redemption† and â€Å"re-generation†, in their concepts and beliefs in life. The main character of the novel, which the plot builds on, is â€Å"Silas Marner†. His penance is him living lonely and cut off from the world for 15 years, till he finds Eppie. Eppie, is like the fairy genie, which will be the cause of his â€Å"re-generation†. Silas’s redemption is evoked, when he takes Eppie the little child and raises her. By doing that, he was attaching him self to his passion, and re-gaining trust in kinship and emotions. The following quotation support the point mentioned: For Silas, ignorant and confused as he is, moves, even in his passion for gold, on a more intense and heroic emotional plane than the villagers†¦ [Austen, Henry.226] The quotation mentioned earlier will be explained with more details. Silas love of money was replaced by Eppie’s love. It is only a symbol to the replacement of materialism and loss of faith to human kinship and trust in a new religion based on love, not religious myths and supernatural elements. Eppie is the message for Silas and the reader: The ‘message’ the child brings is the all-importance of natural human affections, and Silas is receptive because his affection has survived the fifteen years of isolation. [Carroll, David.197] It cannot be said that Silas is a villain character, or else he would not have changed. He was in loss, when the lot that should have announced him not guilty, gave an opposite answer. This incident happened in Lantern Yard; he was then a part of a religious group. He was accused of stealing the dead man, who he was looking after that night. Their custom is to draw lot, so that God show them the right answer. It came negative; he lost faith in man and God as a result to this incident. When he moves to live in Raveloe, he worships money. He stay lonely for fifteen years; it can be said that it is his penance for losing faith in human kind, and disbelieving in a righteous â€Å"mysterious Power†. The penance ends, and the â€Å"re-generation† start with Eppie’s appearance in his life. She makes him trust again humans, and trust a new believe in a new God he never knew. Another main character, wh... ... man. â€Å"And to nothing else.†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ [Hard Times. Ch.8] Mr.Grandgrind character, however, is not villain. He takes Sissy to love with him, to educate her, when he knows her father flee. He is deep inside a gentle person, and a loving father. Maybe his love, in a way blinded him to see the truth of his teaching to his children. That is why his redemption evokes bitterly, and he decides then to make â€Å"his facts and figures subservient to Faith, Hope and Charity.†[Hard Times. Ch.9] In one way or another, this novel, as Silas Marner, calls for a universal theme of love and kinship. Life cannot be based on reason, and materialism. It can be based on kindness and friendship. To have the mind and heart in peace. Works Cited: Austen, Henry. A Qualified Redemption of Ordinary and Fallible Humanity. 1970. 225,229,230. Carroll, David. Reversing the Oracles of Religion. 1967. 197,198,199. Dickens, Charles. Hard Times: An Authority Text, Background, Sources, And Contemporary Reactions Criticism. NewYork: W.W. Norton & Company. 2,1990. Ch.1: 1, ch.7: 203, ch.8: 210 & 211, ch.9: 218. Eliot, George. Silas Marner. London: Penguin Books. 1996. Ch.8: 66, ch.14: 130 Internet Sources.

Arguments Made in Take the Tortillas Out of Your Poetry

Arguments Made In Take The Tortillas Out Of Your Poetry Even though the cultural and veiled censorships have to do with why they won't let his book be read, he talks about why he wrote the novel, that it was a reflection of his childhood, and that censors only paid attention to one detail and that was the so-called bad words in Spanish and they used that as an excuse because the novel did not meet the criteria of the circumstances. The censors used a technique where they zoomed in on one detail of the novel and made it seem that because it was in Spanish, it had profanity in it.Rudolfo Anaya made a great point when he said that if we leave the tortillas out of our poetry meaning cultural values, then the cultural we're portraying will go unnoticed therefore leaving Anaya, his Chicano readers, and us as readers left wondering why something should be judged because it's so different from what we as his readers known all our lives. We are in a way are told what is best with what we shou ld read and that these censors are at work in all areas of our lives. Rudolfo Anaya says that censorship has affected him directly and how it recently affected a friend of his as well.His friend is a Chicano poet and scholar and good one. He says he has been encouraging Chicano writers to apply for literary fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts. What happened to his friend was that he applied for the literally fellowship but was turned down twice, but he did not give up. They both knew that many of the panels that judged the manuscripts did not have readers that could read Spanish or bilingual manuscripts. His friend then went on saying to him, â€Å"You know,† he told me, â€Å"if they can't read my bilingual poetry, next time I apply I am sending them only poems I write in English.My best poetry is bilingual, it reflects our reality, it is the way we speak, the way we are. But if I stand a better chance at getting a fellowship in English, I will send that. B ut the poems I write only in English are really not my best work. It's just not me. † (Rudolfo Anaya 68). He talks about why he wrote the novel, that it was a reflection of his childhood, and that censors only paid attention to one detail and that was the so-called bad words in Spanish and they used that as an excuse. He goes on to say had they read the novel, they would have discovered that it is not about profanity.In his exact words he says, â€Å"the novel was a reflection of my childhood, a view into the Nuevo Mexicano culture of a small town. I looked at values, I looked at folkways, I created heroic characters out of poor farmers. I wrote about old healing remedies used by the folk to cure physiological illness. I elevated what I found in my childhood, because that is the way I had experienced my childhood. † (Anaya 71). He goes on to say that he believes that the reason why schools burned his books was because they did not want a reflection of his way of life in school.The country was not yet involved with cultural diversity. Chicanos were very upset and disappointed about this because they believed they had a right to literature in their books. That is why the 1990 attack on the NEA by fundamentalist censors has created a national rage and discussion. People have spoken out on their right of freedom of expression and that even though they tried to get others to see their point of view on this, they had to deal with these vicious attacks on their freedom and their storytelling.I think he makes a good point when he is trying to make readers understand that he wrote this novel for himself and for others to read and understand his childhood and what it is like having a Mexican/Indian background and what he and others close to him had to go through because of it. The most important reason is we are in a way told what is best with what we should read and that these censors are at work in all areas of our lives is because â€Å"There is only on e magazine that tells you what is right and what is wrong with our cultural life today. â€Å"Do you sometimes have the impression that our culture has fallen into the hands of the barbarians? † And, finally, â€Å"Are you apprehensive about what the politics of ‘multiculturalism’ is going to mean to the future of civilization? † (Rudolfo Anaya 72). Rudolfo Anaya then goes on to tell us that the editor is telling us that he knows what is right or wrong with cultural life which then goes on to call those types of people, â€Å"barbarians. † The barbarians are then identified as those who come from multicultural communities of this country.That was a type of censorship that was focused against the National Endowment for the Arts in the halls of Congress in 1990. The censors attacked a couple funded projects because they did not agree with the works of the novels. The censors took those rights to keep these works away from us. He then concluded to say censors are afraid of our liberation. Censorship is un-American, but the censor keeps telling you it is the American way. I do not think it is right that Rudolfo Anaya and other Chicano poems or stories get judged because they are written from a ifferent point of view and their culture is different from everyone else's. If it has meaning to it and teaches the audience who is reading it something different than what they are used to then I believe it should be allowed to read. For example, the role of Ultima is important because she is Antonio's guide and mentor in a way and her teachings bring him to understand a different and mystical world all about the Hispanic/Indian culture.It is also not just teaching him about the Hispanic/Indian culture, but also its audience and just because the panel of judges did not have any Spanish readers does not mean that there are not some out there and it should be give a chance. In conclusion, he says every Chicano poem or story carried within it the cry of desire for freedom and equality. That is what literature should do: liberate. There is a lot of different censorships in this essay including cultural and veiled that are two different censorships, but then again also the very same when they are going against something that is not necessarily wrong.Also, he talks about which is ideal because it gives you a sense of what these censorships look for which is one little mistake and when they find one, they simply toss your work aside and don't really look at it or give it a chance. Just because something is different from what you are used to, whether it be a book, a person you meet in a store, or maybe place you never been before you should not judge it right away just because it is different. Hence the old saying is true: â€Å"Don't judge a book by it's cover. †

Epistemology †Empiricism Essay

Principles like those Parmenides assumed are said in contemporary jargon to be a priori principles, or principles of reason, which just means that they are known prior to experience. It is not that we learn these principles first chronologically but rather that our knowledge of them does not depend on our senses. For example, consider the principle â€Å"You can’t make something out of nothing. † If you wished to defend this principle, would you proceed by conducting an experiment in which you tried to make something out of nothing? In fact, you would not. You would base your defense on our inability to conceive of ever making  something out of nothing Everything we know originates from four sources. The first, our senses, can be thought of as our primary source of information. Two other sources, reason and intuition, are derivative in the sense that they produce new facts from data already supplied to our minds. The fourth source, authority (or â€Å"hearsay,† or â€Å"testimony† of others), is by nature secondary, and secondhand fact-claims are always more wiggly and difficult to validate. Other sources of knowledge are commonly claimed, and it is not inconceivable that there might exist other sources; but if they do exist,  knowledge derived from them is problematic, and careful analysis usually finds that they can be subsumed under one or more of the four known sources and must be seriously questioned as legitimate, separate sources of reliable information. In summary, what is the nature of our knowledge about the real world of objects/events? Our knowledge of reality is composed of ideas our minds have created on the basis of our sensory experience. It is a fabric of knowledge woven by the mind. Knowledge is not given to the mind; nothing is â€Å"poured† into it. Rather, the mind manufactures perceptions, concepts, ideas, beliefs, and so forth and holds  them as working hypotheses about external reality. Every idea is a (subjective) working model that enables us to