View allAll Photos Tagged provocation
Group 3_
Alejandro Candela, Georgina Muñoz, Carlos Paz, Berenice Jimenez, Laura Antelo, Gabriel Manriquez
Networked Fabrication for Urban Provocations.
Shifting Paradigms from Mass Production to Mass Customization
Computational architecture and design course
Conventional construction methods all depart from the basic premises of mass production: standardization, modulation and a production line. What these systems developed during the last two centuries fail to take into account are the evolutionary leaps and bounds the manufacturing industry has taken over the last decades. With the introduction of CNC technologies and rapid prototyping machines have altered the paradigms of fabrication forever. It is due to these new tools that it is now possible to create (n) amount of completely unique and different pieces with the same amount of energy and material that is required to create (n) identical pieces. The possibilities for implementation of new forms, textures, materials and languages are infinite due to the versatility that these new tools offer a growing network of architects, designers, fabricators that are integrating them into their professional practices to generate unique and precise objects that respond to countless data and real-life conditions.
Instructors:
Monika Wittig [ LaN, IaaC ]
Shane Salisbury [ LaN, IaaC ]
Filippo Moroni [ SOLIDO, Politecnico di Milano ]
MS Josh Updyke [ Advanced Manufacturing Institute, KSU, Protei ]
Aaron Gutiérrez Cortes [ Amorphica ]
photo : Carhartt Gallery (copyright)
photo : A1one (copyright)
Public Provocations IV.
expo collective / group show
June 2012 – October 2012
Vernissage: 09.06.2012 / 19:00 h
A vibrant and unique exhibition that can be experienced from June till October 2012 in the Carhartt Gallery.
Artists in exhibition :
A1one / IR
Bezt / PL
Czarnobyl / PL
Dave the Chimp / GB
EME / ES
Honet / FR
Jef Aérosol / FR
Klaas Van der Linden / BE
Maoma / NL
Marco Zamora / US
SatOne / D
Tasso / D
The London Police / NL
OVER HALF A MILLION PEOPLE took to the streets of London on Saturday 26th March. They were marching against the Con-Dem government’s cuts. It was one of the biggest protests this country has ever seen. Every single trade union was represented on the protest and they were joined by anti cuts campaigners, pensioners, students and the unemployed.
No amount of police provocation against peaceful protesters or headlines in papers about violence can obscure that this was a massive working class demonstration.
And its power came from numbers and the social power they represent. It was a determined but angry protest. Millions of workers fear for their jobs and millions more are right to believe that the Tories are out to destroy their communities.
Magnificent
This government, held up by it’s Lib Dem collaborators, knows and cares nothing about the pain it causes, after all the majority of the cabinet are millionaires and two thirds went to private school.
The marchers’ message was clear—not one cut and not one job loss. And they are right: why should workers and the poorest in society pay for a crisis they did not create?
There doesn’t have to be a single cut or job loss. Greg Philo published an important article in the Guardian newspaper recently. He highlighted the fact that the personal wealth of the richest 10% of the population in Britain is £4,000 billion.
A one off tax of 20% on the wealth of this group would raise £800 billion and would wipe off Britain’s debt in one fell swoop.
With this in mind it’s crazy that Ed Miliband and New Labour are arguing that some cuts are necessary and that it’s the pace of the cuts that’s the problem. There’s no need to make cuts at all!
Saturday’s demonstration was magnificent, but it alone will not be enough to force Cameron and his cronies to make a U-turn. The Socialist Workers Party believes that if we are going to stop the Tories in their tracks, we will need further mass protests—and more importantly, strikes involving hundreds of thousands of workers.
And we are not alone. On Saturday the leader of Unite (Britain’s biggest union), Len McCluskey, told those at the rally “This is only the start. We need a plan of resistance including coordinated strike action.”
Strike
Again when Mark Serwotka (the general secretary of the PCS) addressed the march he said, “Imagine what a difference it would make if we didn’t only march together but took strike action together.”
It’s time to turn those words into action. Already some unions, including the NUT, PCS and UCU are moving to joint action on pensions at the end of June—this could see 700,000 teachers, civil servants and lecturers on strike together.
That would be a good start, and would put pressure on the government, but we could really finish Cameron if the GMB, Unison and Unite also called their members out. We would see 5 million on strike—that would signal the end of Cameron.
Now we are all back at work, there is no time to waste. Union meetings need to be called as soon as possible and every union section/branch/region needs to be passing motions calling on their unions to call joint strike action now.
The message is simply that we marched together, now it’s time to strike together.
Article: Socialist Worker www.socialistworker.co.uk
www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato-helped-trigger-ukraine-wa...
The U.S. and NATO Helped Trigger the Ukraine War. It’s Not ‘Siding With Putin’ to Admit It
But Moscow’s cruel overreaction deserves emphatic condemnation.
March 7, 2022 • Commentary
By Ted Galen Carpenter
This article appeared in Newsweek on March 7, 2022.
Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch a full‐scale invasion of Ukraine is a monstrous act of aggression that has plunged the world into a perilous situation. By any reasonable standard, his move was an over‐the‐top response to any Ukrainian or NATO provocations. However, that conclusion is different from saying that there were no provocations, as far too many policymakers and pundits in the West are doing now.
