Compare and Contrast Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper

Compare and Contrast Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper Positivists regarded empirical observation freed of preconceptions as the means by which facts were obtained and explained. This view, however, has been greatly contested since the Vienna Circles avid pursuance of it. The main problems include its inability to be checked and criticised by the scientific community members. In other words, they are subjective, fallible and thus unreliable.  [1]  It is this initial discontent with positivism, especially with logical positivism which prompted Karl Popper to develop his Theory of Falsifiability, a theory which no longer relies on induction but on deduction, which accepts that truth is not attainable and which casts theories aside which have been refuted by only a single piece of empirical evidence. Falsification is also a demarcation between science and non-science, something which has proved to be very controversial. Thomas Kuhn, perhaps the most well known critic of Poppers work, does not believe in induction or deduction as methods through which science progresses. Instead, he introduces the concept of normal science, revolutionary science and paradigms. The differences between these two mens work will be analysed, the implications of each for the conduct of social sciences commented upon and the work of Imre Lakatos, a twentieth century philosopher of mathematics and science, highlighted in order to illustrate just how much both philosophers resonate in the social sciences as a whole. Karl Popper, Positivism and his Theory of Falsifiability Karl Popper was first and foremost a philosopher of the natural sciences,  [2]  his knowledge of the social sciences being limited basically to economics.  [3]  With that in mind, one understands why he agreed with Rudolph Carnap in advocating that philosophy should learn from how the natural sciences operate. He believed scientists should adopt a critical attitude, willing to incessantly test their views with empirical evidence and rational discussion which the Vienna Circle had so avidly promoted. However, Popper was soon to highlight flaws with positivism, especially with logical positivism. These were, in particular, its dedication to the principles of inductivism and verificationism. Inductivists claim that via induction, one is able to obtain secure scientific knowledge and that the inference is legitimate if a significant number of singular or observational statements are gathered under a wide variety of circumstances.  [4]  In order to maintain the empirical certainty of inferences obtained through the deductive method, the universal law premise must be empirically certain.  [5]  However, as Popper pointed out, one has no assurance that any universal empirical proposition is certain. For Popper, the problem of induction was insurmountable, contesting that if science is empirical its [] laws must be treated as tentative hypotheses.  [6]   Popper accepted the Humean critique of induction, claiming not only that it is never used by scientists but that observation, believed to be an initial step in the formulation of theories, is misguided  [7]  . Hume also pointed out that observation is selective and theory-laden and thus one can never make pure or free observations.  [8]  Popper, however, disagreed with Hume over whether knowledge could be rationally justified. Hume saw inductively inferred laws as merely an account of habit or custom, (suggesting that) even scientific knowledge is irrational.  [9]  Popper, on the other hand, in order to avoid statements allowing empirical evidence to confirm false theories, believed that induction could be replaced by deduction. Deduction draws inferences about the premises from the observed falsity of the conclusion.  [10]  To justify this, he argued that though even with a body of empirical evidence, one can never be absolutely certain about the validity of a theory , it takes only one empirical rebuttal to determine the falsity of a theory. Popper denominated this the asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability  [11]  , a difference which became the centrepiece of his philosophy of science. Scientists begin with universal statements and initial conditions from which they deduce hypotheses which will then be subsequently tested. If they withstand the test, the theory will survive; if falsified, the theory is abandoned. Falsifiability, according to Popper, is the criterion of demarcation between science, or the empirical sciences and the non-science. There are, however, degrees of falsifiability. The more information a statement contains, the larger its body of observational statements and therefore, the higher its degree of falsification. According to Popper, scientists should aim at highly refutable theories instead of modestly falsifiable ones. It is preferable for the theory to be bold, precise and simple  [12]  as their empirical content will be greater and therefore there will be a larger body of potential falsifiers. Poppers definite break with logical positivism appears in their search of certainty: the positivists aimed to specify methods that would generate certain knowledge  [13]  whilst in Poppers view, one can only hope to improve what must always remain imperfect  [14]  as future tests could cast doubt over what was previously thought of as true. If we take Poppers approach to the search for truth, it would initially appear that there are an endless number of possible true theories.  [15]  However, Popper addresses that by explaining his notion of verisimilitude. The scientific process of trial and error which Popper advocates creates a greater approximation of the truth, or increases the verisimilitude of the theory. Popper, Marxism and Pseudo-Science The young Popper had been attracted to the apparent strength of theories such as Freuds psychoanalysis and Adlers individual psychology. These theories were regarded as capable of explaining virtually everything related to human behaviour as verifications were found to justify every advancement. Popper, however, was soon to discover a major flaw in them: they could not be refuted. Freud was therefore severely criticised by Popper for producing immunised theories against falsification. A theory unable to be falsified belongs, in Poppers view, to a non-science. His drastic approach towards pseudo-science was also extended to Marxism, especially the Marxism that Neurath had brought to the Vienna Circle. Neurath interpreted Marxian materialism as epsitemically equivalent to his own physicalism  [16]  and hailed Engels and Marx as having produced the foundations of a truly scientific study of society. In Poppers opinion, this could not have been further from the truth. The problem with Marx was not only that he was considered a historicist, but that he was a utopian too. Marxism, initially considered as a science because of its predictive nature, was soon re-classified as fundamentally non-scientific. The predictions Marx had made had not been borne out and in order to save it from falsification and refutation, ad hoc hypotheses were added, making the theory compatible with facts. These factors prompted Popper to adopt falsifiability as his criterion for demarcation between science and non-science. If a theory, according to Popper, is capable of being falsified or, in other words, is incompatible with empirical evidence, it is considered as scientific. If, on the other hand, a theory is compatible with all observations and is capable of explaining virtually everything be it because, as with the case of Marxism, it has been modified to accommodate newly made observations or, because, as in the case of psychoanalysis, it is indeed consistent with all observations made and to be made in the future, it is categorised as unscientific.  [17]  It is thi s criterion which characterises Poppers theory of falsifiability and which was soon criticised. Implications for the Social Sciences Popper helps demolish one of the notions positivism embraces, namely that science progresses from the observation of data by means of experiments. These experiments are verified when repeated allowing general laws about the nature of reality to be inferred. Popper, therefore, shows that progress is made not by verifying facts, but by attempts of falsifying the results of other theories.  [18]  The theories of science, he argues, are conjectures to solve problems and cannot be verified by empirical evidence.  [19]  The switch from induction to deduction also means that rather than proceeding from the particular to the universal, science originates from the universal (i.e. scientific hypotheses) to the particular.  [20]   Sander Thomas Kuhns Theory of Paradigms Thomas Kuhn began his career as a physicist and then turned his attention towards the history of science where his preconceptions about natural history were shattered  [21]  . His Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) was developed as an attempt to give a theory more in keeping with the historical situation as (Kuhn) saw it  [22]  . Unlike Popper, his main aim was not to provide guidelines to scientists about how to proceed or to develop a normative philosophy of science. The central concern of his thesis was to characterise the way in which science historically develops and to explain why scientists have operated in such a way. Kuhns Structure of Scientific Revolutions has been one of the most provocative (pieces of work) to appear in the last fifteen years  [23]  , offering the most sophisticated alternative to Popper.  [24]  Science, in his opinion, does not progress inductively as positivists would maintain nor by falsification as Popper would argue. Alternatively, Kuhn places focus on the revolutionary character of scientific process, where a revolution involves the abandonment of one theoretical structure and its replacement by another, incompatible one. Kuhns approach to the way science progresses can be summarised by the following open-ended scheme: pre-science normal science crisis revolution new normal science new crisis  [25]   According to Kuhn, the pre-science stage is a disorganised and diverse activity preceding the formation of science. It eventually becomes structured, directed and channelled when a single paradigm emerges and is adhered to by the scientific community. As will be discussed below, the concept of paradigms itself has been subjected to heavy criticism, not least because of its ambiguous nature. However, vaguely, one can postulate that paradigms contain some very general methodological prescriptions  [26]  to guide scientific work. Paradigms also serve a regulative function in directing future research.  [27]  Workers within a specific paradigm whether it be Newtonian mechanics or wave optics practise what Kuhn denominates normal science. As professed in Structure of Scientific Revolutions, normal science is: research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.  [28]   Normal science is inextricably characterised by a dominant paradigm, something that Popper quickly picked up upon as irrational and superficial.  [29]  In normal science the scientists work is devoted to the articulation and wider application of the accepted paradigm.  [30]  In other words, their main aim is to fill out what is suggested by the accepted paradigm.  [31]  It is therefore clear that little emphasis is placed upon normal science and research to produce major novelties as a primary aim. Kuhn, in effect, reduces Poppers falsification theory to problem solving within the confines of normal science. According to Kuhn, science is merely a set of puzzles whose solutions are to be found within the operating paradigm  [32]  . Normal scientists do not actively look for anomalies which the content of their paradigm will be hard-pressed to solve. However, when a recurrent anomaly does arise which the paradigm is unable to resolve, crisis will break out. During such a crisis, extraordinary science occurs characterised by a plurality of views and a challenge to the fundamentals of the paradigm. The crisis will then be resolved when a completely new paradigm emerges which has the capacity to resolve the previous, problematic anomalies and, in doing so, attract the allegiance of a growing scientific community until eventually the paradigm posing the problem is abandoned. Therefore, the new paradigm not only has to be able to resolve the anomaly, it also has to be subsequently accepted as normal science, thus establishing a new consensus. A scientific revolution according to Kuhn is constituted by discontinuous change  [33]  as the newly adopted paradigm will be confronted with problems it is unable to resolve and thus the never-ending cycle continues. Kuhn and Popper The Structure of Scientific Revolutions soon became problematic to reconcile with Poppers theory of falsification as Kuhns historical account about how scientists operate came into conflict with Poppers work. The emphasis Kuhn placed on scientific communities, their rules and expectations, was used to explain why scientists were not always willing to refute and actively search for falsifications of their theories. Unlike what Popper claimed, the scientific communities would not question the paradigm they work within until a particular anomaly was repeated. Instead, they might question their own calculations or instruments implemented, but never the broader framework they operate within.  [34]   Poppers reaction to Kuhns severe criticism was veritably weak. He simple asserted that Kuhns accurate historical account of science clashes with the facts as I see them.  [35]  According to Kuhn, falsification has not been in use in the past for the reasons highlighted above. Poppers rebuttal to this was that he, unlike Kuhn, had not focused on providing a historical account but on providing guidelines for future scientists. He also criticises Kuhn for producing a highly selected theory, one which disregarded large chunks of normal science.   [36]   Popper also criticised Kuhn for paving the way for irrationalism and relativism,  [37]  the reason for this lying in two of Kuhns statements. Firstly, the fact that Kuhn equated the switch in paradigms to a gestalt switch or a religious conversion because he believed in a holistic theory of meaning  [38]  means that it is very difficult to compare scientific theories. Secondly, because of Kuhns cynical approach to verisimilitude and his belief that we never get closer to the truth, his explanation on how science progresses seems ill-founded. In these contexts, Popper criticises Kuhn of adhering to the myth of framework which presupposes that rational and critical discussions can only take place if fundamentals are agreed upon. Popper strongly disagrees with this concept, as with the belief that science will not progress across paradigms and argues that different frameworks always have enough in common to allow the scientific community to compare and judge them, triggering pro gress. Other Criticisms of Kuhns Work Popper has not been alone in criticising aspects of Kuhns Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Bernstein succinctly puts the majority of the criticisms in his The Restructuring of Social and Political Theories  [39]  . The ambiguous nature of paradigms and the irrationality of the paradigm shift have been discussed above. Critics have also pinpointed Kuhns misrepresentation of the history of science  [40]  , the inaccurate description of normal science  [41]  and the exaggerated distinction between normal and revolutionary science  [42]  . In order to further show the relevance of Kuhns work to the social sciences, the vagueness of paradigms will be discussed, as the irrationality of paradigms has been explained above. When first introduced, Kuhn claimed paradigms were universally recognised scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners.  [43]  However, the elusive and slippery concept  [44]  of paradigm was shown when Kuhn acknowledges that he had been using the term paradigm in many ways  [45]  , citing Masterman who listed at least twenty two senses in which the term was used in the book.  [46]  To tackle the confusion created by his multiple use of paradigms, Kuhn proposes to replace it with a disciplinary matrix.  [47]  A disciplinary matrix includes the shared commitments of the community of scholars, the shared symbolic generalizations and [] the shared problems and solutions in the discipline.  [48]   Mark? Other Implications for Social Scientists. Even though Thomas Kuhn has been almost exclusively concerned with the natural sciences, social scientists have repeatedly claimed his work offers fresh illumination for understanding social sciences and theory.  [49]  Part of the reason for this is, as Kuhn himself pointed out, the fact that his work is regretfully [] too nearly all things to all people.  [50]   The revolutionary transformation in the use of observation as a means leading to theory has also had an impact on social scientists. Kuhns starting point for the formulation of theories is not reality but construction.  [51]  Kuhn contributed to demolishing [] positivism  [52]  not only by admitting revolutions in science involve the intrusion of non-scientific elements such as habits, customs or cultural values, but also in casting doubt over the possibility of attaining perfect knowledge and over the established idea that progress in science is cumulative. One of the most important consequences Kuhns work had for the social sciences was the significance he attributed to the role played by the sociological characteristics of scientific communities. Kuhn turned away from the search for an ideal methodology to the study of science by scientific means and, in doing so, invigorated the empirical study of science.  [53]  Finally, Kuhn may have hastened the demise of positivism by prompting and then influencing the naturalisation of epistemology, a movement which has become prominent through, for example, a conventionalistic and naturalistic study of science. Imre Lakatos: A Middle Man? By the late 1960s a great deal of the debate on the philosophy of science had come to focus on the difference between Kuhns paradigms and Poppers revision of positivism. Numerous epistemic doctrines entered this debate and different interpretations of Popper and Kuhns works emerged, reflecting the impact they had on their contemporary critics and their effect on the conduct of social science as a whole. Lakatos is one of the most prominent critics of their works, his critique generally considered as the most important attempt to place the post-empiricist theory of science somewhere between Popper and Kuhn.  [54]   Imre Lakatos at the outset appears to be a supporter of Poppers falsification theory. He strongly criticised Kuhn for his irrationalist and too general  [55]  concept of a revolution and his notion of a single, dominating paradigm. Lakatos defends Popper against the charge of naive falsificationism, the immediate discarding of a theory as soon as contradictory evidence is exposed. However, he goes beyond Popper in claiming that science progresses by sophisticated falsification which focuses on the comparative evaluation of whole research programs.  [56]   Sophisticated falsificationists realise that the conditions that a hypothesis should satisfy in order to be worthy of a scientists consideration [] alone are insufficient  [57]  and that the need for a hypothesis to be more falsifiable than the other it will replace is necessary for scientific progress. Thus, it is not single theories which are falsified but entire programs, embodying the notion of refutation [] not automatically lead(ing) to rejection.  [58]  Such an epistemic theory strikingly resembles Kuhns theory of paradigms. The difference between them only appears when closely examining Lakatos notion of research programs. According to Lakatos, every scientific research program has a hard core, a set of propositions that are immune from empirical tests  [59]  because they are surrounded by a protective belt of assumptions or conditions.  [60]  Though research programs and paradigms have been equated, Lakatos proposes that normal science be considered more as a research program for reasons of its general acceptability  [61]  and does not attribute the general status to it that Kuhnian paradigms have. Furthermore, the transition from one research program to another is the product of rational exploration of rival methodologies  [62]  and not, as Kuhn implied, a mystical conversion  [63]  to a new ontology. Cultural values, historical events and other external factors are far less important in Lakatos eyes and play little part in particular scientific theories or the choice of general research programs, levelling Kuhns theory down to critical rationalism.  [64]   Lakatos MSRP has not emerged without enticing criticisms. Firstly, he seems to have physics exclusively in mind when he developed his theory and when referring to science. Other natural sciences cannot as easily be accommodated to the Procrustean bed of the MSRP  [65]  and it is only economics which seems to offer the possibility of an easy fit.  [66]  As a model for the history of science, MSRP fails to meet the empirical test of general acceptability  [67]  . It is also limited in explaining how science works, failing to formulate the criteria needed to be employed for it to work. However, as Gordon highlights, the fact that Lakatos was flexible in not regarding former scientists as misguided in adopting theories that now would be considered irrational is a significant point of merit in Lakatos epistemic stance.  [68]  The MSRP model allows the possibility of gaining knowledge by using theories that are subsequently regarded as, in the absolute sense, false.  [69]    Conclusion As Lakatos claimed, The clash between Popper and Kuhn is not about a mere technical point in epistemology. It concerns our central intellectual values, and has implications not only for theoretical physics but also for the underdeveloped social sciences and even moral and political philosophy.  [70]   As seen with Sanders account, Popper has greatly influenced the political sciences, contributing to xxxx. Kuhns work, on the other hand, as Mark Smith rightly points out, has had a deep impact on the conduct of social sciences because of the vagueness and therefore adaptability of the term paradigms.  [71]  Despite their distinct approaches, however, both men have met with severe criticism, not only from each other, but from scientific colleagues and both have apparently failed to address these adequately.  [72]  It is therefore not surprising that xxxxxx