handle real objects/events with some degree of pragmatic efficiency. However persuasive our thoughts and images may be, they are only remote representations of reality; they are tools that enable us to deal with reality. It is as though we draw nondimensional maps to help us understand four-dimensional territory. The semanticists have long reminded us to beware of confusing any sort of map with the real landscape. â€Å"The map,† they say, â€Å"is not the territory. † An abstraction, by definition, is an idea created by the mind to refer to all objects which, possessing certain characteristics in common, are thought of in the same class. The number of objects in the class can range from two to infinity. We can refer to all men, all hurricanes, all books, all energy-forms—all everything. While abstraction-building is an inescapable mental process—in fact it is the first step in the organization of our knowledge of objects/events—a serious problem is inherent in the process. At high levels of abstraction we tend to group together objects that have but a few qualities in common, and our abstractions  may be almost meaningless, without our knowing it. We fall into the habit of using familiar abstractions and fail to realize how empty they are. For example, what do the objects in the following abstractions have in common? All atheists, all Western imperialists, all blacks or all whites (and if you think it’s skin color, think twice), all conservatives, all trees, all French people, all Christians. When we think in such high-level abstractions, it is often the case that we are communicating nothing meaningful at all. â€Å"The individual object or event we are naming, of course, has no name and belongs  to no class until we put it in one. † Going as far back as Plato, philosophers have traditionally defined knowledge as true justified belief. A priori knowledge is knowledge that is justified independently of (or prior to) experience. What kinds of knowledge could be justified without any appeal to experience? Certainly, we can know the truth of definitions and logical truths apart from experience. Hence, definitions and logically necessary truths are examples of a priori knowledge. For example, â€Å"All unicorns are one-horned creatures† is true by definition. Similarly, the following  statement is a sure bet: â€Å"Either my university’s football team will win their next game or they won’t. † Even if they tie or the game is canceled, this would fulfill the â€Å"they won’t win† part of the prediction. Hence, this statement expresses a logically necessary truth about the football team. These two statements are cases of a priori knowledge. Notice that in the particular examples of a priori knowledge I have chosen, they do not give us any real, factual information about the world. Even though the statement about unicorns is true, it does not tell us whether there are any unicorns in the world. Similarly, the football prediction does not tell us the actual outcome of the game. Experience of the world is required to know these things. The second kind of knowledge is a posteriori knowledge, or knowledge that is based on (or posterior to) experience. Similarly, the adjective empirical refers to anything that is based on experience. Any claims based on experience purport to add new information to the subject. Hence, â€Å"Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit† and â€Å"Tadpoles become frogs† would be examples of a posteriori knowledge. We know the freezing point of water and the life cycle of tadpoles through experience. Thus far, most philosophers would agree on these points. The difficult question now arises: Is there any a priori knowledge that does give us knowledge about the real world? What would that be like? It would be knowledge expressible in a statement such that (a) its truth is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms and (b) it does provide information about the way the world is. Furthermore, since it is a priori, it would be knowledge that we could justify through reason, independently of experience. The question, then, is whether or not reason alone can tell us about the ultimate nature of reality. 1. Is it possible to have knowledge at all? 2. Does reason provide us with knowledge of the world independently of experience? 3. Does our knowledge represent reality as it really is? Rationalism claims that reason or the intellect is the primary source of our fundamental knowledge about reality. Nonrationalists agree that we can use reason to draw conclusions from the information provided by sense experience. However, what distinguishes the rationalists is that they claim that reason can give us knowledge apart from experience. For example, the rationalists point out that we can arrive at mathematical truths about circles  or triangles without having to measure, experiment with, or experience circular or triangular objects. We do so by constructing rational, deductive proofs that lead to absolutely indubitable conclusions that are always universally true of the world outside our minds (a priori knowledge about the world). Obviously, the rationalists think the second question should be answered affirmatively. Empiricism is the claim that sense experience is the sole source of our knowledge about the world. Empiricists insist that when we start life, the original equipment of our intellect is a tabula rasa, or blank tablet. Only through experience does that empty mind become filled with content. Various empiricists give different explanations of the nature of logical and mathematical truths. They are all agreed, however, that these truths are not already latent in the mind before we discover them and that there is no genuine a priori knowledge about the nature of reality. The empiricists would respond â€Å"No! † to the second epistemological question. With respect to question 3, both the rationalists and the empiricists think that our knowledge does represent reality as it really is. Constructivism is used in this discussion to refer to the claim that knowledge is neither already in the mind nor passively received from experience, but that the mind constructs knowledge out of the materials of experience. Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher, introduced this view. He was influenced by both the rationalists and the empiricists and attempted to reach a compromise between them. While Kant did not agree with the rationalists on everything, he did believe we can have a priori knowledge of the world as we experience it. Although Kant did not use this label, I call his position constructivism  to capture his distinctive account of knowledge. One troubling consequence of his view was that because the mind imposes its own order on experience, we can never know reality as it is in itself. We can only know reality as it appears to us after it has been filtered and processed by our minds. Hence, Kant answers question 3 negatively. Nevertheless, because Kant thought our minds all have the same cognitive structure, he thought we are able to arrive at universal and objective knowledge within the boundaries of the human situation. Before reading further, look at the highway picture for an example of a classic  experiment in perception. Did you get the right answer, or were your eyes fooled? One way that skeptics attack knowledge claims is to point to all the ways in which we have been deceived by illusions. Our experience with perceptual illusions shows that in the past we have been mistaken about what we thought we knew. These mistakes lead, the skeptic claims, to the conclusion that we can never be certain about our beliefs, from which it follows that our beliefs are not justified. Another, similar strategy of the skeptic is to point to the possibility that our apprehension of reality could be systematically flawed in some way. The story of Ludwig, the brain in the vat who experienced a false virtual reality, would be an example of this strategy. Another strategy is to suppose that there is an inherent flaw in human psychology such that our beliefs never correspond to reality. I call these possible scenarios universal belief falsifiers. The characteristics of a universal belief falsifier are (1) it is a theoretically possible state of affairs, (2) we have no way of knowing if this state of affairs is actual or not, and (3) if this state of affairs is actual, we would never be able to distinguish beliefs that are true  from beliefs that seem to be true but are actually false. Note that the skeptic does not need to prove that these possibilities are actual. For example, the skeptic does not have to establish that we really are brains in a vat, but merely that this condition is possible. Furthermore, the skeptic need not claim that all our beliefs are false. The skeptic’s point is simply that we have no fail-safe method for determining when our beliefs are true or false. Given this circumstance, the skeptic will argue that we cannot distinguish the situation of having evidence that leads to true beliefs from the situation of having the same sort of evidence  plus a universal belief falsifier, which leads to false beliefs. Obviously, the skeptic believes that nothing is beyond doubt. For any one of our beliefs, we can imagine a set of circumstances in which it would be false. For example, I believe I was born in Rahway, New Jersey. However, my birth certificate could be inaccurate. Furthermore, for whatever reasons, my parents may have wished to keep the truth from me. I will never know for sure. I also believe that there is overwhelming evidence that Adolf Hitler committed suicide at the close of World War II. However, it could be true (as conspiracy theorists maintain) that his death was faked and that he lived a long life in South America after the war. The theme of the skeptic is that certainty is necessary for there to be knowledge, and if doubt is possible, then we do not have certainty. We now have the considerations in place that the skeptic uses to make his or her case. There are many varieties of skeptical arguments, each one exploiting some possible flaw in either human cognition or the alleged evidence we use to justify our beliefs. Instead of presenting various specific arguments, we can consider a â€Å"generic skeptical argument. † Generic Skeptical Argument 1. We can find reasons for doubting any one of our beliefs. 2. It follows that we can doubt all our beliefs. 3. If we can doubt all our beliefs, then we cannot be certain of any of them. 4. If we do not have certainty about any of our beliefs, then we do not have knowledge. 5. Therefore, we do not have knowledge. Pyrrho of Elis (360–270 B. C. ), a philosopher in ancient Greece, inspired a skeptical movement that bore his name (Pyrrhonian skepticism). Pyrrho was skeptical concerning sense experience. He argued that for experience to be a source of knowledge, our sense data  must agree with reality. But it is impossible to jump outside our experience to see how it compares with the external world. So, we can never know whether our experience is giving us accurate information about reality. Furthermore, rational argument cannot give us knowledge either, Pyrrho said, because for every argument supporting one side of an issue, another argument can be constructed to prove the opposing case. Hence, the two arguments cancel each other out and they are equally ineffective in leading us to the truth. The followers of Pyrrho stressed that we can make claims only about how things appear to us. You can say, â€Å"The honey appears to me to be sweet† but not, â€Å"The honey is sweet. † The best approach, according to these skeptics, was to suspend judgment whenever possible and make no assumptions at all. They believed that skeptical detachment would lead to serenity. â€Å"Don’t worry about what you cannot know,† they advised. Some skeptics distilled these arguments down into two simple theses. First, nothing is self-evident, for any axiom we start with can be doubted. Second, nothing can be proven, for either we will have an infinite regress of reasons that support our previous  reasons or we will end up assuming what we are trying to prove. Descartes began