What aspects of the author’s findings or argument do you find especially useful, well-argued, problematic, confusing, or unconvincing?

Read chapters 5-9 from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn attached below. Then write a response. The response should consist of 2 paragraphs. The first paragraph should be ~100 words offering a brief summary of the reading in your own words. The second paragraph should be ~200 words and discuss/expand upon an idea from the reading, below are some questions to guide you: What do you see as the most valuable contribution, thesis, or idea from this material? What aspects of the author’s findings or argument do you find especially useful, well-argued, problematic, confusing, or unconvincing? What surprised you? What were you compelled to do, say, or listen to?


Critically analyze a core component from the reading and pose in-depth reflective questions regarding the reading.

Write a brief summary on each of the chapters. Then, critically analyze a core component from the reading and pose in-depth reflective questions regarding the reading.
The reading is attached below, I have also included a few examples of the critical analysis and questions.


What is a critique of the different leadership theories in your organizational context?

Learning Goal: I’m working on a philosophy writing question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
expected to come to class having read course material and written an approximately 700-1000 word (3-4 (double-spaced) pages) reflection about the material. These reactions should reflect course discussion, be properly cited in APA format referencing the weekly readings, and show an attempt to grapple with the course material through their analysis. These reaction essays are essentially ways for us to talk to each other one on one about your intellectual development. I want to know what you think is important, confusing, wrong, or noteworthy in the readings and why (hence the citations), because it helps me understand the materials I’m using, the lectures I’m using, and where you’re at. I am looking for you to really dive into the readings, integrate the texts into your own thoughts, and provide your own analysis. There’s no rubric, no “wrong” analysis per se, but we’ll have a conversation about it via your feedback.
For this reaction essay I would like for you to focus on the following, although you are certainly not limited to these topics. Also, you are not required to answer all of these questions, this is meant to provide some guidance and highlight some of the main take aways from this module for you to ponder as you write this reaction essay:
Why do you think behavior and trait-based theory of leadership are still prevalent today? What is a critique of the different leadership theories in your organizational context? Do you think critical performativity or critical discourse might be ways to provide a counter-discourse to these dominant models? What does a critical performativity approach to organizational leadership look like? What do you think of the notion of critical performativity as a method? Discourse analysis? As Alvesson and Spicer suggest it is the occasions of leadership that could be the units of analysis, not an individual who is a leader. What do alternatives to leadership look like which necessarily lack the ascribed labels of leader and follower? Alvesson and Spicer/Karreman are further suggesting that there can be a study of leadership without leaders and that if we want to really get at the underlying social conditions and complexity of context in which leadership happens, leadership needs to be separated out as something that only resides in and emulates from a leader and examined in its own right. Do you think this could influence leadership science in the future?
*****There is one more text that I have in person, so I will take a picture of the two chapters when I get a chance. However, it is not needed to complete enough of the question. Please use some direct quotes as needed. Otherwise, any of the questions in the prompts can be used/answered.*****


Is practicing veganism more ethical than practicing non-veganism?