It has become especially fashionable in such circles to insist that NATO’s expansion to Russia’s border was in no way responsible for the current Ukraine crisis. Many dismiss all arguments to the contrary as “echoing Putin’s talking points,” “siding with Putin,” or circulating Russian propaganda and “disinformation.” Leaving aside the ugly miasma of McCarthyism enveloping such allegations, the underlying argument is factually wrong.
Russian leaders and several Western policy experts were warning more than two decades ago that NATO expansion would turn out badly—ending in a new cold war with Russia at best, and a hot one at worst. Obviously, they were not “echoing” Putin or anyone else. George Kennan, the intellectual architect of America’s containment policy during the Cold War, perceptively warned in a May 2, 1998 New York Times interview what NATO’s move eastward would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” he stated. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake.”
Kennan was speaking of the first round of enlargement that brought into the Alliance Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Later rounds, which added the Baltic Republics and other East European countries, were considerably more abrasive, and Washington’s subsequent attempt to make Ukraine and Georgia members was contemptuous of Russia’s core security interests. Moscow’s complaints and warnings were becoming increasingly sharp as well.
Yet U.S. and European officials blew through one red light after another. George W. Bush began to treat Georgia and Ukraine as valued U.S. political and military allies, and in 2008, he pressed NATO to admit Ukraine and Georgia as members. French and German wariness delayed that endeavor, but the NATO summit communique affirmed that both countries would eventually achieve that status.
In his 2014 memoir, Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense in both Bush’s administration and Barack Obama’s, conceded that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.” That initiative, he concluded, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests.”
Indeed it was, and Moscow began to push back. Putin exploited a foolish provocation by Georgia’s pro‐Western government to launch a military offensive that penetrated deeply into the country. Upon its victory, Russia permanently detached two secessionist‐minded Georgian regions and put them under permanent Russian control.
The Kremlin’s decisive action should have alerted even slow‐learning U.S. leaders that the days of Russian officials merely issuing verbal protests about the West’s steady encroachment into Russia’s security sphere were over. Amazingly, though, the Obama administration still sought to turn Ukraine into a NATO political and military asset. In late 2013 and early 2014, the United States and several European governments meddled shamelessly to support the efforts of demonstrators to unseat Ukraine’s generally pro‐Russia president, Victor Yanukovych, some two years before the expiration of his term.
That campaign was especially inappropriate since Yanukovych became president in 2010 as the result of an election that even the European Union and other international observers acknowledged was reasonably free and fair. In a democratic system, the legal way to remove a president from office is, depending on a specific country’s constitutional rules, through a parliamentary vote of no‐confidence, impeachment, or defeat in the next election. Angry street demonstrations do not fit into any of those categories, yet the United States and its allies backed that illegal process. A recording of the infamous leaked telephone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt confirmed the extent of Washington’s meddling in the affairs of a sovereign country.
The Ukraine episode proved to be an intolerable provocation to neighboring Russia. Putin responded by annexing the strategic Crimea peninsula and the United States and its NATO partners then imposed economic sanctions on Russia. The new cold war was on in earnest.
Yet Washington still refused to back off. Instead, the Trump and Biden administrations poured weapons into Ukraine, approved joint military exercises between U.S. and Ukrainian forces, and even prodded the allies to include Ukraine in NATO war games.
In late 2021, it became clear that the Kremlin’s restraint had run dry. Moscow issued demands for security guarantees, including a draw‐down of military forces already deployed in NATO’s eastern members. With respect to Ukraine, the demand was very clear and uncompromising: Not only would Kyiv never receive a membership invitation, but NATO weapons and troops would never be deployed on Ukrainian soil. When the West failed to provide those guarantees, Putin launched his devastating, full‐scale war.
Moscow’s cruel overreaction deserves emphatic condemnation. However, the culpability of the United States and its NATO allies also is sizable. Moving an alliance that one great power dominates to the border of another major power is inherently destabilizing and provocative.
Those people who are familiar with even the basics of international relations should grasp that point; it was inexcusable that so many U.S. and NATO leaders apparently did not do so.
One can readily imagine how Americans would react if Russia, China, India, or another peer competitor admitted countries from Central America and the Caribbean to a security alliance that it led—and then sought to add Canada as an official or de facto military ally. It is highly probable that the United States would have responded by going to war years ago. Yet even though Ukraine has an importance to Russia comparable to Canada’s importance to the United States, our leaders expected Moscow to respond passively to the growing encroachment.
They have been proven disastrously wrong, and thanks to their ineptitude, the world is now a far more dangerous place.
Each year the Worlds Literature Festival features The Salon - a space in which a group of invited writers can talk in depth about issues relating to their own and others’ writing; a space in which the art and craft of writing can be debated, connections between writers made, discoveries shared and conversations begun.
Taking place around a large conference table in the UEA’s Council Chamber and chaired by Professor Jon Cook from UEA, each session begins with a commissioned provocation that lasts approximately fifteen minutes. After the provocation has been given, Jon opens the floor to the gathered writers and the discussions begin!
Photo by Martin Figura
Paris - France - 2005 (SQ0359) aussi (SQ0365)
Description: dessin, tout, femme, assise, seins, chaise, jambes écartées, sexy, slip; bicolore, rose, rouge
Our Pennymite militia forcefully evicted a gang of treacherous Marylanders and Lord Baltimore's head rattlesnake, Col. Tom Cresap, from the Susquehanna valley back in 1736. So you can imagine my anger seeing this flag of Baltimore's Colors flying just off the river at Chestnut Grove on Saturday.
