Introduct/Hood Paper 1

Having had an interesting conversation with someone recently about the nature of putting a price on knowledge, I thought I would continue to publish that which I've been writing for my classes in order to weakly protest the hindrance in the free flow of information caused by textbook manufacturers and billion dollar conglomerates and corporations. Here's my first paper written for my Systems of Psychology course which I will follow with the second and third I've already written and then continue to publish the others weekly:

“…we know, as did Aristotle, Francis Bacon, and many others, that we are always biased,” (Malone 6). This line sets the tone for Malone’s differentiation between what is important – ideas rather than people. These ideas are a line to be drawn through the middle of modern history which are constantly emphasized and thus have merit over that which singular people have to say. One doesn’t look for people not to have an end game. In looking holistically at what is important to people, one decides what appears to be true for the majority. The questions that are asked are just as important as the answers received because how questions are framed changes what answers are acceptable and possible. When talking of someone’s new car, the questions, “How nice is it?” and “How terrible is it?” have entirely different connotations. Malone recognizes the paradox of what he is trying to do and characterizes the series of questions as his biases: they are what he has deemed important for the purpose of this text and his evaluation of ideological history. He sees that, as someone who is biased, his exact words in questioning existing ideologies are just as much a part of the answer as the response that he receives because his words can be exclusive. It follows that he determines that refutability, and not verifiability, is the “criterion for objectivity,” (8). Verifiability indicates whether something can happen and refutability whether it is the only thing which can happen."