his quest for knowledge with the assumption that if he had rational certainty concerning his beliefs, he necessarily had knowledge, and if he did not have certainty, he did not have knowledge. The skeptics who came after Descartes agreed with this assumption. However, as we will see in the next section, Descartes argues that there are a number of things of which we can be certain and, hence, we do have knowledge. On the other hand, the skeptics doubt whether Descartes or anyone can achieve such certainty. Lacking any grounds for certainty, the skeptics claim we cannot have knowledge about the real world. Thus, the skeptics think that Descartes’s arguments for skepticism are stronger than his proposed answers. Such a philosopher was David Hume, whom we will encounter later when we examine empir EXAMINING THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF SKEPTICISM Positive Evaluation 1. Weeding a garden is not sufficient to make flowers grow, but it does do something valuable. In what way could the skeptics be viewed as providing a â€Å"philosophical weeding service† by undercutting beliefs that are naively taken for granted? 2. The skeptics are unsettling because they force us to reexamine our most fundamental beliefs. Is it better to live in naive innocence, never questioning anything, or is it sometimes worthwhile to have your beliefs challenged? Negative Evaluation 1. The skeptics make the following claim: â€Å"Knowledge is impossible. † But isn’t this claim itself a knowledge claim that they declare is true? Is the skeptic being inconsistent? 2. The skeptics use the argument from illusion to show that we cannot trust our senses. But could we ever know that there are illusions or that sometimes our senses are deceived  unless there were occasions when our senses weren’t deceived? 3. Some skeptics would have us believe that it is possible that all our beliefs are false. But would the human race have survived if there was never a correspondence between some of our beliefs and the way reality is constituted? We believe that fire burns, water quenches thirst, vegetables nourish us, and eating sand doesn’t. If we didn’t have some sort of built-in mechanism orienting us toward true beliefs, how could we be as successful as we are in dealing with reality? 4. Is skepticism liveable? Try yelling to someone who claims to be a skeptic, â€Å"Watch out  for that falling tree limb! † Why is it that a skeptic will always look up? Think of other ways in which skeptics might demonstrate that they do believe they can find out what is true or false about the world. 5. Is Descartes’s demand for absolute certainty unreasonable? Can’t we have justified beliefs based on inferences to the best explanation, probability, or practical certainty? Does certainty have to be either 100 percent or 0 percent? The answer is that our reason tells us that â€Å"something cannot come from nothing† and â€Å"material objects do not vanish into thin air. † We will distrust our senses before  we will abandon these beliefs. Hence, our reason seems to have veto power over our sense experience. We often trust our reason even in the face of apparently solid, experiential evidence. The rationalists raise this trust in reason into a full-fledged theory of knowledge. Rationalism is a very influential theory about the source and nature of knowledge. This position may be summarized in terms of the three anchor points of rationalism. These three points are responses to the second question of epistemology, Does reason provide us with knowledge of the world independently of experience? Reason Is the Primary or Most Superior Source of Knowledge about Reality According to the rationalist, it is through reason that we truly understand the fundamental truths about reality. For example, most rationalists would say the truths in the following lists are some very basic truths about the world that will never change. Although our experience certainly does illustrate most of these beliefs, our experiences always consist of par-ticular, concrete events. Hence, no experiences of seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, or touching specific objects can tell us that these statements will always be true for every  future event we encounter. The rationalist claims that the following statements represent a priori truths about the world. They are a priori because they can be known apart from experience, yet they tell us what the world is like. LOGICAL TRUTHS A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time (where A represents some proposition or claim). This truth is called the law of noncontradiction. (For example, the statement â€Å"John is married and John is not married† is necessarily false. ) If the statement X is true and the statement â€Å"If X, then Y† is true, then it necessarily follows that the statement Y is true. MATHEMATICAL TRUTHS The area of a triangle will always be one-half the length of the base times its height. If X is larger than Y and Y is larger than Z, then X is larger than Z. METAPHYSICAL TRUTHS Every event has a cause. An object with contradictory properties cannot exist. (No matter how long we search, we will never find a round square. ) ETHICAL PRINCIPLES Some basic moral obligations are not optional. It is morally wrong to maliciously torture someone for the fun of it. Sense Experience Is an Unreliable and Inadequate Route to Knowledge Rationalists typically emphasize the fact that sense experience is relative, changing, and often illusory. An object will look one way in artificial light and will look different in sunlight. Our eyes seem to see water on the road on a hot day, but the image is merely an optical illusion. The rationalist claims that we need our reason to sort out what is appearance from what is reality. Although it is obvious that a rationalist could not get through life without some reliance on sense experience, the rationalist denies that sense experience is the only source of knowledge about reality. Furthermore, experience can tell us only about particular things in the world. However, it cannot give us