Wait, this is just a Baltimore Oriole? Well, don't I feel like a fool. I guess I ought to apologize to that horrified family with the Maryland plates whose tires I slashed and windshield I smashed in the parking lot. My bad.
In case your wondering what I'm jabbering about, see here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cresap%27s_War
Or better yet, pick up a copy of Carl Carmer's "The Susquehanna" for a more colorful treatment of the incident. It's pretty entertaining. And Cresap, despite being a dirty Marylander, had balls of steel.
Watch on Youtube: youtu.be/kyY-MAuP4tQ
WTF 🙈 Angry Monkey freaks out after kids provocation 😅 Aggressive Ape Vine Watch the whole playlist of June 2018 ▶️▶️ www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfU4Av3fG4jKMSxqDX7GydepDT... Hey, welcome to Laugh Flash! We are all about sharing the funniest and most viral videos on social media. Subscribe to our channel to get daily fresh content. Don't forget laughing is healthy and makes you happy. =) If you have any funny videos to share just message us and we will be happy to post it on our channel! There is no copyright infringement intended. Copyright belongs to the respective owners. If you are the owner of a video shared by us and you want it to be taken down, just send us a message and we will delete it immediately. Thank you! Credit for the content goes to: ift.tt/2t5krjC Other playlists you might find interesting: The ULTIMATE Try Not To Laugh Challenge - All Laugh Flash Videos EVER! www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfU4Av3fG4jKVchPgcLqMjTQxV... Funny Videos May 2018 Compilation - Laugh Flash www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfU4Av3fG4jIIBKJHMppFkGLPu... Best Of Kids Compilation - Vines Fails Memes Videos 2018 - Try Not To Laugh Or Grin Challenge www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfU4Av3fG4jKwZOEkIcurB17YK... Best Of Animals Vines Fails Memes 2018 Video Compilation - Try Not To Laugh Or Grin Impossible Challenge www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfU4Av3fG4jIpGZAHKBh9uJl3d... Best Of Dogs Memes Vines Fails 2018 Video Compilation - Try Not To Laugh Challenge Extreme www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfU4Av3fG4jIwY-pX56QbAr1c8... Best Of Pranks 2018 - Fails Vines Memes Compilations - Try Not To Laugh Impossible Challenges www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfU4Av3fG4jKU-FBB2WAYNZUAH... Best Of Amanda Cerny 2017 - Vines Fails Memes Videos Compilation - Try Not To Laugh Or Grin Hard Challenge www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfU4Av3fG4jIhEsrAtUlTlmVk1... If you want, you can follow us on our other social media channels: (Probably not all will be updated regularly but we still created them just for fun 😝 ) Twitter: twitter.com/laugh_flash D.Tube: ift.tt/2H0umRd Steemit: ift.tt/2qAaj1c Google+: ift.tt/2H4crJt Tumblr: ift.tt/2H4hGF1 Facebook: ift.tt/2HD1xaz Instagram: ift.tt/2H1ImdI Blogger: ift.tt/2qAxAjw Diigo: ift.tt/2H1IpGq Pinterest: ift.tt/2qAGX2x LinkedIn: ift.tt/2J1al9S Wordpress: ift.tt/2qzKuyk Soundcloud: ift.tt/2H43lIx Reddit: ift.tt/2HFFLmT Trello: ift.tt/2J0ixas Instapaper: ift.tt/2HCJ0va Flickr: ift.tt/2H1IsC6 Busy: ift.tt/2J0iyLy #laughflash #funny #fails #laugh #fun #vines #instagram #memes #😂 #videos
Secrets revealed of the Abode of Chaos (132 pages, adult only) >>>
"999" English version with English subtitles is available >>>
HD movie - scenario thierry Ehrmann - filmed by Etienne Perrone
----------
voir les secrets de la Demeure du Chaos avec 132 pages très étranges (adult only)
999 : visite initiatique au coeur de la Demeure du Chaos insufflée par l'Esprit de la Salamandre
Film HD d'Etienne PERRONE selon un scénario original de thierry Ehrmann.
courtesy of Organ Museum
©2012 www.AbodeofChaos.org
Desayunador 2da y Miramar -
Ensenada, Baja California
Networked Fabrication for Urban Provocations.
Shifting Paradigms from Mass Production to Mass Customization
Computational architecture and design course
Conventional construction methods all depart from the basic premises of mass production: standardization, modulation and a production line. What these systems developed during the last two centuries fail to take into account are the evolutionary leaps and bounds the manufacturing industry has taken over the last decades. With the introduction of CNC technologies and rapid prototyping machines have altered the paradigms of fabrication forever. It is due to these new tools that it is now possible to create (n) amount of completely unique and different pieces with the same amount of energy and material that is required to create (n) identical pieces. The possibilities for implementation of new forms, textures, materials and languages are infinite due to the versatility that these new tools offer a growing network of architects, designers, fabricators that are integrating them into their professional practices to generate unique and precise objects that respond to countless data and real-life conditions.
Instructors:
Monika Wittig [ LaN, IaaC ]
Shane Salisbury [ LaN, IaaC ]
Filippo Moroni [ SOLIDO, Politecnico di Milano ]
MS Josh Updyke [ Advanced Manufacturing Institute, KSU, Protei ]
Aaron Gutiérrez Cortes [ Amorphica ]
OVER HALF A MILLION PEOPLE took to the streets of London on Saturday 26th March. They were marching against the Con-Dem government’s cuts. It was one of the biggest protests this country has ever seen. Every single trade union was represented on the protest and they were joined by anti cuts campaigners, pensioners, students and the unemployed.