Investigate the Cell Sap Concentration of Solute in a Potato Chip using

Investigate the Cell Sap Concentration of Solute in a Potato Chip using Osmosis Aim The aim of the experiment is to investigate the cell sap concentration of solute in a potato chip using osmosis and produce a figure informed by the investigation as to what this is. Background Information A factor that effects how much water moves into a cell is the solute concentration within it. Water moves in and out of cells by diffusion, this diffusion is called osmosis. Osmosis is the diffusion of water molecules from a place with a high water potential or high concentration of water to a low water potential or low concentration of water. If a solution has a high water potential this means it is weak or dilute solution so it only has a small solute (e.g. glucose) concentration. However, if a solution has a low water potential it is a strong more concentrated solution because it has a much higher solute concentration. Osmosis is the diffusion of water in these solutions from a high water potential to a low water potential or in terms of solute concentrations, from a dilute solution to a more concentrated solution as a more concentrated solution would have a much lower water potential that a dilute one. The water passes through what is known as a partially permeable membrane, which basically is what separates living cells from their surrounding. The membrane is called partially permeable and not fully permeable because it only allows water to diffuse through it and not solute. The cell wall is an example of a fully permeable membrane because it allows water and solute to pass through it, it does not block any of these molecules. The diffusion of water molecules by osmosis always flows down a water potential gradient, which basically means from a high to a low water potential this is how the water moves up through a plant in the xylem vessels, once one cell is full of water, the water will move all at once to the next cell. The water is moving from a place of high concentration to a place of low concentration, like the valves in our hearts stop our blood flowing back the other way, the cell membrane of the cell make sure the water only flows up the plant, this is known as the transpiration stream. When water is lost through the stomata this leaves empty cells with low water potentials therefore the water is always moving up the plant from higher water potentials to ... ...nt parts of the potato as they may have different solute concentration and it may be discovered that the point of no net movement will be different in different areas of the potato or even in different areas of the same chip. The smaller the potato slices from the different areas of the potato then the more detailed an analysis could be of which part of the potato has the highest/lowest % solute concentration. The experiment could be done again using smaller concentrations, say with a range of 5%-7% and at intervals of 0.25% this way a figure for the actual % solute concentration in a potato chip could be pin-pointed to a much more exact figure. Finally an experiment could be done using different types of potatoes to decipher whether the type of potato depends on the % solute concentration it has. The trends could be taken for many types of potato and then an average taken of them to give a figure which most represents the solute concentrations in many potatoes. This figure could then be compared or even investigated at the same time as an experiment to see if there were different solute concentrations in different parts of the potato and the links, if any, between them analysed.

Lily’s Fulfillment of the Hero’s Journey Essay

The classic story line of the hero’s journey can be recognized in almost every book, movie, or short story written. Even in some stories that would not be that obvious, such as the historical fiction novel The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd. Although not very recognizable two out of the three main stages of the hero’s journey are departure and initiation. These are apparent through out Lily’s journey to find herself and her mother’s history. The third main stage, return, is not as apparent in the novel. Departure, the first stage of the hero’s journey, is portrayed in Kidd’s historical fiction novel. This stage includes meeting the mentor, the call to adventure, and crossing the first threshold. Lily’s mentors through out the story are the bees. She goes back to them as a source of knowledge because she feels they have life figured out. The call to adventure happens when Lily realizes the only way to find answers for her many questions about her mother is to leave and search for them. â€Å"Lily Melissa Owens, your jar is open. In a matter of seconds I knew exactly what I had to do- leave†(Kidd 41). Crossing the first threshold occurs after Lily’s realization. When she packs a bag leaving a note for T-Ray, her abusive father, and going to the hospital to get Rosaleen. The second stage, the initiation, takes place through most of the story and explains all of Lily’s trials to find herself and information about her mother. Through out Lily’s journey to find information about her mother, she encounters many hardships that help her mature and find herself. One of the biggest advances of her finding herself and maturing is when she falls in love with Zach. â€Å"Zachary Lincoln Taylor, resting there, along my heart.†(Kidd 231). This quote shows her feelings towards Zach and how much she cares about him. Although some trials created joy others created sorrow. â€Å"I looked away. I knew then. May was dead.