Freakanomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

Introduction Different phenomena in human life have attracted explanations from experts and other observers, which unfortunately, have become to be regarded as the conventional truth even when they seem to fail. This paper seeks to analyze an article that describes the different explanations advanced for changing trends in crime, politics and other social factors in the American society.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Freakanomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The article is termed freakanomics, the authors (Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner) analyze different social aspects of the daily life in the most dazzling way that defies conventional wisdom. The article mainly dwells on the changing trends of crime in the American society. It also uses other social indices such politics and professionalism to underscore the misconceptions that lead to erroneous explanation s for different phenomena in the United States and the world at large. Analysis This article mainly intends to show that some of the expert views which are often held as conventional may be sometimes, if not always false. The article begins by citing the soaring levels of crime that were witnessed in the 1990’s. The level of crime was rising at rates that had never been witnessed before. The rising trends in crime got experts forecasting a more chaotic future. For instance, the article cites that in 1995, a criminologist named James Alan Fox produced a report that pointed to a sharp rise in cases of teenage homicide over a decade. Similar sentiments were being propelled from different quarters such as other criminologists, political scientists and other learned forecasters. As time went by, it became apparent that the exact opposite of what had been forecasted was taking place. Instead of soaring levels of crime, the country was experiencing unpredicted decrease in crime leve ls. The sharp fall which peaked in the year 2000 was much more baffling than the later days when crime was the order of the day. False predictions were giving way to false explanations by the same experts. According to the article, the sharp decrease in crime levels had everything to do factors such as tough gun controls, strong economy, and innovative police strategies, increase in the number of police, increase in the use of capital punishment, change in the crack and other drug markets, and finally the aging population factor. The authors shrugged off this type of explanation as cheap as all these efforts when were in place when the same experts predicted a sharp rise in crime.Advertising Looking for critical writing on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More According to the authors, the real cause of the drop in crime was the legalization of abortion across the United States. The legalization of abortion which ha d happened in the 1970 has lead to a significance drop in crime in the late 90s. The major step was towards countrywide legalization of abortion was initiated by a woman, Norma McCorvey. She was from Dallas and had already given up two kids for adoption. She was not in a position to raise a child, she was uneducated, poor, unskilled, an alcoholic and other drugs abuser. This kind of characteristics would create unfavorable conditions for child up bringing. This increases the chances of raising a spoilt, frustrated child who may end up in the streets as a criminal. The initial laws had restricted abortion thus creating a scenario whereby it was expensive to procure an illegal abortion or worse still, confer to unfit women the role of mothers. As the authors quote, the forced child raising may lead to a distressful future and further impart a psychological harm to the child. It was argued that a woman who decides not to have a child has a good reason for that, for instance she might b e too poor, unmarried or in a bad marriage. This article cites other examples to show how conventional wisdom leads to false conclusions that mislead the masses. For instance, the power wielded by practitioners in different professional fields may be exploited at times to take advantage of a situation. The article cites, among others, a real estate agent who exploits their client’s inability to understand real estate matters. The authors also point out the same flawed beliefs in the political arena, whereby rich politicians or politicians who spent more money during campaigns are almost certain of wining. The authors claim that the electorate must have an inner connection with a certain candidate in order to vote for him. The authors do not however sound convincing with this example as indeed money plays a major role in gaining votes, especially in unjust systems where corruption and voter bribery are the order of the day.Advertising We will write a custom critical writi ng sample on Freakanomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Conclusion This paper sought to analyze the article freakanomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. The article is supposed to explore the bad side or everything, that’s according to the subheading. However, as much as it touches on other matters, it’s more seen to revolve around the crime, its causes and how abortion legalization has helped reduce rates of crime. The article uses other examples to show that what is often regarded as conventional wisdom or expert views may be sometimes false. This critical writing on Freakanomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner was written and submitted by user Sage Rose to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Gods Omnipotence Essay Example

Gods Omnipotence Essay Example Gods Omnipotence Essay Gods Omnipotence Essay Some people refer God as the Omnipotent, that is to say a being that has unlimited power, and is able to do everything. God has four different attributes, he is omniscient, simple, eternal and omnipotent. The latter raises some difficulties, and paradoxes. In a first part I will show how omnipotence can be defined differently, how radical omnipotence differs with limited omnipotence and the issue with logic. Then I will show how God’s omnipotence raises some paradoxes and contradictions, by relying on the paradox of the stone and the problem of evil. Finally I will try to answer some questions concerning God’s ability to sin, to bring about the past, and to do things not done by him. Does God’s powers have a limit, could it then be possible that God’s omnipotence isn’t logic ? The concept of omnipotence and God is not that easily understood. Indeed many philosophers have different conceptions of God’s extent of power. Omnipotence