No amount of police provocation against peaceful protesters or headlines in papers about violence can obscure that this was a massive working class demonstration.
And its power came from numbers and the social power they represent. It was a determined but angry protest. Millions of workers fear for their jobs and millions more are right to believe that the Tories are out to destroy their communities.
Magnificent
This government, held up by it’s Lib Dem collaborators, knows and cares nothing about the pain it causes, after all the majority of the cabinet are millionaires and two thirds went to private school.
The marchers’ message was clear—not one cut and not one job loss. And they are right: why should workers and the poorest in society pay for a crisis they did not create?
There doesn’t have to be a single cut or job loss. Greg Philo published an important article in the Guardian newspaper recently. He highlighted the fact that the personal wealth of the richest 10% of the population in Britain is £4,000 billion.
A one off tax of 20% on the wealth of this group would raise £800 billion and would wipe off Britain’s debt in one fell swoop.
With this in mind it’s crazy that Ed Miliband and New Labour are arguing that some cuts are necessary and that it’s the pace of the cuts that’s the problem. There’s no need to make cuts at all!
Saturday’s demonstration was magnificent, but it alone will not be enough to force Cameron and his cronies to make a U-turn. The Socialist Workers Party believes that if we are going to stop the Tories in their tracks, we will need further mass protests—and more importantly, strikes involving hundreds of thousands of workers.
And we are not alone. On Saturday the leader of Unite (Britain’s biggest union), Len McCluskey, told those at the rally “This is only the start. We need a plan of resistance including coordinated strike action.”
Strike
Again when Mark Serwotka (the general secretary of the PCS) addressed the march he said, “Imagine what a difference it would make if we didn’t only march together but took strike action together.”
It’s time to turn those words into action. Already some unions, including the NUT, PCS and UCU are moving to joint action on pensions at the end of June—this could see 700,000 teachers, civil servants and lecturers on strike together.
That would be a good start, and would put pressure on the government, but we could really finish Cameron if the GMB, Unison and Unite also called their members out. We would see 5 million on strike—that would signal the end of Cameron.
Now we are all back at work, there is no time to waste. Union meetings need to be called as soon as possible and every union section/branch/region needs to be passing motions calling on their unions to call joint strike action now.
The message is simply that we marched together, now it’s time to strike together.
Article: Socialist Worker www.socialistworker.co.uk
Vivienne Westwood
By William Lee Adams
The grand dame of British fashion has always had a knack for provocation. In the 1970s, Westwood made new wave and punk mainstream when she began selling her eccentric collection of bondage gear, massive platform shoes and slogan T-shirts on London's King's Road — the epicenter of posh. "It changed the way people looked. I was messianic about punk, seeing if one could put a spoke in the system in some way," she's said of that period. By the early '80s she began experimenting with, among other things, pinstripe tailoring and tartan, and debuted her now signature corsets, inspired by the silhouettes of 18th century courtesans.
Find this article at:
www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,21105...
Networked Fabrication for Urban Provocations.
Shifting Paradigms from Mass Production to Mass Customization
Computational architecture and design course
Conventional construction methods all depart from the basic premises of mass production: standardization, modulation and a production line. What these systems developed during the last two centuries fail to take into account are the evolutionary leaps and bounds the manufacturing industry has taken over the last decades. With the introduction of CNC technologies and rapid prototyping machines have altered the paradigms of fabrication forever. It is due to these new tools that it is now possible to create (n) amount of completely unique and different pieces with the same amount of energy and material that is required to create (n) identical pieces. The possibilities for implementation of new forms, textures, materials and languages are infinite due to the versatility that these new tools offer a growing network of architects, designers, fabricators that are integrating them into their professional practices to generate unique and precise objects that respond to countless data and real-life conditions.
Instructors:
Monika Wittig [ LaN, IaaC ]
Shane Salisbury [ LaN, IaaC ]
Filippo Moroni [ SOLIDO, Politecnico di Milano ]
MS Josh Updyke [ Advanced Manufacturing Institute, KSU, Protei ]
Aaron Gutiérrez Cortes [ Amorphica ]
Please read the full album description!
//Our society today is not ideal, very least the view on mental and physical illness. These pictures shows mental and physical illness from the society's perspective, the society's romanticisation.
A school project I did 2014/2015//
Networked Fabrication for Urban Provocations.
Shifting Paradigms from Mass Production to Mass Customization
Computational architecture and design course
Conventional construction methods all depart from the basic premises of mass production: standardization, modulation and a production line. What these systems developed during the last two centuries fail to take into account are the evolutionary leaps and bounds the manufacturing industry has taken over the last decades. With the introduction of CNC technologies and rapid prototyping machines have altered the paradigms of fabrication forever. It is due to these new tools that it is now possible to create (n) amount of completely unique and different pieces with the same amount of energy and material that is required to create (n) identical pieces. The possibilities for implementation of new forms, textures, materials and languages are infinite due to the versatility that these new tools offer a growing network of architects, designers, fabricators that are integrating them into their professional practices to generate unique and precise objects that respond to countless data and real-life conditions.
