Reference no: EM133275069
NUMBER ONE: As the text points out, causal reasoning is used in clinical studies. As a professional in the health field, you will undoubtedly be referring to cause/effect studies for the rest of your professional life. In this discussion, you are asked to expand and deepen your understanding of clinical studies.
In 1999, a study on the causes of myopia appeared in the prestigious journal Nature (Quinn). The study received wide-spread publicity in leading newspapers, such as the New York Times, and on television outlets, such as CBS and CNN. Within a year, another article in Nature followed up the 1999 study (Zadnik et al., 2000). The studies had dramatically different findings.
Initial Post Instructions
Using what you have learned from the text, as well as any other sources you may find useful (including the website in the Required Resources), analyze and evaluate the methodology of both studies and how methodology affected the differences in how the studies were reported.
Reportage of both studies can be found with an Internet search using all of the following terms: <Philadelphia myopia night lights>.
NUMBER TWO (chapter 13): At the very end of Chapter 13, there is a Group Exercise that asks: What ideals would you go to war to defend? We are not going to ask you to go to war, but we are going to ask you to think about what ideals or values you believe would be worth defending - even to the point of risking your life in their defense.
When Nazi Germany overtook Europe in the early 20th Century, resistance movements sprung up in the occupied countries, and many civilians risked - and lost - their lives against Nazisim. Today, in Saudi Arabia, women who protested restrictions on the rights of women imposed by that country have been jailed, and remain jailed, even after some of the rights they asked for have been granted.
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
- What core values would you risk your life and freedom to defend?
- Could a nation going to war be appropriate in certain circumstances - or is war never an appropriate response?
NUMBER THREE (chapter 16): Facione & Gittens (2016) state, "Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree" (p. 344). The authors of your text ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom we disagree.
- Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist - a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women?
- Should I respect the point of view of a racist?
- How about someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman?
- How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?
- How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant - one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires ideological reasoning, so you may want to review Chapter 13.
As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write about in your initial post:
- Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are your responses tinged with cognitive bias?
- Do you think there is a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman?
- Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust?