Describe how our relationship to nature will be different from what it is at present.

/in /by

Can some one do this assignment?

Imagine a future in which human beings have achieved environmental sustainability on a global scale. In this second part of your final assignment, you will be describing what a sustainable Earth will look like in the future, providing examples throughout to support your descriptions. You will be including all the terms that you have researched during Week 1 through 4 of this class, underlining each term as you include it. In your paper, use grammar and spell-checking programs to insure clarity. Proofread carefully prior to submitting your work. Finally, you will submit the document to Waypoint.

Your paper will consist of seven paragraphs: an introduction, a conclusion, and one paragraph relating to each week’s topic. In your paper, use this format to address the following elements with the assumption that environmental sustainability has been achieved:

  • Introduction:
    • Describe how our relationship to nature will be different from what it is at present.
    • Examine how we will cope differently with the ways that natural phenomena affect our lives.
  • Week 1:
    • Describe what Earth’s biodiversity and ecosystems will look like.
  • Week 2:
    • Examine how agricultural production will be different in the future.
  • Week 3:
    • Differentiate between how we will manage our water resources in the future compared to how we do so right now.
  • Week 4:
    • Examine how we will meet our energy needs in the future in a way that will enable us to maintain a habitable atmosphere and climate.
  • Week 5:
    • Describe how waste management will be different in the future.
  • Conclusion:
    • Summarize some of the major social, economic, political, and ecological choices and tradeoffs that will need to be overcome for this sustainable future to arrive.

The Part 2 of the Journey to Sustainability paper

Your paper will consist of seven paragraphs: an introduction, a conclusion, and one paragraph relating to each week’s topic. In your paper, use this format to address the following elements with the assumption that environmental sustainability has been achieved:

  • Introduction:
    • Describe how our relationship to nature will be different from what it is at present.
    • Examine how we will cope differently with the ways that natural phenomena affect our lives.
  • Week 1:
    • Describe what Earth’s biodiversity and ecosystems will look like.
  • Week 2:
    • Examine how agricultural production will be different in the future.
  • Week 3:
    • Differentiate between how we will manage our water resources in the future compared to how we do so right now.
  • Week 4:
    • Examine how we will meet our energy needs in the future in a way that will enable us to maintain a habitable atmosphere and climate.
  • Week 5:
    • Describe how waste management will be different in the future.
  • Conclusion:
    • Summarize some of the major social, economic, political, and ecological choices and tradeoffs that will need to be overcome for this sustainable future to arrive.

The Part 2 of the Journey to Sustainability paper

How do you believe you will make use of your new knowledge in future courses and in your present or future career?

/in /by

#1

Sean

During this course, I have learned that psychological first aid is an in-depth process that cannot involve a cookie cutter plan for everyone. Each individual is impacted differently during an incident and treatment must be tailored to suit a myriad of needs. As such, mental health care professionals play a significant role in emergency response and surveillance.

Additionally, I learned that stressors that impact one person may impact another differently, or not at all. Specifically, children and adolescents may be affected by stressors that an adult may not even see; as they have failed to build an understanding of the situation and have underdeveloped coping skills.

Finally, I have learned that people can be impacted by an event, even if they were not personally involved in the event. Through multiple mediums, such as news reporting and social media, people can develop psychological and physiological health problems despite not being personally involved.

This class has afforded me the opportunity to look inward and see how I perceive emergency response and those impacted by the event from a mental health standpoint. Utilizing this information, I will be able to provide better support to victims and other emergency responders and be acutely aware as to why people do what they do during and after response.  As for other courses, I have already used this information to assist in answering public health during an emergency forum questions.

If I could pick just one thing that the world would be well served to better understand about the psychology of disaster, it would be that preparation is key. I chose this because we cannot choose when or where a disasters will strike, nor can we avoid the fact that they are simply a part of life. As such, waiting to see what happens when they do is a monumental failure. Proper education and support can lead to greater mental health resiliency and will do well to avoid many issues altogether as well as give a fighting chance to the unfortunate victims.

