Get help from the best in academic writing.

Week 3 History and Usage of the Ketogenic Diet Discussion

Week 3 History and Usage of the Ketogenic Diet Discussion.

Do a search on fad diets–meaning a diet that goes against standard recommendations and promises quick and/or extreme results.Select one fad diet for this assignment.With your description of the diet, answer the following questions:Who discovered or founded the diet?What is the premise of the diet?How does weight loss occur?Is the diet nutritious, allowing for intake from all food groups?What health improvements are expected to come from following this diet?How long does one have to follow the diet to see results?In your opinion, does this diet seem healthy and safe? Why or why not?Does this diet seem reasonable to follow for a lifetime? Why or why not?Have you or anyone you know ever tried the diet? Would you ever consider following it if you wanted to lose weight? Why or why not?
Week 3 History and Usage of the Ketogenic Diet Discussion

MN 207 Purdue Classical Probability Assumes that All Outcomes Are Equal Discussion.

Post 2: Reply to a ClassmateOne of the key differences between empirical probability and subjective probability is that empirical probability requires the collection of a data sample and subjective probability is based on personal experience. In response to one of your classmate’s posts, determine if they explained and correctly identified this difference. If incorrect, offer them a correct example. If correct, share what method you think they used to collect data for the empirical probability example.Post 3: Reply to Another Classmate:Review the explanations and examples for each of the three types of probability given by one of your classmates. Are their examples valid? Explain why or why not. Next, share a real-life example for one of the following situations:Describe a situation where two or more events would be mutually exclusive. Explain why you think these events are mutually exclusive.Describe a situation where two or more events would be dependent. Explain why you think these events would be dependent.
MN 207 Purdue Classical Probability Assumes that All Outcomes Are Equal Discussion