Learning Goal: I’m working on a philosophy multi-part question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
1) – (i) Provide three arguments (that is, three structured linkages of inferences – premises to a conclusion) that argue why the purchasing of fast fashion is not only ethically permissible, but ethically praiseworthy; (ii) present four arguments from the video that would challenge your arguments from (i); and (iii) attempt to refute the arguments from (ii) without merely repeating your arguments from section (i) of this question.
2) Outline Shockley’s argument by (i) logically reconstructing the piece – indicate the premises that lead to the main conclusion; and (ii) present three counter-arguments to any of three sub-arguments that appear in Shockley’s piece.
3) – (i) Do some research to investigate to what this video refers and provide a synopsis of the particular pipeline controversy highlighted in this video (do remember to cite from where you are providing your information – you must do so for all questions, but I remind you in particular for this question since it is research based); (ii) who do you take to be Prolific’s intended audience and why?
4) (i) Outline the main premises and conclusion of Sioui’s article; (ii) outline the main premises and conclusions of Morito’s article; (iii) provide three counter-arguments to any of Sioui’s premises not found in either Sioui’s own piece or Morito’s piece which is indeed a response to Sioui; (iv) provide three counter-arguments to any of Morito’s premises not found in either Morito’s own piece or in Sioui’s piece.
5) (i) Outline Dr. Shiva’s main premises and overall conclusion in her speech; (ii) provide three arguments (arguments are premises that lead to a conclusion) from any readings/videos from this semester that support any of Dr. Shiva’s premises and main conclusion and explain why; (iii) provide three arguments from any readings/videos from this semester that argue against Dr. Shiva’s main premises and conclusion and explain why.
6) (i) Outline the main premises and conclusion of “American Disenlightenment”; (ii) provide two arguments to support the author’s premises (not the main conclusion) not found in the piece itself or in my lecture; (iii) provide three arguments to challenge the author’s premises (not the main conclusion) not found in the piece itself or in my lecture.
7) Outline the premises and conclusion of “On the Possibility of an Intergenerational Arms Race”; (ii) the main just of the argument or the question raised, is whether extra-ethical concerns (say, attaining a monopoly, making money, the triumph of just being able to claim “I/we” did if first/best) can sometimes lead to better ends than following a strictly “ethical” path or having an ethical target goal. Can you have, in other words, have the wrong (read: non-ethical, or extra-ethical) standards/goals and end up doing good or more good in the end than if you had been ethical or had “the right” intentions the whole way through? Offer three arguments with examples that suggest that this is possible and (iii) three arguments with examples that suggest that this is not possible. (iv) Given the nature of the globalized market, as well as individuals’ and groups’ overall less than virtuous character, might it actually be our best hope that competition or something comparable leads us to the best environmental outcomes/solutions? Provide three past and current examples of how, almost accidentally, good, arguably, came whilst attempting to do something unrelated or perhaps even if not morally repugnant, morally questionable (these need not be examples directly related to environmental issues).
8) (i) Outline where arguments begin and end. (ii) Explain, as the video proceeds, who is engaging in good argumentation (producing robust counter-arguments, etc.) and where things go askew – where the debate has moved to rhetoric, perhaps, or where it seems the two are talking past one another and explain why you believe this to be so.

(i) The above two videos are purportedly about the same issue – do they claim the same conclusions? For each video, summarize the claims and conclusions drawn; (ii) provide three arguments that challenge the videos and argue that, not only is using Amazon morally permissible, its use is morally praiseworthy for at least one environmental reason and any two other reasons, taking your time to explain why.

Is practicing veganism more ethical than practicing non-veganism? The question is vague. Is veganism more ethical in terms of its protection/non-inteference to whom or what? (i) outline the claims of the video; (ii) explain why the question “Is practicing veganism more ethical than practicing non-veganism?” is vague; (iii) provide an an analysis of how you think Singer might react to this video and explain why; (iv) choose a biocentric (holistic) author from our readings and provide an analysis of how you believe that they might react to the above video and explain why.


Name three physiological changes that occur in the elderly and discuss how they affect the nutrient needs of the elderly.