#2

Jeremiah

The three primary take-aways that added to my understanding of the psychology of disaster would have to include: the perception and personalized response of a traumatic event to different people, the need and importance of critical infrastructure, and the impact on first responders. People perceive events and experiences very differently. As such, they internalize and personalize those experiences and their responses to the event in very different ways. What one person may see, hear, experience, and perceive, could be drastically different than the person standing next to them. This creates the need for tailored responses to disasters, as opposed to a standardized one-size-fits all model that could create secondary trauma. I never really considered the significant importance of critical infrastructure and the role it plays in disaster response. Even when I lived in Florida during multiple hurricanes, I knew the infrastructure could withstand hurricane impacts, but looking at Puerto Rico and Hurricane Maria (my week 7 project), I didn’t realize how fragile everyday life truly is and how much we rely on creature comforts. Finally, the impact of disaster response on first responders is something that is personal to me, but having to dig into it during this course provided context and further meaning behind the why and how of this phenomena.

My current position within the NSA and Intelligence community provides me immediate application of this course’s lessons. As I continue in my career to help people who are dealing with disaster-related trauma and similar scenarios, the principles and information I’ve been able to glean from course materials will be invaluable, both educationally and professionally.

If I could pick just one thing that the world would be well served to better understand about the psychology of disaster, it would be the importance of lessons-learned from prior disasters. I chose this because the world has endured many disasters, similar in nature. Having the information and after-action lessons-learned is the first step and is often accomplished, but the application of those lessons sometimes falls short. Governments would do well to set aside their ego(s) and live up to their oath to protect their citizens. Ensuring safe environments to live, work, and thrive are extremely important and can protect against catastrophic loss in the wake of a disaster.

#3

Allan

Identify and describe three take-aways from the course that added to your understanding of the psychology of disaster.

Three takeaways from the course that helped me learn and understand the psychology of a disaster are: First Responder PTSD, mental health importance, and the effects of disasters on communities.  First Responders are out law enforcement police officers, paramedics, firefighters and military members who go out and respond to disasters by saving lives. What people don’t realize is that First Responders experience a form of PTSD due to what they witness when saving a life.  Nothing is worse for some First Responders than seeing parents lose their children. It takes a great deal of help from mental health professionals to help them as PTSD ruins marriages, causes aggressive and abusive behavior, etc. The importance of mental health is a double-edged sword.  On one hand, it has become mainstream and take a lot more serious than before.  On the other hand, people have used it as an excuse to commit heinous crimes against others.  Either way, therapists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals owe it to their patients to properly manage their trauma. Disasters can take a large toll on communities, especially in instances such as natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina or Irma.  Due to the damage caused, communities were ravaged and many people were left without homes.

How do you believe you will make use of your new knowledge in future courses and in your present or future career?

I am stationed with a SEAL Team and I think what I’ve learned with this course is perfect timing.  I can now have a deeper understanding of what they may be experiencing when I deploy with them, beyond the level of understanding of a mere deployment on a ship, squadron or SEABEE unit.   These guys are the cream of the crop when it comes to first responders to defend our country and now I can use what I’ve learned to do my part, not as a mental health professional, which I am not, but as a fellow comrade within my troupe, I can be more aware.

As you do in many courses, complete the following sentence to demonstrate the “most” important element of the psychology of disaster.

If I could pick just one thing that the world would be well served to better understand about the psychology of disaster, it would be the long term affects of trauma. I chose this because we tend to focus on the matter at hand and maybe the next few months.  We have become somewhat numb to disasters and moving forward, we need to revisit these disaster areas more frequently, more specifically with things that happen on a regular.  The media has to be more responsible in disseminating the information to the masses, as their personal agenda does little to benefit the survivors.

Popper: What Is Real Scientific Practice?

/in /by

Popper: What is real scientific practice?

1616 unread replies.1818 replies.