†(Kidd 193) These three sentences make what happened really prominent and it enhances dread and sadness. Another example of a hardship Lily has to go through is when T-Ray comes to Tiburon to get Lily back and bring her home. â€Å"How dare you leave me! You need a lesson, is what you need!†(Kidd 294). This quote increases the understanding of T-Rays anger at Lily for leaving him. Lily’s hardships all affected her either positively or negatively. The third and final stage of the hero’s journey, return, is not as visible in this novel as the other stages. The return stage includes the refusal of the return. Although Lily refuses to go back to the peach farm with T-Ray, this is not a refusal to return to her ordinary world. Lily’s ordinary world is at the honey farm with August, June, and Rosaleen. Because Lily’s ordinary world is at the honey farm she doesn’t need to return to Sylvan, South Carolina. The step the master of the two worlds, where the character has become comfortable with themselves and everyone around them, is shown. At the end of the book Lil has come to accept the fact that she killed her mother. Also she has matured and found herself through out all of the trials she has gone through. The story line of the hero’s journey follows Lily Owens through her journey to find herself and information about her mother. The three stages she follows are departure, initiation, and although not as apparent return. After completing the hero’s journey she is now able to go on with her.

Slavery from 1607-1775 essays

Slavery from 1607-1775 essays Between the years of 1607-1775, slavery in the southern colonies underwent tremendous growth. Clearly, there were three main factors which influenced its rapid increase in prevalence in these agricultural colonies. The original reason for the institution of slavery was primarily based upon economic reasons. White plantation owners needed a replacement for the indentured servants, who were rapidly becoming quite inconvenient. Closely tied to the economic reasons were the social motives of white plantation owners for African slaves. African slaves were already somewhat weathered in their homeland. Once in the New World, the social ties of the blacks actually aided in their population growth. Lastly, geographic reasons, such as the triangle trade, and simple cross-Atlantic voyage made African slavery a viable option. In 1619, the first slaves made the torturous journey across the Atlantic from their homes on the coast of Africa to an unknown land; Jamestown, Virginia. This infamous year marked the start of three centuries of inhumane slave trading, on a three-part route known as the triangular trade. The primary reason for the importation of African slaves was due to the growing disadvantages of white indentured servants from Britain. For around fifty years, the slave population remained relatively insignificant in the British colonies. Drastic change occurred following Bacons Rebellion in 1676. This rebellion, led by Nathaniel Bacon, was comprised of a group of one thousand Virginians who rebelled against their governor, William Berkeley. Although eventually suppressed, this uprising caused great physical damage to Virginia. Far worse, however, was the psychological damage it left with the plantation owners in the colony. Due to Bacons Rebellion, wealthy plantation owners began to sea rch for a new group of workers who could do the same job without the revolts. In the ensuing decade, rising wages in Englan...

The Rise of the American Political Parties essays

The Rise of the American Political Parties essays Even after the Constitution was drafted, there remained many ambiguous interpretations by the citizens along with politicians of America. The Anti-Federalists, like Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, had a very strict following of the Constitution. However, the Federalists, such as George Washington and James Madison, believed that the Constitution was a set of guidelines rather than a strict collection of laws. These different ideas, along with the election of 1796, helped to create the division of ideas which resulted in the forming of the political parties. The Federalists, who were led by Alexander Hamilton, believed mainly in a strong central government. Hamilton believed that the common populace could not be trusted and that they would become greedy. He also thought that a strong federal government should have most of the authority because the states would become too divided if they were entrusted with individual powers. The goal of the Federalists was to unite the country and to develop a self sufficient economy based on industry as well as agriculture. Another idea that Hamilton and the Federalists shared was to create a financial policy in which the country would establish a system of credit. Furthermore, a national bank would be established along with a countrywide currency to rid the obstacles that threatened the development of industry in the United States. The Anti-Federalists, in contrast, believed in state powers. They feared that the new national government would take too much power away from the states and would not protect the rights of the individual citizens. Most of the federalists were small farmers and debtors, but some were wealthier people. Some Revolutionary heroes, such as George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry, were also firm anti-federalists. Among them, the most famous was probably Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed in state powers, like most anti-federalists, and believed ve...

