(2) Proving that the Earth is, indeed, round

Sure, we all know the Earth is round, but could we prove it? I think I can re-prove it.

The most obvious reason is that one can see farther the higher up one goes. If the Earth was flat, any factors restricting your view would not change the higher up you go. However, with a round Earth, the "protruding" Earth would block out far away objects when one is at a low height.

Celestial bodies change positions in the sky depending on where one is on the Earth. Some stars that are visible closer to the equator disappear completely as one travels north. This would not happen in a flat earth.

When there is a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the Earth that appears on the moon is circular, indicating spherical Earth. Although the lunar eclipse happens at the same time for the whole Earth, it happens at different local times, also proving the roundness of Earth.

Circumnavigation of the Earth is possible, and people that circumnavigate experience the gain or loss of a day that other people don't, due to the roundness of Earth.

Finally, we can, have, and do put artificial satellites into space that orbit the Earth, some geostationarily, which would not be possible if the Earth was flat.

I am certain that everyone who reads this blog post believes in a round Earth after reading it. That means it must be infallible. 

(1) A Hypothetical debate between Peter Singer and Vicki Hearne in rage comic form

Learning to block out images

In the NPR story, The hosts talked about how the brain makes decisions based on the competing influences of the logical part of the brain and the emotional part of your brain. They talked about the results of studies that showed that vivid images cause your brain to go into emotional mode, while a lack of imagery forces the brain to think logically. 

The point they didn't make is how much better logical thinking is than emotional thinking. I cannot think of a single case in which emotional thinking would lead to a correct decision where logic would have led you to believe something else. 

What does this mean for reading and listening? It means that we need to be aware that imagery tricks our brain into making decisions incorrectly. We need to stop our brain from doing this by making a habit of using logic in all situations. We need to remove ourselves from the grip of the writer so we can make our own decisions, not have them made for us. 

What does this mean for our writing and speaking? It means that we have to be very careful how we use images. Images should only be a supplement to a logical argument, not an argument on their own. Images without logic are just propaganda, and are entirely unethical.

My Writing Process, i.e., Why I'm Not a Great Writer

Calvin and Hobbes says it best, as usual. 

I don't like to write. As a result, I don't write until I absolutely have to. As a result, my writing is noticeably unrefined. As a result, I am graded poorly on my writing. As a result, I associate bad grades with writing. As a result, I don't like to write. The circle of death, or at least the circle of bad grades* *not A's

You may wonder how I'm still stuck in this circle of death when I seem to be aware of the problem. I just spent the last couple of minutes thinking about that myself, instead of writing. Whoops.

Despite the general last-minute-ness of my writing, I don't just sloppily rush through it, throwing words everywhere like I'm searching through last year's mail looking for that suddenly vital document. I'm actually quite deliberate with how I say things.

This reasoned approach helps me in the way I think writing is important: pure communication. If you are trying to get a point across, a simple, to the point style is much better than one stuffed with literary devices. A simile here and there is fine, but if symbolism and allusion are frequent enough that your writing sounds like James Joyce's Ulysses, you need to chill out.

Unfortunately, this simplistic writing style doesn't always fly in classes. First you are made to write about something you are completely uninspired to write about *coughLITERACYNARRATIVEcough*, then you are expected to write artistically. Personally, I think having to fake "deeper" writing is damaging and the notion that unadorned writing is somehow inferior is false. I'm sorry, but I choose my sentence length based on what words need to be in the sentence, not to convey some BS deeper meaning. But it is the way it is. "Improving" your simple writing makes the writing process take a lot longer, and not in a good way. 

You first have to think of what to write. As you are writing about something you don't really care about, this takes a long time. There is nothing you want to write about, so that is removed as a criterion. The next thing you think about is what you are able to write about. You have to choose a topic that you can get an acceptable length essay out of. Finally, if you are lucky enough to think of multiple topics on which you could BS an essay, you can choose the one that will be least embarrassing for other people to read, as you know you are going to have to awkwardly peer-conference. 

Once you manage to decide on a topic, you then have to try to figure out how to write it so that it will be acceptably artistic. This is especially difficult, as any idea you come up with for something you are uninspired to do will be quite boring. You have to recognize when an opportunity to insert a literary device presents itself. Try to give the illusion that these devices enhance the personal feel that you are trying to fake.

Finally, you actually have to type it out—you have to figure out how to make the inauthentic artistry work in a sentence. Hopefully you can type quite fast, or this part will take almost as long as the other two.

There you go. You have your first sentence. Only pages upon pages of phony emotion to go. Don't worry, it's not due until tomorrow.  

Where the term "blag" comes from. Credit to xkcd. Published 8/25/2006

Test

Test