Using Popper’s paper that you read, do you find that his approach is a valid way to define scientific practice? Do you think it can be applied to all branches of science? Did you change your mind about inductive reasoning? Do you think psychoanalysis is scientific? Do you think Popper’s falsification theory limits what we can consider science?

Answer the questions in 500 words or less.  Please cite your work using both Popper’s paper and the Oakes reading to defend your ideas.

Popper’s Falsification

From inductivism to Popper’s falsification

From: Philosophy and the Science for Everyone by Michela Massimi. ISBN: 9781138785434

Karl Popper

Philosophers of science are interested in understanding the nature of scientific knowledge and its distinctive features. For a very long time, they strove to find what they thought might be the distinctive method of science, the method that would allow scientists to make informed decisions about what counts as a scientific theory.

The importance of demarcating good science from pseudo-science is neither otiose nor a mere philosophical exercise. It is at the very heart of social policy, when decisions are taken at the governmental level about how to spend taxpayers’ money.

Karl Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was, undoubtedly, one of the most influential philosophers of the early twentieth century to have contributed to the debate about demarcating good science from pseudo-science. In this section we very briefly review some of his seminal ideas.

Popper’s battleground was the social sciences. At the beginning of the twentieth century, in the German-speaking world, a lively debate took place between the so-called Naturwissenschaften (the natural sciences, including mathematics, physics, and chemistry) and the Geisteswissenschaften (the human sciences, including psychology and the emergent psychoanalysis), and whether the latter could rise to the status of proper sciences on a par with the natural sciences.

This is the historical context in which Popper began his philosophical reflections in the 1920s. Popper’s reflections were influenced by the Vienna Circle, a group of young intellectuals from different branches of science. The philosophical view adopted by the Vienna Circle is known as logical empiricism:knowledge comes in two kinds; the first kind is knowledge of logical truths (truths independent of experience); the second is empirical knowledge, whose truths are based on experience.

Popper’s influential book The Logic of Scientific Discovery was first published in 1934 (the English translation came much later, in 1959) in the Vienna Circle series edited by Schlick; and it dealt precisely with the problem of how to demarcate good science from pseudoscience.

Before Popper, the received view about scientific knowledge and the method of science was inductivism: on this view, scientific theories are confirmed by inductive inferences from an increasing number of positive instances to a universally valid conclusion.

For example, Newton’s second law seems confirmed by many positive instances from the pendulum, to harmonic oscillators and free fall, among others. We can think of scientific theories as sets of sentences, i.e. laws of nature; and laws of nature, as taking the form of true universal generalizations, ‘For all objects x, if Fx then Gx’ (e.g. Newton’s second law would read as follows: if an external force acts on a body of mass m, then the body will accelerate). And we can think of true universal generalizations as being confirmed when a sufficiently large number of positive instances (and no negative instances) have been found for them. Inductivism was at work in the logical empiricists’ criterion of verification: namely the idea that any claim or statement is scientific if there is a way of empirically verifying it (i.e. if there is a way of finding positive empirical instances confirming that claim or statement).

The problem with inductive methodology – according to Popper – is that it is too liberal as a method for demarcating good science from pseudo-science.

Political theories such as Marxism or Freud’s psychoanalysis would equally meet the requirements of inductivism. A Freudian psychoanalyst could appeal to plenty of positive instances of people’s dreams that can confirm the validity of Freud’s analysis of the Oedipus complex, for example. But is this per se sufficient to license the scientific status of Freud’s psychoanalysis? People that read horoscopes can similarly claim that there are positive instances in their monthly working schedule confirming the horoscope’s warning that it is going to be a very demanding month for Aquarians! Does it mean that horoscopes are scientific? Positive instances are where one wants to find them. Thus, to demarcate good science from pseudo-science, Popper thought, we need to probe a little deeper.