universal, foundational truths  about reality. Sensory experience can tell me about the properties of this ball, but it cannot tell me about the properties of spheres in general. Experience can tell me that when I combine these two oranges with those two oranges, they add up to four oranges. However, only reason can tell me that two plus two will always equal four and that this result will be true not only for these oranges, or all oranges, but for anything whatsoever. The Fundamental Truths about the World Can Be Known A Priori: They Are Either Innate or Self-Evident to Our Minds Innate ideas are ideas that are inborn. They are ideas or principles that the mind already contains prior to experience. The notion of innate ideas is commonly found in rationalistic philosophies, but it is rejected by the empiricists. The theory of innate ideas views the mind like a computer that comes from the factory with numerous programs already loaded on its disk, waiting to be activated. Hence, rationalists say that such ideas as the laws of logic, the concept of justice, or the idea of God are already contained deep within the mind and only need to be brought to the level of conscious awareness. Innate ideas should not be confused with instinct. Instinct is a noncognitive set of mechanical behaviors, such as blinking the eyes when an object approaches them. The theory of innate ideas is one account of how we can have a priori knowledge. Other rationalists believe that if the mind does not already contain these ideas, they are, at least, either self-evident or natural to the mind and the mind has a natural predisposition to recognize them. For example, Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716), a German rationalist, compared the mind to a block of marble that contains veins or natural splitting points that allow only one sort of shape to be formed within it. Thus, the mind, like the marble, has an innate structure that results in â€Å"inclinations, dispositions, habits, or natural capacities† to think in certain ways. In contrast to this view, John Locke (a British empiricist) said: â€Å"There is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses. † In response, Leibniz tagged the following rationalistic qualification at the end of Locke’s formula, â€Å"except for the intellect itself. † Obviously, in saying that the mind contains rational ideas or dispositions, the rationalists do not believe a baby is thinking about the theorems of geometry. Instead, they claim  that when a person achieves a certain level of cognitive development, he or she will be capable of realizing the self-evident truth of certain ideas. Leibniz pointed out that there is a difference between the mind containing rational principles and being aware of them. Rationalists give different accounts of how the mind acquired innate ideas in the first place. Socrates and Plato believed that our souls preexisted our current life and received knowledge from a previous form of existence. Theistic rationalists, such as Descartes, tend to believe that God implanted these ideas within us. Others simply claim that these principles or ideas naturally accompany rational minds such as ours. THE RATIONALISTS’ ANSWERS TO THE THREE EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS Section 2. 0 contained three questions concerning knowledge: (1) Is knowledge possible? (2) Does reason provide us with knowledge of the world independently of experience? and (3) Does our knowledge represent reality as it really is? While differing on the details, all the rationalists give the same answers to these three questions. First, they all believe that knowledge is possible. Generally, we are able to discern that some opinions are better than others. For example, in the discipline of mathematics some answers are true and some are false. We could not know this fact if obtaining knowledge was impossible. Second, the rationalists agree that only through reason can we find an adequate basis for knowledge. For example, in mathematics and logic we are able through reason alone to arrive at truths that are absolutely certain and necessarily true. Third, rationalists agree that beliefs that are based on reason do represent reality as it truly is. In the following sections, I examine three classical rationalists to see how they illustrate the three anchor points of rationalism and  answer the three epistemological questions. Socrates’ answers to the three epistemological questions should be clear. (1) We are able to distinguish true opinions from false ones, so we must know the standards for making this distinction. (2) These standards could not be derived from experience so they must be unpacked through a rational investigation of the reservoir of all truth—the soul. (3) Since our rational knowledge provides us with information that enables us to deal successfully with the world and our own lives, it must be giving us an accurate picture of reality. However, according to Plato, since the  physical world is constantly changing, sense perception gives us only relative and temporary information about changing, particular things. Being a typical rationalist, Plato thought that ultimate knowledge must be objective, unchanging, and universal. Furthermore, he argued that there is a difference between true opinions and knowledge, for our beliefs must be rationally justified to qualify as knowledge. Finally, Plato believed that the object of knowledge must be something that really exists. Plato and the Role of Reason Do mathematical truths, such as those in the multiplication tables, exist within the mind  or do they exist outside the mind? Plato would say both. If mathematical truths exist only in the mind, then why does physical reality conform to these truths? If mathematical truths are only mind-dependent ideas, then why can’t we make the truths about triangles be anything we decide them to be? The world of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland was created in the mind of Lewis Carroll. He could have made the world’s properties be anything he decided. But obviously, we