is a kind of supremacy, all-powerfulness. Following that definition, the omnipotence of God   is an absolute, and radical one. This is Descartes’ view, according to him God can do the logically possible as well as the logically impossible, he can make a square circle and change the laws of mathematics. Indeed, ‘God can do whatever we are able to understand, but not that He cannot do what we are unable to understand. For it would be presumptuous to think that our imagination extends as far as His power’ (Descartes,   1630). In other words, it is for us Humans impossible to imagine and understand a notion as illogical as a square circle, however God created everything, and that includes logic. : Therefore it is for him perfectly possible and coherent to draw a square circle, or make the number 2 higher than the number 9. However Aquinas claims that ‘this phrase, God can do all things, is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible’ (Peterson, 2001, p. 124). The definition of omnipotence being God is able to do everything, is now limited to God can do everything that is possible. And by everything that is possible, Aquinas means everything that is logically possible. As a result it is incoherent for God to draw a square circle. However his inability to do so does not prevent God from being omnipotent ‘it does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence’ (ibid, p. 125), indeed this self contradictory phrase represents a ‘non-question’. Richard Swinburne has the same position as Aquinas and argues that ‘ a logically impossible is not an action. It is what is described by a form of words which purport to describe an action, but do not describe anything which it is coherent to suppose could be done’(Swinburne, 1993, p. 153). Therefore it would not be coherent to construct a spherical cube, as it is only two words put together   which does not represent anything. Moreover Swinburne believes that certain actions are logical, such as getting married, but they become logically impossible when they are performed by a certain kind of people, for instance : get married to a bachelor. So the action itself is not considered logically impossible, but it is the combination of the person and the situation, that makes it logically impossible. So being omnipotent is not only being possible to do everything logically possible but is an â€Å"ability to bring about any logically possible state of affairs† (Swinburne, 1993, p. 150). According to this view, God’s omnipotence is a coherent idea. Can God create a stone heavier that he can lift ? Considering that God is omnipotent, he is able to create such a stone, however he is not able to lift it. If he cannot lift it, then he is not omnipotent This act seems illogical and self-contradictory, Mavrodes states that such acts are ‘pseudo-tasks’, ‘the fact that they cannot be performed implies no limits on the power of god’(Mavrodes, 2005, p. 262), but as Aquinas pointed out, the act of lifting this stone requires an illogical power, therefore God cannot lift it as he is able to do everything that is logically coherent. But it does not derive him from being omnipotent. Moreover if God is radically omnipotent, he is not bound by logical laws, therefore the illogical act of creating the stone is possible, consequently the illogical act of lifting it is possible as well. We can also imagine that t1 is the time when God creates the stone, and t2 the time he lifts it. At t1, God’s omnipotence allows him to create the stone, then the stone being created he can lift it at t2. Indeed Mavrodes (2005) argues that ‘nothing in the argument required the theologian to admit any limit on God’s power with regard to the lifting of the stones And if God’s power to lift is infinite, then his power to create may run to infinity also without outstripping the first power’(Mavrodes, 2005, p119). In other words those two actions are successively possible, as God’s power is infinite in both cases. Yet some would argue that in t2 the stone still cannot be lifted by God as he created it being this way. The paradox of the stone shows that there is an incoherence concerning God and omnipotence. There has to be some limits to his power. But where do those limits extend? As well as being omnipotent, God is morally good and benevolent. How could there be evil in the world if God is omnipotent, his power should prevent any existence of evil as he is morally good. Those attributes combined should eliminate evil. Yet, everyday we witness evil. To understand the presence of evil in the world one has to either admit that God is not omnipotent, or that his omnipotence is incoherent ; or admit that he is not benevolent. However it can be argued that for good to exist, evil has to exist and that it would be illogical to think that good could exist on its own. (Mackie, 1955)The claim that ‘evil is necessary as a counterpart to good’ (Mackie, 1955, p. 03) errs, indeed we can again assert that as God made the laws of logic it would be possible for only good to exist in the world. Nevertheless the existence of evil in the world is required to prove what good really is. Without evil, everything, every actions are considered good. But if good is everywhere, it becomes difficult to measure it, and we cannot compare i t with other actions. To be good is to possess and display moral virtue, but how can we do that if evil does not exist ? Good has to be opposed to evil, for it to exist. It then does not distract it with God’s omnipotence. Mackie (1955) reckons that first order evil such as ‘pain and misery’ contrasts with first order good ‘pleasure and happiness’. Moreover a second order good such as ‘sympathy’ can only exist if there is a second order evil ‘suffering’, similarly with ‘heroism in facing danger’ (Mackie, 1955, p. 206). But according to Mackie this claim fails, in fact the second order evil that is ‘cowardice’ or ‘cruelty’ (Mackie, 1955, p. 207) is rising as much as another second order good. And if God were omnipotent and morally good he would try and eliminate those evils. Regarding evil and omnipotence many philosophers have taken the position that human have freewill and are independent of God. And that would explain why there is evil and how god remains omnipotent. Freedom is considered as good for the society and humans. If humans were not free, it would undermine god’s morally good attribute. Thus it is logic for him to create humans who are free. Yet Mackie (1955) argues that if God could create humans who are free to choose between evil and good, he could therefore help them into choosing what is good. However this view can be reconsidered, in fact it would be an illogical action to create free agents and