The problem – as Popper saw it – is that theories such as psychoanalysis do not make specific predictions, and their general principles are so broadly construed as to be compatible with any particular observations, whereas scientific theories such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory or Einstein’s relativity do make novel predictions, i.e. predictions of new phenomena or entities. Remember our assignment about Astronomy?

As the historian Koyré once said, the amazing thing about Copernican astronomy is that it worked, despite the overcast sky of Copernicus’ Poland! Using Copernican astronomy, Galileo could predict the phases of Venus, a novel phenomenon not predicted by Ptolemaic astronomy and observed by Galileo himself with his telescope. Or consider Einstein’s general relativity, which predicted light-bending, a phenomenon indeed observed by Arthur Eddington’s expedition to Brazil in 1919. What makes Copernicus’ or Einstein’s theory ‘scientific’ is not just having positive instances, but instead, being able to make very specific and precise predictions about previously undreamt-of phenomena – predictions that may turn out to be wrong.

Popper’s conclusion was that scientists should be looking for instances that are risky predictions, namely potential falsifiers (predictions that if proved wrong, would reject the theory). Having no potential falsifiers is the hallmark of dubious scientific standing.

Pseudo-scientific theories have a tendency to accommodate evidence, as opposed to predicting novel, risky phenomena. But no matter how many positive instances of a generalization one has observed or accommodated, there is still no guarantee that the next instance will not falsify it. No matter how many white swans we might have observed, nothing excludes the possibility that the next observed swan will be black, as indeed explorers found in Australia. Hence, Popper’s conclusion that the distinctive method of science does not consist in confirming hypotheses, but in falsifying them, looking for one crucial piece of negative evidence that may refute the whole theory.

According to Popper, science proceeds by a method of conjectures and refutations: scientists start with bold (theoretically and experimentally unwarranted) conjectures about some phenomena, deduce novel undreamt-of predictions, and then go about finding potential falsifiers for those predictions. Currently accepted scientific theories have passed severe tests and have survived, without being falsified as yet. If a theory does not pass severe tests, and/or if there are no sufficient or suitable potential falsifiers for it, the theory cannot be said to be scientific. The history of science is full of theories that enjoyed a relative period of empirical success until they were eventually falsified and rejected: from the caloric theory of Lavoisier (which regarded heat as an imponderable fluid) to Stahl’s phlogiston theory in the eighteenth century, and Newton’s ether theory. Science has grown across centuries by dismantling and rejecting previously successful theories – scientific progress is characterized and made possible by falsification.

To conclude, falsificationism is the distinctive method of science, according to Popper. It is a deductive (instead of inductive) method, whereby scientists start with bold conjectures, and deduce novel predictions, which then they go about testing. If the predictions prove wrong, the conjecture is falsified and replaced with a new one. If the predictions prove correct, the conjecture is corroborated and will continue to be employed to make further predictions and pass more tests, until proven wrong.

 

To review the concept of Demarcation and falsificationism watch the video below.

 

https://youtu.be/-X8Xfl0JdTQ

THE HUMAN OCEAN: 20th CENTURY CHANGES

/in /by

ISCUSSION POST GUIDLINES

PLEASE FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINE WHEN MAKING A DISCUSSION “TEST QUESTION” POST

 

· 1-Don’t copy any of my discovery questions

· 2-NO COPYING ANY PREVIOUSLY POSTED TEST QUESTION (review before you post)

· 3-NO FORMATING,  NO indentations, NO BOLD, CAPITALS, ETC

· 4-INCLUDE AN EXPLANATION AND Resource

· 5-When you write an incorrect response, check it out.   Some people create responses that are worded terribly, make no sense, or are actually correct.

EXAMPLES 

 

1-Point QUESTION (is a very poor effort)

                -if you write a True-False question, make a very meager effort or make multiple errors

2-Point Example

-a two point question shows minor effort and creativity—it is not thought provoking

-there are either misspellings, major grammatical errors, or it makes no sense

-any question that asks for a numerical answer (like a percentage)

What is the percentage of Earth’s water that is tied up in glacial ice?