Logical Positivism And Rejection Of Metaphysics Philosophy Essay

Metaphysics has always occupied a crucial position in the field of philosophy. It is the branch of philosophy which deals with reality and the questions related to Being and the World. According to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, the word “metaphysics” derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (“beyond” or “after”) and φυσικά (physiká) (“physics”). The major work in this field came from the Aristotle’s book titled “metaphysics”. The philosophy of science has an well-known history of magnetism and aversion towards metaphysics. The latter finds evidence in the Logical Positivist contention that metaphysical questions are meaningless. The major logical positivists were Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach, Karl Popper and many other prominent philosophers. This paper aims to discuss the various criticisms and objections raised by logical positivists against metaphysics and metaphysicians, to elaborate the charges and explain the justifications provided by metaphysicians to support metaphysics. “Logical positivism (also called logical empiricism and neo-positivism) is a school of philosophy that combines empiricism – the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world – with a version of rationalism incorporating mathematical and logico-linguistic constructs and deductions in epistemology”.(Stansford encyclopedia of Philosophy). It grew out of the discussions of a group called Vienna-Circle. Their main aim was to reject metaphysics not as something wrong or invalid but as something which is meaningless. They employed the method of “Verifiability theory of meaning” to demonstrate as to whether a statement is meaningful or meaningless. “This principle holds that a claim is meaningful if and only if it could be verified, that is, if and only if some possible set of observations exists that, were they to be, would establish the truth of the claim.” (Salmon et al 1992:115) Rudolf Carnap, a major figure of Vienna Circle and a prominent logical positivist, played a significant role in the contributing to the rejection of metaphysics. In his book, Philosophy and Logical Syntax, Carnap uses the concept of verifiability to reject metaphysics. Rudolf makes it explicit that for a statement to be meaningful it must fulfill the following criterions:- 1) It must be grammatically correct. 2)It is analytic in the sense that it must either express a logical truth or logical contradiction. 3) It must be specified that under what conditions the sentence is true or false and that these conditions can in principle be empirically checked. Carnap and all other logical positivists held that any statement which do not fall under these categories is a meaningless pseudo-statement. Examples of pseudo-statements 1) One is an and 2) One is an animal. The former sentence is meaningless as it is formed counter syntactically. In the sense that the rules of grammar specifies that the third position should be occupied a predicate and not conjunctions. However in the latter there is the violation of the “theory of types”. In the latter sentence there is a type confusion between the types of predicates. With the support of the former claims Carnap proved that the various words and concepts used in metaphysics like God, Omniscient, Infinite etc. are meaningless because they cannot be empirically verified. Further when a metaphysician talks of such concepts such as god, he is not willing to deny anything and thus violates the conditions required for a sentence to be meaningful. Carnap held that the meaningful statemtns can be divided into three kinds:- 1) Tautologies- true by virtue of their form. Wittgenstein held that they approximate to the analytic judgments in Kant’s philosophy. For example-logical and mathematical formulae. 2) Contradictions- false by virtue of their form. For example-The first rule is that there are no rules. 3) Empirical statements (true or false)- Fall under the domain of empirical science. Carnap held that any statements which do not fall under these categories are meaningless pseudo-statements. In the words of Rudolf Carnap “Since metaphysics does not want to assert analytic propositions, nor to fall within the domain of empirical science, it is compelled to employ words for which no criteria of application are specified and which are therefore devoid of sense, or else to combine meaningful words in such a way that neither an analytic (or contradictory) statement nor an empirical statement is produced. In either case pseudo-statements are the inevitable product.”(Rudolf Carnap 1959:65) Carnap suggested that Metaphysics has no “theoretical” content because it does not offer anything that could be empirically verifiable; it merely provides the expression of an attitude toward life – a Lebensgefühl. Further the best way to express Lebensgefühl is through music. The same kind of parallelism between music and metaphysics could be found in the work of Theodor Adorno. However Carnap held that “Metaphysicians are musicians without musical talent”. The reason being the metaphysicians confuses between the two domains namely art and theory that is, the need for expression in art and inclinations to connect concepts and thoughts. Thus inadvertently resulting in the invalidating of knowledge and inadequate expression of attitude. Justifications in support of metaphysical theory The second prominent tradition in philosophy of science namely “Post-Positivist view” started with Thomas Samuel Kuhn(1960). The major proponents of this view were W.O.Quine, I.Lakatos, P.Feyerabend and D.Bloor. They rejected the sharp, philosophically discernible difference between philosophy and science, as held by the proponents of Received-view(associated with logical positivism). They held that science and philosophy are inseparable and thus cannot be demarcated from each other. They vehemently held that science is underdetermined by empirical observations and thus rejected the logical positivists claim that science is built on empirical foundations. The following claims led to the downfall of logical positivism and thus led to major efforts to support metaphysics:- 1) Proponents of Post-positivist view claimed that the verification principle which states “A sentence S is empirically meaningful if and only if S is verifiable by experience” does not the requirement criteria for meaningful sentence as it is neither synthetic a posteriori nor analytic a priori. The reason being that it is neither logically true nor false nor can its truth or falsehood can be demonstrated empirically. 2) In “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (1951), W.V.O.Quine rejects the logical positivists claim there there is a distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. He argued that if there is a clear distinction between the two then we must be able to demonstrate it analyticity and in a non-circular method. He gave the following reasons:- a) As it cannot be explained in terms of meaning; b) it cannot be explained in terms of synonymy, since synonymy itself cannot be explained in a non-circular way (not in terms of definition, nor in terms of interchangeability without change of truth value); c) it cannot be explained in terms of the semantical rules of an artificial language. 3) Karl Popper in his book “The logic of Scientific Discovery” criticizes logical positivists for placing too much emphasis on the verification principle. He argued that no matter how many individual observations are made it cannot prove the validity of a general statement(e.g., “all swans are white”). As a remedy to this problem he introduced the principle of “Falsificationism” which holds that a theory is meaningful iff it can be falsified. Conclusion Thus from the above discussion it is clear that there is no clear consensus in the field of metaphysics. The question of whether metaphysics can be accepted as a valid branch of philosophy still remains debatable. Furter investigations and researches in this direction are necessary if some progress have to be made in this field. However Carnap’s claim that “Metaphysicians are musicians without musical talent” still remains unparalleled in spite of numerous efforts made in this direction to refute the claim.

PSY 211 UOFM The Global Environment and Diverse Cultural Settings Essay

research paper help PSY 211 UOFM The Global Environment and Diverse Cultural Settings Essay.