can’t make up such rules for the properties of numbers. We don’t create these truths; we discover them. Thus, Plato would argue, these truths are objective and independent of our minds. But if they are independent of our minds, then they must refer to something that exists in reality. Although the number seven, for example, has objective properties that we discover, these properties are not physical. We do not learn the truths about numbers by seeing, tasting, hearing, smelling, or touching them. From this concept, Plato concludes that the world of mathematics consists of a set of objective, mindindependent truths and a domain of nonphysical reality that we know only through reason. What about justice? What color is it? How tall is it? How much does it weigh? Clearly, these questions can apply to physical things, but it is meaningless to describe justice in terms of observable properties. Furthermore, no society is perfectly just. Hence, we have never seen an example of perfect justice in human history, only frail, human attempts to approximate it. Because reason can contemplate Justice Itself,* we can evaluate the deficient, limited degrees of justice found in particular societies. Particular nations come and go and the degree of justice they manifest can rise or fall. But the objects of genuine knowledge  Ã‚  such as true Justice or true Circularity are eternal and unchanging standards and objects of knowledge. Plato on Universals and the Knowledge of Reality Thus far, Plato has argued that there are some things that we could not know about (Justice, Goodness, Equality) if experience was our only source of knowledge. The soul must have somehow acquired knowledge independently of the senses. But what, exactly, are the objects of this special sort of knowledge? In answering this question, Plato builds on the distinction he has made between the here-and-now realm of sense experience and the unchanging realm of rational knowledge. He says that in the world of sense experience we find that particulars fall into a number of stable, universal categories. Without these categories, we could not identify anything or talk about particulars at all. For example, Tom, Andre, Maria, and Lakatria are all distinct individuals, yet we can use the universal term human being to refer to each of them. In spite of their differences, something about them is the same. Corresponding to each common name (such as â€Å"human,† â€Å"dog,† â€Å"justice†) is a Universal that consists of the essential, common properties of anything within that category. Circular objects (coins, rings, wreathes, planetary orbits) all have the Universal of Circularity in common. Particular objects that are beautiful (roses, seashells, persons, sunsets, paintings) all share the Universal of Beauty. Particulars come into being, change, and pass away but Universals reside in an eternal, unchanging world. The rose grows from a bud, becomes a beautiful flower, and then turns brown and ugly and fades away. Yet the Universal of Beauty (or Beauty Itself ) remains eternally the same. Plato believes that Universals are more than concepts, they are actually the constituents  of reality. Hence, in answer to the third epistemological question, Plato believes that knowledge of Universals provides us with knowledge of the fundamental features of reality, which are nonphysical, eternal, and unchanging. Plato also refers to these Universals as â€Å"Forms. † The following thought experiment will help you appreciate Plato’s emphasis on Universals and universal truth. Descartes on the Possibility of Knowledge Although Descartes was certain he could not be deceived about his own existence, the possibility of a Great Deceiver cast a shadow over all his other beliefs. Unless he could find something external to his mind that would guarantee that the contents of his mind represented reality, there was little hope for having any knowledge other than that of his own existence. Descartes sought this guarantee in an all-powerful, good God. Hence, Descartes says, â€Å"As soon as the opportunity arises I must examine whether there is a God, and, if there is, whether he can be a deceiver. For if I do not know this, it seems that I can never be quite certain about anything else. †12 If Descartes could prove that such a God exists, then he could know that knowledge is possible. But notice how limited are the materials Descartes has at his disposal for proving God’s existence. He cannot employ an empirical argument based on the nature of the external world, for that is an issue that is still in doubt. So, he must construct a rationalistic argument that reasons only from the contents of his own mind. STOP AND THINK Descartes on the Role of Reason In the following passage from Meditation III, Descartes says the â€Å"natural light of reason† shows him that (1) something cannot arise from nothing and (2) there must be at least as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect. †¢ What examples does he use to illustrate each of these principles? †¢ How does he apply these two principles to the existence of his own ideas? The argument that Descartes has given us in the previous passages can be summarized in this way: 1. Something cannot be derived from nothing. (In other words, all effects, including ideas, are caused by something. ) 2. There must be at least as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect. 3. I have an idea of God (as an infinite and perfect being). 4. The idea of God in my mind is an effect that was caused by something. 5. I am finite and imperfect, and thus I could not be the cause of the idea of an infinite and perfect God. 6. Only an infinite and perfect being could be the cause of such an idea. 7. Therefore, God (an infinite and perfect being) exists. THE THREE ANCHOR POINTS OF EMPIRICISM The Only Source of Genuine Knowledge Is Sense Experience The empiricists compare the mind to a blank tablet upon which experience makes its marks. Without experience, they claim, we would lack not only knowledge of the specific features of the world, but also the ability even to con.