Instructors:
Monika Wittig [ LaN, IaaC ]
Shane Salisbury [ LaN, IaaC ]
Filippo Moroni [ SOLIDO, Politecnico di Milano ]
MS Josh Updyke [ Advanced Manufacturing Institute, KSU, Protei ]
Aaron Gutiérrez Cortes [ Amorphica ]
En savoir + ICI
Mécontent de la police, un homme s’est installé, en hauteur, sur le rebord de l’entrée principale du quartier de la police avec une paire de ciseaux à la gorge, prêt à s’en servir. Des négociateurs se sont harnachés pour tenter de le sauver, sans toutefois vraiment comprendre quelle était la raison de ce geste.
Hong Kong police negotiators try to talk to a lone man (C-bottom) holding a pair of scissors to his throat and protesting against the police on top of a ledge at the main entrance of the Hong Kong police headquarters in Hong Kong on November 20, 2011. A police spokeswoman said it was not clear what the man had been protesting about, but initial investigations showed that he had been dissatisfied with the way the police had handled a certain case.
Please don't use this image on websites, blogs or other media without my explicit permission.
Merci de ne pas utiliser cette image sur des sites web, blogs ou autre média sans ma permission.
Gracias por no utilizar esta imagen en portales internet, blogs u otros medios.
© Xavier HERNANDEZ - All rights reserved. / Tous droits reservés. / Todos los derechos reservados.
Skepticism, also spelled scepticism in British English, is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma.[1] For example, if a person is skeptical about claims made by their government about an ongoing war then the person doubts that these claims are accurate. In such cases, skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim. This attitude is often motivated by the impression that the available evidence is insufficient to support the claim. Formally, skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology.
More informally, skepticism as an expression of questioning or doubt can be applied to any topic, such as politics, religion, or pseudoscience. It is often applied within restricted domains, such as morality (moral skepticism), atheism (skepticism about the existence of God), or the supernatural.[2] Some theorists distinguish "good" or moderate skepticism, which seeks strong evidence before accepting a position, from "bad" or radical skepticism, which wants to suspend judgment indefinitely.[3][4]
Philosophical skepticism is one important form of skepticism. It rejects knowledge claims that seem certain from the perspective of common sense. Radical forms of philosophical skepticism deny that "knowledge or rational belief is possible" and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about nonempirical matters, such as whether God exists, whether human beings have free will, or whether there is an afterlife. In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace.[5]
Skepticism has been responsible for many important developments in science and philosophy. It has also inspired several contemporary social movements. Religious skepticism advocates for doubt concerning basic religious principles, such as immortality, providence, and revelation.[6] Scientific skepticism advocates for testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them.
Definition and semantic field
Skepticism, also spelled scepticism (from the Greek σκέπτομαι skeptomai, to search, to think about or look for), refers to a doubting attitude toward knowledge claims.[2][7] So if a person is skeptical of their government's claims about an ongoing war then the person has doubts that these claims are true. Or being skeptical that one's favorite hockey team will win the championship means that one is uncertain about the strength of their performance.[2] Skepticism about a claim implies that one does not believe the claim to be true. But it does not automatically follow that one should believe that the claim is false either. Instead, skeptics usually recommend a neutral attitude: beliefs about this matter should be suspended. In this regard, skepticism about a claim can be defined as the thesis that "the only justified attitude with respect to [this claim] is suspension of judgment".[8] It is often motivated by the impression that one cannot be certain about it. This is especially relevant when there is significant expert disagreement.[9] Skepticism is usually restricted to a claim or a field of inquiry. So religious and moral skeptics have a doubtful attitude about religious and moral doctrines. But some forms of philosophical skepticism, are wider in that they reject any form of knowledge.[9]
Some definitions, often inspired by ancient philosophy, see skepticism not just as an attitude but as a way of life. This is based on the idea that maintaining the skeptical attitude of doubt toward most concerns in life is superior to living in dogmatic certainty, for example because such a skeptic has more happiness and peace of mind or because it is morally better.[2][10] In contemporary philosophy, on the other hand, skepticism is often understood neither as an attitude nor as a way of life but as a thesis: the thesis that knowledge does not exist.[2]
Skepticism is related to various terms. It is sometimes equated with agnosticism and relativism.[4][11][12] However, there are slight differences in meaning. Agnosticism is often understood more narrowly as skepticism about religious questions, in particular, about the Christian doctrine.[11] Relativism does not deny the existence of knowledge or truth but holds that they are relative to a person and differ from person to person, for example, because they follow different cognitive norms.[13] The opposite of skepticism is dogmatism, which implies an attitude of certainty in the form of an unquestioning belief.[14] A similar contrast is often drawn in relation to blind faith and credulity.[3]
Types
Various types of skepticism have been discussed in the academic literature. Skepticism is usually restricted to knowledge claims on one particular subject, which is why its different forms can be distinguished based on the subject.[2][7][9] For example, religious skeptics distrust religious doctrines and moral skeptics raise doubts about accepting various moral requirements and customs. Skepticism can also be applied to knowledge in general. However, this attitude is usually only found in some forms of philosophical skepticism.[2][7] A closely related classification distinguishes based on the source of knowledge, such as skepticism about perception, memory, or intuition.[15] A further distinction is based on the degree of the skeptical attitude. The strongest forms assert that there is no knowledge at all or that knowledge is impossible. Weaker forms merely state that one can never be absolutely certain.[2]
