Aa

A is for Authority and Anthropocentrism

Also Anthropic Principle and Axiom

Amazement

A = Authority and Authorship, The right to write.

“Take me to your leader”

au·thor·i·ty

au·thor·i·ty (ə-thôrʹĭ-tē, ə-thŏrʹ-, ô-thôrʹ-, ô-thŏrʹ-) noun
Abbr. auth.

1.     a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge. b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.

2.     Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.

3.     A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.

4.     a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority. b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.

5.     Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?

6.     A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.

7.     Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.

8.     Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.

[Middle English auctorite, from Old French autorite, from Latin auctōritās, auctōritāt-, from auctor, creator. See author.]

au·thor

au·thor (ôʹthər) noun

1.     Abbr. auth., au a. The original writer of a literary work. b. One who practices writing as a profession.

2.     An originator or creator: the author of a new theory.

3.     Author God.
verb, transitive
au·thored, au·thor·ing, au·thors
Usage Problem.
To assume responsibility for the content of (a published or an unpublished text).

[Middle English auctour, from Old French autor, from Latin auctor, creator, from auctus past participle of augēre, to create.]

– au·thorʹi·al (ô-thôrʹē-əl, ô-thŏrʹ-) adjective

Usage Note: The verb author, which had been out of use for a long period, has been rejuvenated in recent years with the sense “to assume responsibility for the content of a published text.” As such it is not quite synonymous with the verb write; one can write, but not author, a love letter or an unpublished manuscript, and the writer who ghostwrites a book for a celebrity cannot be said to have “authored” the creation. The sentence He has authored a dozen books on the subject was unacceptable to 74 percent of the Usage Panel, probably because it implies that the fact of having a book published is worthy of special lexical distinction, a notion that sits poorly with conventional literary sensibilities, and which seems to smack of press agentry. The sentence The Senator authored a bill limiting uses of desert lands in California was similarly rejected by 64 percent of the Panel, though here the usage is common journalistic practice, and is perhaps justified by the observation that we do not expect that legislators will actually write the bills to which they attach their names. · The verb coauthor is well established in reference to scientific and scholarly publications, where it serves a useful purpose, since the people listed as authors of such works routinely include research collaborators who have played no part in the actual writing of the text, but who are nonetheless entitled to credit for the published results.

The right to write!

pur·pose

pur·pose (pûrʹpəs) noun

1.     The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: “And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue” (Sarah Josepha Hale).

2.     A result or an effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See synonyms at intention.

3.     Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.

4.     The matter at hand; the point at issue.
verb, transitive
pur·posed, pur·pos·ing, pur·pos·es
To intend or resolve to perform or accomplish.

idiom.
on purpose
Intentionally; deliberately.
to good purpose
With good results.
to little purpose or to no purpose
With few or no results.

[Middle English purpos, from Anglo-Norman, from purposer, to intend : pur-, forth (from Latin prō-). See pro-1 + poser, to put. See pose1.]

purpose (noun)

will: intent, purpose, intention
intention: purpose, set purpose, settled purpose, determination, predetermination, resolve, resolution
use: office, purpose, role, point, function
aspiration: aspiration, ambition, purpose, intention

Anthropocentrism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism

If the Eiffel Tower were now representing the world’s age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man’s share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno.
Mark Twain, ridiculing Alfred Russel Wallace’s “anthropocentric’ theory” that the universe was created specifically for the evolution of mankind.[1]

Anthropocentrism describes an analysis from the perspective that human beings are the central, only or most significant animal species, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.[2]

The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. Anthropocentrism is a major concept in the field of environmental ethics and environmental philosophy, where it is often considered to be the root cause of problems created by human interaction with the environment, however; it is profoundly embedded in our culture and conscious acts.

Anthropic Principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Jump to: navigation, search

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe that the fact is unremarkable that the universe’s fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. [1]

The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by Barrow and Tipler (see variants) states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge. Douglas Adams used the metaphor of a living puddle examining its own shape, since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them perfectly (while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly). Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe’s ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.

The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the Universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no one would know it. That is, it must be possible to observe some Universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility.

The term anthropic in “anthropic principle” has been argued [2] to be a misnomer.[3] While singling out our kind of carbon-based life, none of the finely tuned phenomena require human life or some kind of carbon chauvinism.[4][5] Any form of intelligent life would do; so, specifying carbon-based life, per se, is irrelevant.

The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, “conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist”,[6] is “easy” to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and thus make claims considered controversial by some and that are contingent upon empirical verification.[7][8]

Axiom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy; it is better known and more firmly believed than the conclusion.[1] The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα that which is thought worthy or fit, that which commends itself as evident.[2]

An axiom, as used in modern logic, is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning, without any reference to extra-mental reality,[3] and equivalent to what Aristotle calls a definition[4]. More formally, an axiom is a proposition that is not and cannot be proven within the system based on it.[citation needed] Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths. An axiom is defined as a mathematical statement that is accepted as being true without a mathematical proof.[5]

In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: “logical axioms” and “non-logical axioms”. In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).

Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in the latter sense, “axiom,” “postulate”, and “assumption” may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s