Invention and Development of the Steam Engine

Invention and Development of the Steam Engine Steam engines are mechanisms that use heat to create steam, which in turn performs mechanical processes, known generally as  work.  While several inventors and innovators worked on various aspects of using steam for power, the major development of early steam engines involves three inventors and three principal engine designs.   Thomas Savery and the First Steam Pump The first steam engine used for work was patented by the Englishman Thomas Savery in 1698 and was used to pump water out of mine shafts. The basic process involved a cylinder that was filled with water. Steam was then delivered to the cylinder, displacing the water, which flowed out through a one-way valve. Once all of the water was ejected, the cylinder was sprayed with cool water to drop the cylinders temperature and condense the steam inside. This created a vacuum inside the cylinder, which then pulled up additional water to refill the cylinder, completing the pump cycle.   Thomas Newcomens Piston Pump Another Englishman,  Thomas Newcomen, improved on Slaverys pump with a design he developed around 1712. Newcomens engine included a piston inside of a cylinder. The top of the piston was connected to one end of a pivoting beam. A pump mechanism was connected to the other end of the beam so that water was drawn up whenever the beam tilted up on the pump end. To propel the pump, steam was delivered to the piston cylinder. At the same time, a counterweight pulled the beam down on the pump end, which made the piston rise to the top of the steam cylinder. Once the cylinder was full of steam, cool water was sprayed inside the cylinder, quickly condensing the steam and creating a vacuum inside the cylinder. This caused the piston to drop, moving the beam down on the piston end and up on the pump end. The cycle then repeated automatically as long as steam was applied to the cylinder.   Newcomens piston design effectively created a separation between the water being pumped out and the cylinder used to create the pumping power. This greatly improved  on the efficiency of Slaverys original design. However, because Saverys held a broad patent on his own steam pump, Newcomen had to collaborate with Savery to patent the piston pump.   James Watts Improvements Scotsman James Watt  significantly improved and developed the steam engine over the second half of the 18th century, making it a truly viable piece of machinery that helped start the Industrial Revolution. The first major innovation of Watts was to include a separate condenser so that the steam didnt have to be cooled in the same cylinder that contained the piston. This meant the piston cylinder remained at a much more consistent temperature, greatly increasing the fuel efficiency of the engine. Watt also developed an engine that could rotate a shaft, rather than an up-and-down pumping action, as well as a flywheel that allowed for smooth power transfer between the engine and the workload. With these and other innovations, the steam engine became applicable to a variety of factory processes, and Watt and his business partner, Matthew Boulton, built several hundred engines for industrial use.   Later Steam Engines The early 19th century saw major innovation of high-pressure steam engines, which were much more efficient than the low-pressure designs of Watts and the others steam-engine pioneers. This led to the development of much smaller, more powerful steam engines that could be used to power trains and boats and to perform a wider range of industrial tasks, such as running saws in mills. Two important innovators of these engines were American Oliver Evans and Englishman Richard Trevithick. Over time, steam engines were replaced by the internal combustion engine for most types of locomotion and industrial work, but the use of steam generators to create electricity remains an important part of electrical power production today.

Functions of political parties

Functions of political parties Political parties have existed in the United States since its formation. However, the public have been viewing them negatively due to the many ills that they have been associated with.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Functions of political parties specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Such disdain goes back to the days of the tenure of George Washington, who warned that parties were filling the U.S. citizens with jealousies that were ill-founded. Despite this negative image that political parties have, they play a vital role in the political system of the U.S. This paper is an investigation of the positive roles that political parties play in the political system of the United States. If political parties were not part of the political system of the U.S., citizens would have to go through cumbersome elections. It is common knowledge that parties are the ones that select candidates for some elective positions. This helps i n making elections less involving because voters would indubitably be overwhelmed by elections if the people vying for elective offices had no party labels. For instance, if parties were not there, citizens would probably have to vote for the vice president and other posts in the government. This would complicate the electoral process. In addition to this, parties usually present voters with policy alternatives. This is especially helpful for voters because they may not know candidates individually. There have been cases of straight tickets being chosen by voters. That is, voters choose party representatives during the elections rather than the candidates themselves. Parties have also played a critical role in checking the excesses of reigning parties. If a party is not the majority party in Congress, then it ensures that the other party does not have complete control. Party leaders have often come out openly against measures implemented by a president elected by the other party. Th is role of parties has been widely criticized by American citizens because many of them view it as self-serving and petty. It is however an important role because it ensures that the reigning party does not change the law or implement contentious policies at will. Members of a given political party share their stands on certain issues of public concern. In general, these stands are not the same for the main political parties, Republicans and Democrats. This therefore implies that when Republicans win the Presidential election, Democrats criticize their points of view on certain issues.Advertising Looking for essay on government? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More On the other hand, if Democrats win the Presidential election, Republicans criticize their points of view on certain issues in their turn. For instance, the Republican Party has taken a tough stance on the issue of same sex marriages while Democrats have been l iberal on the issue. The discussions that follow the aforementioned criticisms make citizens well-informed about pertinent issues. The criticizing is also important because it presents the government with alternative problem solving methods. Despite the fact that political parties have been bedeviled in the past, they are important components of the American political system. Among the key functions of political parties is the fact that they help in simplifying elections. Political parties also play an important role in checking the excesses of the government and ensuring that the government does not change the law or implement contentious policies at will. Lastly, political parties criticize the actions of the ruling elite and thereby ensure that members of the public are adequately informed about pertinent issues.