Some theorists distinguish between a good or healthy form of moderate skepticism in contrast to a bad or unhealthy form of radical skepticism. On this view, the "good" skeptic is a critically-minded person who seeks strong evidence before accepting a position. The "bad" skeptic, on the other hand, wants to "suspend judgment indefinitely... even in the face of demonstrable truth".[3][4] Another categorization focuses on the motivation for the skeptical attitude. Some skeptics have ideological motives: they want to replace inferior beliefs with better ones. Others have a more practical outlook in that they see problematic beliefs as the cause of harmful customs they wish to stop. Some skeptics have very particular goals in mind, such as bringing down a certain institution associated with the spread of claims they reject.[2][7]
Philosophical skepticism is a prominent form of skepticism and can be contrasted with non-philosophical or ordinary skepticism. Ordinary skepticism involves a doubting attitude toward knowledge claims that are rejected by many.[8] Almost everyone shows some form of ordinary skepticism, for example, by doubting the knowledge claims made by flat earthers or astrologers.[2][7] Philosophical skepticism, on the other hand, is a much more radical and rare position. It includes the rejection of knowledge claims that seem certain from the perspective of common sense. Some forms of it even deny that one knows that "I have two hands" or that "the sun will come out tomorrow".[8][16] It is taken seriously in philosophy nonetheless because it has proven very hard to conclusively refute philosophical skepticism.[2][8]
In various fields
Skepticism has been responsible for important developments in various fields, such as science, medicine, and philosophy. In science, the skeptical attitude toward traditional opinions was a key factor in the development of the scientific method. It emphasizes the need to scrutinize knowledge claims by testing them through experimentation and precise measurement.[14][17] In the field of medicine, skepticism has helped establish more advanced forms of treatment by putting into doubt traditional forms that were based on intuitive appeal rather than empirical evidence.[3][14] In the history of philosophy, skepticism has often played a productive role not just for skeptics but also for non-skeptical philosophers.[2][7][18] This is due to its critical attitude that challenges the epistemological foundations of philosophical theories. This can help to keep speculation in check and may provoke creative responses, transforming the theory in question in order to overcome the problems posed by skepticism.[2][7] According to Richard H. Popkin, "the history of philosophy can be seen, in part, as a struggle with skepticism". This struggle has led many contemporary philosophers to abandon the quest for absolutely certain or indubitable first principles of philosophy, which was still prevalent in many earlier periods.[7] Skepticism has been an important topic throughout the history of philosophy and is still widely discussed today.[2]
Philosophy
Part of a series on
Pyrrhonism
Pyrrhonists
Concepts
Similar philosophies
Modern influence
Philosophy portal
vte
Main article: Philosophical skepticism
As a philosophical school or movement, skepticism arose both in ancient Greece and India. In India the Ajñana school of philosophy espoused skepticism. It was a major early rival of Buddhism and Jainism, and possibly a major influence on Buddhism. Two of the foremost disciples of the Buddha, Sariputta and Moggallāna, were initially students of the Ajñana philosopher Sanjaya Belatthiputta. A strong element of skepticism is found in Early Buddhism, most particularly in the Aṭṭhakavagga sutra. However the total effect these philosophies had on each other is difficult to discern. Since skepticism is a philosophical attitude and a style of philosophizing rather than a position, the Ajñanins may have influenced other skeptical thinkers of India such as Nagarjuna, Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa, and Shriharsha.[19][full citation needed]
In Greece, philosophers as early as Xenophanes (c. 570–c. 475 BCE) expressed skeptical views, as did Democritus[20] and a number of Sophists. Gorgias, for example, reputedly argued that nothing exists, that even if there were something we could not know it, and that even if we could know it we could not communicate it.[21] The Heraclitean philosopher Cratylus refused to discuss anything and would merely wriggle his finger, claiming that communication is impossible since meanings are constantly changing.[22]: 449 Socrates also had skeptical tendencies, claiming to know nothing worthwhile.[23]
Pyrrho of Elis was the founder of the school of skepticism known as Pyrrhonism.
There were two major schools of skepticism in the ancient Greek and Roman world. The first was Pyrrhonism, founded by Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360–270 BCE). The second was Academic Skepticism, so-called because its two leading defenders, Arcesilaus (c. 315–240 BCE) who initiated the philosophy, and Carneades (c. 217–128 BCE), the philosophy's most famous proponent, were heads of Plato's Academy. Pyrrhonism's aims are psychological. It urges suspension of judgment (epoche) to achieve mental tranquility (ataraxia). The Academic Skeptics denied that knowledge is possible (acatalepsy). The Academic Skeptics claimed that some beliefs are more reasonable or probable than others, whereas Pyrrhonian skeptics argue that equally compelling arguments can be given for or against any disputed view.[22]: 450 Nearly all the writings of the ancient skeptics are now lost. Most of what we know about ancient skepticism is from Sextus Empiricus, a Pyrrhonian skeptic who lived in the second or third century CE. His works contain a lucid summary of stock skeptical arguments.