                                A) 3%                    B) 10 %                 C) 30%                  D) 50%

Answer: A

Explanation: 3% or Earth’s water is tied up in Ice

3-Point Example

                 -a three point question promotes a bit of thought but is still quite simple

-if there are not four “unique” response or you use….  D) all the above, or none of the above

                – if you write a decent question but make too many spelling or grammatical errors

IN the ITCZ, or inter-tropical convergence zone, there is a tendency for the warm humid near the ocean to move this way?

A) north               B) south               C) up                      D) down

Answer: C

Explanation:  The ITCZ is where the atmosphere is the hottest, most energetic and is the zone on Earth where low density air is constantly rising. (link input here)

4-Point Example

                -well written, thought provoking, no major mistakes

-good job of referencing and explaining

According to the otter-urchin-kelp interaction example illustrated in the article “The Functioning of Marine Ecosystems”, which of the following species will be categorized as a keystone species?

A) Kelp, because the productivity of kelp determines food abundance for marine animals.

B) Urchin, because urchin prevent food overabundance provided by kelp.

C) Urchin, because urchin are an important food source for higher trophic level marine animals.

D) Sea otter, otters stabilize the system in the kelp forest by reducing urchin grazing.

Answer: D

Explanation: The keystone species is one “whose impact on its community or ecosystem is large, and disproportionately large relative to its abundance” (Power et al., 1996). In this example, the sea otter is a high trophic level marine animal. Therefore, their abundance determines the abundance of the other two species. Although option A, B, C are facts, urchin and kelp are not keystone species.

Grading will be based on

1-Spelling

2-Accuracy

3-Format

4-Depth of Thought and Inquiry

5-Validity

6- Relevancy

7-Citation and explanation

 

4 POINTS POSSIBLE

· 1 POINT=POOR QUESTION, or too many errors

· 2 POINTS=AVERAGE QUESTION, slight errors

· 3 POINTS=GOOD QUESTION, no errors

· 4 POINTS= VERY GOOD QUESTION  (full credit)

 

ISCUSSION

 

POST

 

GUIDLINES

 

PLEASE

 

FOLLOW

 

THESE

 

GUIDELINE

 

WHEN

 

MAKING

 

A

 

DISCUSSION

 

“TEST

 

QUESTION”

 

POST

 

 

 

·

 

1

–

Don’t

 

copy

 

any

 

of

 

my

 

discovery

 

questions

 

 

·

 

2

–

NO

 

COPYING

 

ANY

 

PREVIOUSLY

 

POSTED

 

TEST

 

QUESTION

 

(review

 

before

 

you

 

post)

 

·

 

3

–

NO

 

FORMATING,

 

 

NO

 

indentations,

 

NO

 

BOLD,

 

CAPITALS,

 

ETC

 

 

·

 

4

–

INCLUDE

 

AN

 

EXPLANATION

 

AND

 

Resource

 

·

 

5

–

When

 

you

 

write

 

an

 

incorrect

 

response,

 

check

 

it

 

out.

 

 

 

Some

 

people

 

create

 

responses

 

that

 

are

 

worded

 

terribly,

 

make

 

no

 

sense,

 

or

 

are

 

actually

 

correct.

 

EXAMPLES

 

 

 

1

–

Point

 

QUESTION

 

(is

 

a

 

very

 

poor

 

effort)

 

 

–

if

 

you

 

write

 

a

 

True

–

False

 

question,

 

make

 

a

 

very

 

meager

 

effort

 

or

 

make

 

multiple

 

errors

 

2

–

Point

 

Example

 

–

a

 

two

 

point

 

question

 

shows

 

minor

 

effort

 

and

 

creativity

—

it

 

is

 

not

 

thought

 

provoking

 

–

there

 

are

 

either

 

misspellings,

 

major

 

grammatical

 

errors,

 

or

 

it

 

mak

es

 

no

 

sense

 

–

any

 

question

 

that

 

asks

 

for

 

a

 

numerical

 

answer

 

(like

 

a

 

percentage)

 

What

 

is

 

the

 

percentage

 

of

 

Earth’s

 

water

 

that

 

is

 

tied

 

up

 

in

 

glacial

 

ice?

