Empiricism

I must admit that after Tuesday's lecture I was left feeling a little confused, the long winded and over complicated explanations didn't particularly help with my understanding of the subject; so in my hour of doubt I turned to the Internet for confirmation. After researching for just a couple of minutes I was able to understand that empiricism is a theory or idea based on sensory analysis and is scientific, whereas an a-priori is more faith orientated. After gaining a better understanding of the topic, I started looking for examples of quotes or debates on the subject, without much success.

However I did remember that David Icke was mentioned in the lecture and I remember I was intrigued at the bizarre associations his name was linked with, for example his lizard theory, so with curiosity as my motivation I visited his website. Upon reading some of his articles such as his theory that Barrack Obama is using hope and change as a mind control device my interest in him grew further. "Barack Obama is a purveyor of 'hope' because his masters want the people to accept what they are given now in the hope that good times will come". Well... to some degree that is true, don't all politicians get into power by enticing us with the promise of change for the better? However I wouldn't go as far to say that he is using it as a mind control device, that implies his intentions may not be completely noble and that he has complete power over the masses; which isn't true either, he doesn't, not everyone voted for him. Icke also states that he is dangerous and threatens to lead Americans down a dark path; as I am unable to find an empiricist view on the subject I will take that position in the debate. I think its wrong to say that Barrack Obama is going to lead America down a dark road, because he hasn't done it yet, or given any indication that he will, and he has only been in power a short period of time so it seems unfair to judge his time in power already.

I would advise anyone looking for a spokes person for a-priori opinions to look at David Icke's article's as there is quite a selection, and many of them are quite enlightening.

After reading about the death of yet another toddler (Sanam Navsarka) at the hands of an abusive parent, I feel disgusted that it has taken a well documented case like baby P to spark public interest in child abuse. As in my opinion more cases have emerged as being unnoticed since baby P's death. It has also made me question how much violence needs to be inflicted upon a child before people take notice? Was it the severity of baby P's injuries that made people finally take more of an interest?

Another potential question that has bothered me since reading about Sanam is; does the failure to prevent these abuse cases reveal a flaw in the system? As surely if a lot of children are not being helped, it must be due to the incompetence of care workers, as it states in 'The Sun' that Sanam's injuries were unnoticed by care worker's. "Sanam was seen by care workers three times in the month before she died. They met the couple to discuss another relative who was in care- but failed to spot Sanam's injuries".