Chevrolet manufactures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Chevrolet manufactures - Essay Example So, this paper will analyze the various processes and issues that took place in the departments of production and operation, when GM or more specifically Chevrolet manufactured its Corvette Z06 range of cars. Corvette Z06 comes under the brand of Chevrolet Corvette C6, which is the sixth and also the current generation of sports car produced by the Chevrolet, a part of General Motors. Launched in the year 2006, Corvette Z06 debuted at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit last month. As Z06 are the latest models, it can be considered as the most powerful production Corvette till date. This reputation of being a powerful car, can be held till 2012, because the only C7 will make a entry. According to Motor Trend magazine, the C6 will not be superseded by a new C7 generation at least until the 2012 calendar year. (Connor, 2008). The production and the operation process of Z06 were optimized, when compared to the C5 generation. Apart from the major overhaul in the aspects of engine (a larger 6.0 L with 364 cu in and 5967 cc engine), interior space and other technicalities, the production process of Z06 was mainly geared to using aluminum as the preferred metal for the body of the car. The body frame was constructed using aluminum, thereby saving 136 pounds, which would be the extra weight if a standard steel frame was used. â€Å"In place of the steel frame on the conventional C6, GM is substituting an almost identical aluminum spaceframe, thereby reducing mass by over 30%† (Whitfield, 2005). Although, GM decided to use Aluminum, it did not have the resources to come up with the Aluminum car body structure and this where the coordination processes came into the picture, with GM using the services or working in coordination with Structural Solutions Group’s, Dana Corp. Although it seemed like a simple substitution, transforming a spot-welded steel frame into an aluminum

Older people Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Older people - Essay Example Decisions in providing care in an abused elderly are often based on the principles of autonomy and beneficence – what the client wants and what will promote good care. Based on autonomy, abused clients have the right to respect, informed consent, and self-determination. If a competent abused client decides not to do anything about the situation, client’s decision must be upheld. On the other hand, healthcare professionals are put into a dilemma where beneficence, in an abusive situation, is needed. Healthcare professionals’ follows the principle of doing good and preventing evil harm thus, weighing between the ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence puts care interventions into a dilemma. Legal interventions and criminal charges also apply to an abusive situation. The Charter of Residents Rights and Responsibilities under the Aged Care Act of 1997 explicitly states that â€Å"people living in aged care homes in Australia have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, and to live without exploitation, abuse or neglect†. Physical, sexual, and financial abuse is very obvious and that abuse can be reported promptly while psychological abuse and neglect are less easily determined. Verifications from a multidisciplinary team or a health professional are needed to prove psychological abuse or neglect. Legal interventions could involve revoking power of attorney arrangements, taking out a domestic violence order, or having the perpetrator evicted from the older person’s premises.  ... Specific factors identified are fast history of a fall, age, female gender, lower extremity weakness, balance problems, low levels of physical activity, cognitive impairment, psychotropic drug use and polypharmacy, chronic medical problems (stroke, arthritis, Parkinson’s Disease), sensory loss, orthostatic hypotension, acute health problems (pneumonia, urinary tract infections), dizziness, diabetes, depression, and incontinence (Nay, 2009, p. 192). Incidence The incidence of falls increases with age and varies according to residential location. Falls are more common in residential aged care facilities where 30-60% cases of falls were reported in 12 months than in hospitals with 17 falls out of 1000 bed days (Nay, 2009, p. 190). In Australia, for the year 2005-2006, the estimated number of hospitalized injury cases due to falls in people aged 65 years and over was 66, 800 – a rise of 10% since 2003-2004. Half of all fall injury cases for people aged 65 years and older oc cur from home (Byrne, 2010, p. 141). Falls are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older people. In community-dwelling older people, 5-10% of falls result in major injuries such as fractures, head trauma, and major lacerations. In residential aged care facilities, major injuries range from 10-30%. Falls have also been identified as a contributory risk factor in 40% of residential aged care admissions (Nay, 2009, p. 192). Implications for Practice The increase in the incidence of falls among acute care facilities and residential aged care facilities seems to be alarming. High incidence of falls among older people implies that an enormous amount of effort must be put in prevention interventions and programs for falls. A review to assess the effectiveness of current prevention