 

 

 

 

A)

 

3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

B)

 

10

 

%

 

 

 

C)

 

30%

 

 

 

 

D)

 

50%

 

Answer:

 

A

 

Explanation:

 

3%

 

or

 

Earth’s

 

water

 

is

 

tied

 

up

 

in

 

Ice

 

3

–

Point

 

Example

 

 

 

 

–

a

 

three

 

point

 

question

 

promotes

 

a

 

bit

 

of

 

thought

 

but

 

is

 

still

 

quite

 

simple

 

 

 

 

–

if

 

there

 

are

 

not

 

four

 

“unique”

 

response

 

or

 

you

 

use….

 

 

D)

 

all

 

the

 

above,

 

or

 

none

 

of

 

the

 

above

 

 

–

 

if

 

you

 

write

 

a

 

decent

 

question

 

but

 

make

 

too

 

many

 

spelling

 

or

 

grammatical

 

errors

 

IN

 

the

 

ITCZ,

 

or

 

inter

–

tropical

 

convergence

 

zone,

 

there

 

is

 

a

 

tendency

 

for

 

the

 

warm

 

humid

 

near

 

the

 

ocean

 

to

 

move

 

this

 

way?

 

A)

 

north

 

 

B)

 

south

 

 

C)

 

up

 

 

 

D)

 

down

 

Answer:

 

C

 

Explanation:

 

 

The

 

ITCZ

 

is

 

where

 

the

 

atmosphere

 

is

 

the

 

hottest,

 

most

 

energetic

 

and

 

is

 

the

 

zone

 

on

 

E

arth

 

where

 

low

 

density

 

air

 

is

 

constantly

 

rising.

 

(link

 

input

 

here)

 

4

–

Point

 

Example

 

 

–

well

 

written,

 

thought

 

provoking,

 

no

 

major

 

mistakes

 

 

 

–

good

 

job

 

of

 

referencing

 

and

 

explaining

 

ISCUSSION POST GUIDLINES

PLEASE FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINE WHEN MAKING A DISCUSSION “TEST

QUESTION” POST

 

 1-Don’t copy any of my discovery questions

 

 2-NO COPYING ANY PREVIOUSLY POSTED TEST QUESTION (review before

you post)

 3-NO FORMATING, NO indentations, NO BOLD, CAPITALS, ETC

 

 4-INCLUDE AN EXPLANATION AND Resource

 5-When you write an incorrect response, check it out. Some people create

responses that are worded terribly, make no sense, or are actually correct.

EXAMPLES

 

1-Point QUESTION (is a very poor effort)

-if you write a True-False question, make a very meager effort or make multiple

errors

2-Point Example

-a two point question shows minor effort and creativity—it is not thought

provoking

-there are either misspellings, major grammatical errors, or it makes no sense

-any question that asks for a numerical answer (like a percentage)

What is the percentage of Earth’s water that is tied up in glacial ice?

A) 3% B) 10 % C) 30% D) 50%

Answer: A

Explanation: 3% or Earth’s water is tied up in Ice

3-Point Example

-a three point question promotes a bit of thought but is still quite simple

-if there are not four “unique” response or you use…. D) all the above, or none of

the above

– if you write a decent question but make too many spelling or grammatical

errors

IN the ITCZ, or inter-tropical convergence zone, there is a tendency for the

warm humid near the ocean to move this way?

A) north B) south C) up D) down

Answer: C

Explanation: The ITCZ is where the atmosphere is the hottest, most energetic

and is the zone on Earth where low density air is constantly rising. (link input

here)

4-Point Example

-well written, thought provoking, no major mistakes

-good job of referencing and explaining