Learning Goal: I’m working on a philosophy multi-part question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
Discussion #1: Name three physiological changes that occur in the elderly and discuss how they affect the nutrient needs of the elderly. Give two examples of what you think could be done to address poor nutritional intake in the elderly. (200-250 words)
Discussion #2: One factor you see as the greatest driver of childhood overweight and obesity (200-250 words)
Written Translations assignment:
* This translation assignment involves selecting an actual case study, translating 30 different medical terms in that paper into common “ordinary” English, and then rewriting the original article in a manner that is clear and understandable to a person who does not have a medical background
* For example, if the case study reads as follows: “A 51-year old woman presented with angina pectoris, dyspnea, and pedal edema”, you might re-write this as “A 51-year old woman was examined and found to have chest pain (1), difficulty breathing (2), and swelling of the feet due to fluid accumulation (3).”
* You will underline and number (in parentheses at end of translation) each “translation”, and you must have a total of 30 different medical terms translated in your case study. You will also submit with your paper a numbered list of the actual medical terms translated. If the case study you select is lengthy, you only need to translate as much of it as includes 30 medical terms; you do NOT need to translate the entire case study. You should translate all medical terms in the sequence they occur in the case study; do NOT “pick and choose”, translating some and skipping others! The numbers on the list of medical terms must match the numbers of the translations in the re-written case study. You don’t need to translate drug names, and don’t translate more than four abbreviations. Abbreviations should be translated as the terms that they represent, not simply written out.
Written Translation is worth 50 points and you WILL LOSE POINTS if you don’t follow these guidelines:
* include a citation for the original case study and/or its web address
* translate 30 different terms ( 1 point per term)
* don’t skip over terms you should have translated (2 point for each term you skip)
* underline and number the translations (10 points off on the entire paper)
* provide a SEPARATE numbered list of the original medical terms (10 points off ) Add this list at the end of your paper or submit it as a separate file.
* rewrite the article to make each translation “fit” smoothly. You can’t just “plug in” a dictionary definition of the term you are translating. Sometimes you need to change the word order in the sentence or change the grammar. This rewritten article should be written in your own words. Make sure you read the finished translation paper OUTLOUD. Does it make sense? Does it read “smoothly”? Would someone who isn’t taking medical terminology be able to understand the case study? Do the translations you put in sound awkward?? (1 point off for each “awkward” or incorrect translation)
There are many excellent sites for case studies on the internet. Many of the articles that you will find are short and already have the medical terms explained. These articles will not meet the need of this project. You need to find ONE article with sufficient length to include 30 different medical terms.
*Attached is the grading criteria for the written translations assignment.


Why does Stevenson find these critiques interesting but unsatisfactory?

Online Athabasca course on Ethics in Science and Technology! I will give you login info once selected. Assignment 1 is based on reading unit 1-4 which is available online through Athabasca! Answer 3 of the following 6 questions, each one being 500 words (2 pages per question). Citations should ideally be from the readings at the end of each unit, again available through Athabasca! Due: After you have completed Unit 4 Weight: 30% of your final course grade Length: 3 essays, 500–700 words each Instructions: Answer three of the following six questions. These questions are based on the Study Guide questions. 1. Briefly summarize the critiques of science by Feyerebend, Marcuse, and Rifkin that are discussed by Stevenson. Why does Stevenson find these critiques interesting but unsatisfactory? 2. Callahan discusses two kinds of ethical principle: teleological and deontological. Explain these two kinds of ethical principle. Use an example to illustrate the application of these two principles. 3. What role do you think informed consent should play in research ethics involving human subjects? Do you think informed consent is sufficient for covering all cases of research on humans? Why or why not? 4. What is Peter Singer’s “principle of equality”? Why does Singer think the principle applies to members of species other than our own? How would society’s treatment of animals change if we followed his principle of equality? To what extent do you agree or disagree with Singer’s reasoning? 5. Brunk identifies a second moral principle in “Professionalism and Moral Responsibility in the Technological Society,” (p. 151), that he says should be part of the “ethic of Conscientious Professionalism.” Identify the principle, and explain how Brunk argues it should influence the thinking of scientists and technical people. Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not? 6. How does James define “whistle blowing,” and under what conditions does he think it is justified? Do you agree with James? Why or why not?


Should we blame Jones for assassinating the prime minister?

Read the paragraph below and answer the subsequent question.
Imagine there’s a man named Jones who wants to assassinate a prime minister. Jones has already made plans to assassinate the prime minister on June 17 at noon by shooting the prime minister from a rooftop as he gives a speech, and Jones is prepared to carry out the plans. Now there is also a neurosurgeon named Dr. Green who want the prime minister dead as well. Dr. Green is aware of Jones’ plan, but he is worried that Jones will chicken out at the last second and not follow through with his plan. So, in order to ensure that Jones shoots the prime minister, Dr. Green implants a device in Jones’ head while Jones sleeps the night before. The device will force Jones to decide to shoot the prime minister at noon on June 17 if Jones does anything other than decide to shoot prime minister at noon. Jones is completely unaware that Dr. Green has implanted the device, and he does not even know that Dr. Green exists.
Now, as it just so happens, at noon on June 17 Jones decides to shoot the prime minister on his own and shoots the prime minister. Since Jones decided on his own to shoot the prime minister the device in his head only continued to monitor his brain without every having to activate. The device did not affect Jones at all.
Did Jones freely assassinate the prime minister? Should we blame Jones for assassinating the prime minister?
After considering the Jones case, do you think the very plausible Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) is true? (PAP states: A person is morally responsible for what they have done only if they could have done otherwise.)
Explain why we should either blame Mr. Jones in this case or maintain that PAP is true.
Your discussion post should be at least 150 words.


