🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeStudy Guides420,000CA160,000

PHL100Y1 : Study Guide for Descartes

98 views3 pages
lemonminnow931
21 Apr 2011
School
UTSG
Department
Philosophy
Course
PHL100Y1
Professor
Mark Kingwell

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

He realises most of his knowledge (esp. for science) is unreliable, and the only way is to rebuild it from the foundations: systematic doubt (95) He proposes to destroy all his opinions, and only accept as knowledge those which are totally certain, rejecting the rest. Opinions should be rejected if there is any way in which they could be false: mistrusting the senses (96) The senses are instantly rejected, because they are obviously occasionally deceptive, and they certainty can"t be proved: madness and dreams (96-7) The idea that daily experience is all wrong seems mad, but then he realises that dreams are a sort of daily madness, and he believe them. There is no clear proof that he is not currently dreaming: reality remixed (97) Although he may be dreaming, perhaps he can deduce what reality is like - it is the components out of which dreams are made.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers

Related Documents

PHILOS 21 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Evil Demon, Rationality, Cartesian Doubt
indigoelephant568
PHIL 1F90 Lecture Notes - Cogito Ergo Sum, Cartesian Doubt
scarletraven848
Philosophy 1020 Lecture Notes - Lecture 19: Foundationalism, Dazed
azurecaribou816

Related Questions

Could you please proofread and correct scientifically andgrammatically my work, thanks ^_^

Here itis:
The percentage error was found to be 0.186% and 6.66%respectively.

This implies that the predicted value of the freefall accelerationis fairly accurate while the predicated value of deceleration isnot as much. The encountered errors were due to severalexperimental and human limitation was that the experiment involved.The experimental limitation was due to the uncertainty of theclinometer which was ± 0.5o.

I.e. In our calculation, a difference of 0.5o can lead to adifference of 40 - 80 cm in height as shown below:

The human limitations was due to the human eye being unable todetect the exact point on the track at which the gondoladecelerates. This is because the braking happened very quickly.This adds an uncertainty to the location of deceleration when theangels are being measured.

In addition, the human ability cannot decide on the exact period oftime at which the gondola freefalls or decelerates. This is due tothe human reaction speed being unable to exactly determine thestart time of the momentary freefall and deceleration. The timetaken for humans to react cannot be measured thus it cannot besubtracted from the findings to get an accurate timing.

All of these limitations that have affected the accuracy of theresults could be avoided to some extent by marking the exact zonesrequired on the track of the giant drop as well as using anelectronic angle measurer to measure the angles . Additionally, theusage of an electronic timer to measure periods of the freefall anddeceleration is also suggested.

During the analysis, finding an average to the deceleration in theaccelerometer reading (using Logger Pro) was only estimated usingthe human naked eye. This is because an average could not be takenelectronically. Thus, there is also some uncertainty involved inthe theoretical value.

NOTE:

The value for freefall acceleration obtained from thevideo-analysis technique was 9.754 ± 0.3237 m/s2. 9.754 m/s2 has apercentage error of :
0.469%

This value indicates it is fairly accurate and can be used as aconforming result to the theoretical value. The error involved isdue to the fact that the video was shaking, thus plotting thevelocity/ time graph of the gondola at different times wasnegatively affected; although the axes was roughly re-set at everyframe.