then to force them to always lean towards what is good. Besides Swinburne (1993) insists on how the creation of a world where humans are forced to act a certain way would deprive humans of fulfilling themselves, and benefiting from interactions with each other. According to the thinker a ‘A good God, like a good father, will delegate responsibility. In order to allow creatures to share in creation, he will allow them the choice of hurting and maiming, or frustrating the divine plan. ’(1993, p. 1) Thus human freewill does not detract God from his omnipotence, but it limits it. Indeed, God is benevolent so freedom has to exist in order for humans to experience and learn from their consequences. As Swinburne puts it ‘as parents we regard it as a good thing that our children have power to do free actions of moral significance even if the consequence is that they som etimes do evil actions. ’ (1993, p. 76) The relationship between omnipotence and benevolence clashes once again when we wonder if God is able to sin. Indeed, God is able to do everything, therefore he should be able to sin. But God is morally good, so he cannot sin. Therefore God is not omnipotent. However it is not logically possible for God to sin and to be omnipotent, and according to Aquinas this is a non-question, it does not derive God from his omnipotence. Besides God is a perfect being, he cannot allow anything that would cause and imply any imperfection of his being. We can assert that it is god’s omnipotence that prevents him from sinning ‘to sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is the be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence’ (Aquinas, 2001, p. 125). Yet, one can argue that God is able to sin but chooses not to. Indeed how could God be morally good if he does not have the choice to sin ? The fact that he is able to sin but chooses not to makes him benevolent, and does not derive him from his omnipotence. Finally, we can raise two problems concerning god’s omnipotence. Is he able to bring about the past ? Is he able to do things not done by god ? According to Aquinas God can affect actions before they are performed, for instance he can decide for Socrates not to run before he has ran ‘therefore, when he has run, God could effect that he did not run’(Aquinas, 1265-1274). However Aquinas points out that Socrates cannot be sitting, and not sitting at the same moment, consequently it is self contradictory to say that Socrates sat and did not sit. It is highly illogical and it ‘does not fall under the scope of God’s omnipotence anything that implies a contradiction’. (Ibid)   If we consider (1) ‘There is a table which has not been made by an omnipotent being’, can we say that this table has been created by God ? If God could not create this table he is not omnipotent. However God could have possibly created that table, then maybe God is omnipotent. Van der Brink, 1994). Aquinas claims that ‘His will is the cause of all things ; nor is that will naturally and from any necessity determined to those things’ (1265-1274) in other words God is able to do things not done by him considering that he made everything, ‘the determinist might reply that anyone who makes anything determines its ways of acting, and so determines its subsequent behaviour’ (Mackie, 1955, p. 211). This makes it clear that God can do things that non omnipotent beings do. God’s omnipotence is confronted to many contradictions and paradoxes. But does it make it incoherent? I trust that God’s omnipotence is coherent. Indeed I believe that God can create a square circle, a stone heavier that he can lift, and he can do things not done by him, as he created the laws of logic. However when concerning human beings, I believe that God is bound by logical laws but it does not derive him from his omnipotence. Indeed, as Swinburne (1993) stated, it would be impossible for someone to marry a bachelor, it is self contradictory, besides it logically impossible for God to bring about the past. Furthermore, as evil is necessary for the notion of good to exist and God is able to sin but chooses not to, I assume that God can be omnipotent and benevolent. It can be assumed that an omnipotent being is not someone who does everything because he is all powerful, in fact ‘a being may remain omnipotent for ever because he never exercises his power to create stones too heavy to lift forces too strong to resist or universes too wayward to control’ (Swinburne, 1993, p161).

The security technology of e-commerce Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The security technology of e-commerce - Essay Example Most reputable financial institutions and e-commerce service providers take all measures to protect the data and transactions online and simultaneously they provide the details to the customers, how to protect their transaction. Although the risks are generally avoided while dealing with internet transactions, even then the threats are enormous. The various threats include cyber terrorism, credit card number may be intercepted, cyber attacks during the war on terrorism, viruses and worms, hacking and malware techniques, one of the service providers may deny that the deals ever took place, hackers may exploit data from web page due to some improper security measures, hackers may gain access to the system. Sometimes customers may also become a victim of identity theft. According to a survey conducted by the US Department of Justice (DOJ), identity theft is affecting millions of household in the US and costing an estimated $ 6.4 billion per year. To avoid all these consumers must take s ome proactive steps and practices to access the computer before carrying out any financial transaction. Some of the most common practices include the use of updated versions of software and operating systems, ensure proper network security, avoid opening unknown emails and attachments, use of passwords, use of updated antivirus software and use of encryption.In the present paper, the author attempts to deal with the type of risks available to the internet user, the present security system available to the consumers and future security trends. trends. The finding of available security system has been summarized. 3.0 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT: While going before the literature as cited in bibliography, author made an attempt to a hypothetical statement as , " Are the current security systems able to provide security to the e-commerce users" 4.0 EXPLANATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY: 4.1 BACKGROUND: In the early 1990's digital break-ins, kidnapping were the terms used by many popular journals to hackers. The early targets were educational institutes and