Write in Essay format!!!GOAL One of the main objectives of this course is to learn how to be a wise consumer of psychological research. This research critique will give you practice reading and communicating clearly and effectively about psychological research.STEP 1: CHOOSE A SETAll readings are available as pdf files inside this “Research Paper” module (see attached files).For this assignment, please choose ONE!!! of the sets listed below. Each set consists of two items: (a) an original peer-reviewed journal article, and (b) a media report covering the research Choose the set that is most interesting to you!Set 1: Peer values & inclusion(a) Peer-reviewed journal article: Murrar et al. (2020). Exposure to peers’ pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap. Nature Human Behavior.(b) Media report: (Links to an external site.)pdfs:Set 1: Peer Reviewed Murrar-et-al.-2020.-NHB (see attached file)Set 1: MediaReport_Barncard. (see attached file)Set 2: Identities & flexible thinking(a) Peer-reviewed journal article : Gaither et al. (2020). Thinking about multiple identities boosts children’s flexible thinking. Developmental Science.(b) Media report: (Links to an external site.)Set 2: Peer Reviewed_GaitherEtAl. pdf (see attached file)Set 2: MediaReport_Duncan.pdf (see attached file)Set 3: Values affirmation & everyday numeracy(a) Peer-reviewed journal article: Peters et al. (2017). Improving numeracy through values affirmation enhances decision and STEM outcomes. PLOS One.(b) Media report: 3: PeerReviewed_PetersEt.Al.pdf(see attached file)Set3: Media Report_Communs. pdf(see attached file)STEP 2: READ AND WRITEFirst, carefully read both the original peer-reviewed journal article and the media report.Then, write a paper with two sections. Please use headings to separate your two sections. Double-space your document and use a 12-point font (Times New Roman or similar).First section of your paper: Summary of the peer-reviewed article (~300 words; this is just a guideline!). Briefly summarize the key aspects of the journal article. Your summary should include answers to the following questions: What were the main variables? What was the key finding or findings? What theory do the findings support or refute? Use concepts you have learned about in this course to communicate the research design and findings.Second section of your paper: Critique of the media coverage (~500 words; this is just a guideline!). Analyze and critique the journalist’s coverage of the research, using what you learned from reading the original journal article. In this section, make two significant points, dedicating separate paragraphs to each point. Each significant point should be a different argument, critique, etc. about a different question or issue; you should use concepts that you have learned about in this course to make your points. You may choose from the following questions to guide your critique:What did the journalist get right?What did the journalist get wrong, and why?What might the journalist have said differently?If the journalist made any causal claims, were they accurate? (Apply the 3 causal criteria).Did the journalist focus on the same key finding as the scientists did?Did the journalist accurately describe the procedures of the study? Did the journalist leave details out?Grading expectationsSummary (8 points): Accurate, concise, non-plagiarized summary of the key points of the original empirical article. Includes the main variables, the key findings, and the theory the findings support. Writing is clear. Writing reflects your own understanding; direct quotes from the research article are avoided.Critique (12 points): A thoughtful analysis and critique, containing two significant points, of how well the journalist covered the research. Clear writing and critical thinking.A reminder that your paper must be original work! The paper you turn in must be your own work that you have written yourself for this assignment. You may not:Copy words from another student or any other source, unless it is marked as a quotation and attributed to the sourceCopy something and then alter the words to make it a little differentParaphrase without attributionTurn in work that somebody else wroteAll of the things listed above are plagiarism, which is a serious violation of academic standards and can result in you failing the course. Don’t do it! Please see the syllabus for more information. If you are not sure what is allowed, please ask! All papers will be checked by SimCheck/TurnItIn, which is software that can automatically detect plagiarism.
PSY 211 UOFM The Global Environment and Diverse Cultural Settings Essay

Case Study: Acceptable Use Policy

Case Study: Acceptable Use Policy.

I’m working on a writing discussion question and need an explanation to help me study.

The acceptable use policy (AUP) is a very important policy within organizations to define acceptable employee behavior when accessing company resources. There are also legal implications within AUPs. Use an existing AUP that you are familiar with, such as from a current or previous workplace, or search on the Internet for an example AUP to complete this case study.undefinedWrite a 3–5 page paper in which you:undefinedDescribe the purpose of an acceptable use policy you have selected and explain how the AUP helps provide confidentiality, integrity, and availability within the organization.Critique the AUP you selected and provide recommendations for improving the AUP.Explain methods that organizations can implement to help ensure compliance with the AUP, mitigate their risk exposure, and minimize liability. Describe how your selected AUP accomplishes these goals.Describe methods for increasing the awareness of the AUP, and other policies, within the organization.Use three sources to support your writing. Choose sources that are credible, relevant, and appropriate. Cite each source listed on your source page at least one time within your assignment. For help with research, writing, and citation, access the library or review library guides.Requirements: | .doc file | APA | Case Study | 4 pages, Double spaced
Case Study: Acceptable Use Policy

Fort Hays State University Spacesuit Technology Research Paper

Fort Hays State University Spacesuit Technology Research Paper.

Topic: Space TechnologyGuidelines:** It must follow accepted APA guidelines.** The
header will be located on the first page; it will be left justified
beginning on line one. The header will include the title of the paper
and page number.** Correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling, are a must.** Whenever
the content involves a list of any kind, bullets should be used, unless
a rank order is needed and then numbered items will be used. (Use the
bulleting and numbering tool available in your word processor).** text of this paper will be three pages in length, excluding the reference page.** The paper will have no fewer than five correctly cited references.** Technological
topics for the research papers can readily be found in a variety of
publications. Just a few examples include the textbook, magazines,
newspapers, the Internet, and books.
Fort Hays State University Spacesuit Technology Research Paper