Ancient skepticism faded out during the late Roman Empire, particularly after Augustine (354–430 CE) attacked the skeptics in his work Against the Academics (386 CE). There was little knowledge of, or interest in, ancient skepticism in Christian Europe during the Middle Ages. Interest revived during the Renaissance and Reformation, particularly after the complete writings of Sextus Empiricus were translated into Latin in 1569 and after Martin Luther's skepticism of holy orders.[24] A number of Catholic writers, including Francisco Sanches (c. 1550–1623), Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655), and Marin Mersenne (1588–1648) deployed ancient skeptical arguments to defend moderate forms of skepticism and to argue that faith, rather than reason, must be the primary guide to truth. Similar arguments were offered later (perhaps ironically) by the Protestant thinker Pierre Bayle in his influential Historical and Critical Dictionary (1697–1702).[25]: chaps. 1 & 2
The growing popularity of skeptical views created an intellectual crisis in seventeenth-century Europe. An influential response was offered by the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes (1596–1650). In his classic work, Meditations of First Philosophy (1641), Descartes sought to refute skepticism, but only after he had formulated the case for skepticism as powerfully as possible. Descartes argued that no matter what radical skeptical possibilities we imagine there are certain truths (e.g., that thinking is occurring, or that I exist) that are absolutely certain. Thus, the ancient skeptics were wrong to claim that knowledge is impossible. Descartes also attempted to refute skeptical doubts about the reliability of our senses, our memory, and other cognitive faculties. To do this, Descartes tried to prove that God exists and that God would not allow us to be systematically deceived about the nature of reality. Many contemporary philosophers question whether this second stage of Descartes's critique of skepticism is successful.[25]: 210
In the eighteenth century a new case for skepticism was offered by the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776). Hume was an empiricist, claiming that all genuine ideas can be traced back to original impressions of sensation or introspective consciousness. Hume argued that on empiricist grounds there are no sound reasons for belief in God, an enduring self or soul, an external world, causal necessity, objective morality, or inductive reasoning. In fact, he argued that "Philosophy would render us entirely Pyrrhonian, were not Nature too strong for it."[22]: 456 As Hume saw it, the real basis of human belief is not reason, but custom or habit. We are hard-wired by nature to trust, say, our memories or inductive reasoning, and no skeptical arguments, however powerful, can dislodge those beliefs. In this way, Hume embraced what he called a "mitigated" skepticism, while rejecting an "excessive" Pyrrhonian skepticism that he saw as both impractical and psychologically impossible.
Hume's skepticism provoked a number of important responses. Hume's Scottish contemporary, Thomas Reid (1710–1796), challenged Hume's strict empiricism and argued that it is rational to accept "common-sense" beliefs such as the basic reliability of our senses, our reason, our memories, and inductive reasoning, even though none of these things can be proved. In Reid's view, such common-sense beliefs are foundational and require no proof in order to be rationally justified.[22]: 456 Not long after Hume's death, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that human empirical experience has possibility conditions which could not have been realized unless Hume's skeptical conclusions about causal synthetic a priori judgements were false.
Today, skepticism continues to be a topic of lively debate among philosophers.[2] British philosopher Julian Baggini posits that reason is perceived as "an enemy of mystery and ambiguity," but, if used properly, can be an effective tool for solving many larger societal issues.[26]
Religion
Main article: Religious skepticism
Religious skepticism generally refers to doubting particular religious beliefs or claims. For example, a religious skeptic might believe that Jesus existed (see historicity of Jesus) while questioning claims that he was the messiah or performed miracles. Historically, religious skepticism can be traced back to Xenophanes, who doubted many religious claims of his time, although he recognized that "God is one, supreme among gods and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind." He maintained that there was one greatest God. God is one eternal being, spherical in form, comprehending all things within himself, is the absolute mind and thought, therefore is intelligent, and moves all things, but bears no resemblance to human nature either in body or mind."[27]
Religious skepticism is not the same as atheism or agnosticism, though these often do involve skeptical attitudes toward religion and philosophical theology (for example, towards divine omnipotence). Religious people are generally skeptical about claims of other religions, at least when the two denominations conflict concerning some belief. Additionally, they may also be skeptical of the claims made by atheists.
The historian Will Durant writes that Plato was "as skeptical of atheism as of any other dogma". The Baháʼí Faith encourages skepticism that is mainly centered around self-investigation of truth.[28]
In al-Ma'arri's later years he chose to stop consuming meat and all other animal products (i.e., he became a practicing vegan). He wrote:[26]
Do not unjustly eat fish the water has given up, and do not
desire as food the flesh of slaughtered animals,
Or the white milk of mothers who intended its pure draught for
their young, not for noble ladies.
And do not grieve the unsuspecting birds by taking their eggs;
for injustice is the worst of crimes.
And spare the honey which the bees get industriously
from the flowers of fragrant plants;
For they did not store it that it might belong to others, nor did
they gather it for bounty and gifts.
I washed my hands of all this; and wish that I had perceived
my way before my hair went gray![27]Although he was an advocate of social justice and action, Al-Ma'arrî believed that children should not be conceived, in order to spare future generations the pains of life. Moreover, very original compared to his background, he was an ascetic and vegetarian5 and defended vegetarianism and animals with sincerity, based on his interpretations of the Quran11 and his own reasoning. In November 2007, his work was banned from display at the International Book Fair of Algiers (SILA) by order of the Algerian Ministry of Religious Affairs and Waqfs.
In 2013, the statue that had been erected to him in Maaret el-Noomane, his birthplace, was thrown off its pedestal and decapitated by an armed jihadist group
A scientific or empirical skeptic is one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific understanding and empirical evidence.