What is the clear and concise descriiption of each Philosopher’s approach and method of inquiry?

Please write an essay, 3-5 double-space typed pages.

In the course of essay, you may want to consider the following questions:
What is the clear and concise descriiption of each Philosopher’s approach and method of inquiry?
In what way does each Philosopher offer ethical or sensible guidelines for determining which beliefs and actions are proper or practical?
What are the weaknesses and the strengths of each Philosopher’s methodology?
What are the textual references?

Please give the argument for each claim; you may use a concrete example to illustrate the arguments, however, be sure to state the arguments (by giving reasons or evidence for each Philosopher’s analytical/particular or allegorical/universal conclusion).

Second Essay’s guiding questions – Using the readings in our Text, analyze how Aristotle’s metaphysics (and his method of inquiry in relation to ‘Substance’) may guide people to knowledge about the realty of the world? What does Aristotle mean by ‘Demonstrative Knowledge’ and ‘Analytic posteriori?’ What does he mean by ‘substance,’ and how is it essential in relation to the ‘Categories?’ Accordingly, how the ‘soul’ is the ‘form’ of a natural body? Explain Aristotle’s account of the ‘four causes’ for the understanding of the natural world. (Please give textual references)? How ethical virtue is the disposition of character? How living in accordance with virtue may lead to achieving a life of felicity (well-being – eudemonia)? How is ‘happiness’ an experience and what is the role of contemplation in relation to that experience (please give textual references)? What is the role of ‘artist,’ and what kind of experiences are called ‘Catharsis?’

2. In an (non-polemic) essay, differentiate between essence in Aristotle’s sense (as a thing – substance), and Essence as Plato’s idea (as an Ideal – Form). If both Philosophers are attempting to account for the world as we experience it, then how do they differ in their sense of morality (Ethics), attitudes (Metaphysics), and methods of inquiry (Epistemology)
Book: Western Philosophy: An Anthology 2nd Edition
Edited by John Cottingham


Why do you think this video was chosen to be included in this course?

In weeks one through ten, you have a subjective video assignment. Watch this video and post a minimum 100-word response discussing your thoughts and feelings. These videos introduce ideas which may or may not coincide with the week’s learning objective or theme.
Why do you think this video was chosen to be included in this course?
For this assignment, you do not need to provide citations or quotes.
You may write your response in a first-person voice.
You are strongly encouraged to use the Grammarly app before posting your assignment.
Watch the following video:
The moral roots of liberals and conservative – Jonathan Haidt, TED-Ed, 2012


How can we use our choices and behaviors to set positive examples for others?

Subject to the note above, research the life and accomplishments of one of the following moral agents of change: Malala Yousaf Zai, Standing Bear, W.E.B. Du Bois, Mitsuye Endo, Hannah Arendt, or Cesar Chavez. For this assignment, examine the life and actions of one of these
Please review the assignment instructions for specific word counts.individuals and then answer the following questions:
What value(s) did your research subject demonstrate?
How did this value help them become a moral agent of change?
What can we learn from this model citizen?
How can we use our choices and behaviors to set positive examples for others?
How might ordinary citizens become extraordinary moral agents of change?
Each Primary Assignment requires:
a thesis statement,
an APA style bibliography,
use of APA style in-line citations, and
adherence to the 3+1 Rule.
The 3+1 Rule requires students to use a minimum of three assigned readings from the current week and one from a previous week. This rule encourages students to review and connect the assigned readings from week to week.
Primary Assignments are to be double-spaced, using 11 point Calibri font. Be sure to save your work before you submit it. Assignments should include a 1” margin on the sides, top, and bottom.