Scientific skepticism may discard beliefs pertaining to purported phenomena not subject to reliable observation and thus not systematic or empirically testable. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to systematic investigation via the scientific method.[29] As a result, a number of ostensibly scientific claims are considered to be "pseudoscience" if they are found to improperly apply or to ignore the fundamental aspects of the scientific method.
Auditing
Professional skepticism is an important concept in auditing. It requires an auditor to have a "questioning mind", to make a critical assessment of evidence, and to consider the sufficiency of the evidence.[30]
Group 3_
Alejandro Candela, Georgina Muñoz, Carlos Paz, Berenice Jimenez, Laura Antelo, Gabriel Manriquez
Networked Fabrication for Urban Provocations.
Shifting Paradigms from Mass Production to Mass Customization
Computational architecture and design course
Conventional construction methods all depart from the basic premises of mass production: standardization, modulation and a production line. What these systems developed during the last two centuries fail to take into account are the evolutionary leaps and bounds the manufacturing industry has taken over the last decades. With the introduction of CNC technologies and rapid prototyping machines have altered the paradigms of fabrication forever. It is due to these new tools that it is now possible to create (n) amount of completely unique and different pieces with the same amount of energy and material that is required to create (n) identical pieces. The possibilities for implementation of new forms, textures, materials and languages are infinite due to the versatility that these new tools offer a growing network of architects, designers, fabricators that are integrating them into their professional practices to generate unique and precise objects that respond to countless data and real-life conditions.
Instructors:
Monika Wittig [ LaN, IaaC ]
Shane Salisbury [ LaN, IaaC ]
Filippo Moroni [ SOLIDO, Politecnico di Milano ]
MS Josh Updyke [ Advanced Manufacturing Institute, KSU, Protei ]
Aaron Gutiérrez Cortes [ Amorphica ]
Please note this is not a racist provocation. I'm well aware of the painful history of burning crosses used to intimidate and frighten people. This is not that. This is a ritual burning of Brigid's Cross, symbolizing the passage of the seasons and the cycle of life. In many traditions, burning is seen as the only proper way to dispose of holy symbols.
In response to the provocation from Raynald de Chatillon, Saladin invaded the kingdom of Jerusalem in 1187. After capturing Jerusalem itself, he laid siege to Shobak Castle and the other Crusader castles in Jordan.
It is said that because of the steep sided hill on which the castle stands, Saladin was unable to use his siege engines, and resorted to starving out the inhabitants. Water supply was not a problem, as deep shafts (which still exist), with long flights of (350) steps, had been dug deep down below the castle to provide it with a permanent water supply. But food was another matter.
Most of the Crusader castles held huge supplies of food, however it could not last for ever. It is said that eventually the defenders sold their wives and children in exchange for food, and that some of them eventually went blind from lack of salt. Finally, after almost two years the castle finally fell to Saladin's troops, in May of 1189.
(The defenders' families were returned to them.)
OVER HALF A MILLION PEOPLE took to the streets of London on Saturday 26th March. They were marching against the Con-Dem government’s cuts. It was one of the biggest protests this country has ever seen. Every single trade union was represented on the protest and they were joined by anti cuts campaigners, pensioners, students and the unemployed.
No amount of police provocation against peaceful protesters or headlines in papers about violence can obscure that this was a massive working class demonstration.
And its power came from numbers and the social power they represent. It was a determined but angry protest. Millions of workers fear for their jobs and millions more are right to believe that the Tories are out to destroy their communities.
Magnificent
This government, held up by it’s Lib Dem collaborators, knows and cares nothing about the pain it causes, after all the majority of the cabinet are millionaires and two thirds went to private school.
The marchers’ message was clear—not one cut and not one job loss. And they are right: why should workers and the poorest in society pay for a crisis they did not create?
There doesn’t have to be a single cut or job loss. Greg Philo published an important article in the Guardian newspaper recently. He highlighted the fact that the personal wealth of the richest 10% of the population in Britain is £4,000 billion.
A one off tax of 20% on the wealth of this group would raise £800 billion and would wipe off Britain’s debt in one fell swoop.
With this in mind it’s crazy that Ed Miliband and New Labour are arguing that some cuts are necessary and that it’s the pace of the cuts that’s the problem. There’s no need to make cuts at all!
Saturday’s demonstration was magnificent, but it alone will not be enough to force Cameron and his cronies to make a U-turn. The Socialist Workers Party believes that if we are going to stop the Tories in their tracks, we will need further mass protests—and more importantly, strikes involving hundreds of thousands of workers.
And we are not alone. On Saturday the leader of Unite (Britain’s biggest union), Len McCluskey, told those at the rally “This is only the start. We need a plan of resistance including coordinated strike action.”
Strike
Again when Mark Serwotka (the general secretary of the PCS) addressed the march he said, “Imagine what a difference it would make if we didn’t only march together but took strike action together.”
It’s time to turn those words into action. Already some unions, including the NUT, PCS and UCU are moving to joint action on pensions at the end of June—this could see 700,000 teachers, civil servants and lecturers on strike together.
That would be a good start, and would put pressure on the government, but we could really finish Cameron if the GMB, Unison and Unite also called their members out. We would see 5 million on strike—that would signal the end of Cameron.
Now we are all back at work, there is no time to waste. Union meetings need to be called as soon as possible and every union section/branch/region needs to be passing motions calling on their unions to call joint strike action now.
The message is simply that we marched together, now it’s time to strike together.
Article: Socialist Worker www.socialistworker.co.uk