Question 1

The shipbuilder acted unethically for the following reasons. First, the premises he made regarding the safety, reliability, and efficacy of the ship were not only unacceptable but questionable. For example, the shipbuilder did believe in whatever he wanted to believe regarding the ship’s reliability, even without adequate evidence. In practice, the shipbuilder openly acknowledged that the ship was old and inadequate to overcome the pressures and constraints in the high waters. Equally, the ultimate decision by the shipbuilder to allow the voyage into the sea was not informed by sufficient information on the ship’s current status. Hence, it was morally wrong to believe that the “unseaworthy” ship was bound to make a successful voyage despite being not well-built and old.

The formation of a deductive argument may have enabled the shipbuilder to lay bare the facts of the situation and to come up with reasoned and well-measured solutions to the ethical dilemmas he experienced. Similarly, following the line of thought presented in the ontological argument, the shipbuilder would have been able to identify how mechanical problems and technical issues surrounding the ship might have necessitated the need to stop the voyage due to the eminent reality of looming dangers and risks.

Question 2

The argument was that there wasn’t enough evidence to back up the ships’ readiness to sail and safety. The foundation is inadequate since it assumes that a ship can only sail if it is safe. Some further justifications should at least support the statement that we are safe. Therefore, since it can influence one’s conduct, it is a belief that shouldn’t be promoted.

Question 3

The wearing of facemasks at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic was one of the key government-led containment measures to reduce the spread and transmission of coronavirus. A key comment from Clifford might be that the statement does not meet the three conditions for credibility. Precisely, the belief is not supported by proper empirical and conceptual evidence, it is biased, and it is perpetuated deliberately to deceive others from not doing the right thing, wearing facemasks to avert the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. If the car starts, then the battery must be working.  My car will not start. Hence, the battery must not be working.

Valid argument (Modus Tollens)

2. If the car starts, then the battery must be working.  So, the battery must be working, since the car starts.

Valid argument (Modus Ponens)

3. The car has started, and that’s because the battery is in fact working.  And everyone knows that if the car starts, then the battery must be working.

Invalid (affirms the consequent)

4. The battery is not working, so the car won’t start, because if the car starts, then the battery must be working.

Invalid (denies antecedent)

1. Gun control laws may lower fire arm deaths.

Self-evidently or analytically true

2. Ineffective gun control laws are effective

Conceptually incoherent (= nonsense)

3. Strict gun control laws are strict.

Neither self-evidently true nor false

4. Gun control is about 50 miles an hour slower than pure methane.

Conceptually incoherent (= nonsense)

5. GPS technology works just in case GPS technology works.

Neither self-evidently true nor false

6. GPS technology smirks smells beltways traffic.

Self-evidently or analytically false;

7. After GPS technology becomes a standard feature on rental cars, people will never get lost.

Self-evidently or analytically true

8. GPS technology never makes people happy and it always makes people happy.

Conceptually incoherent (= nonsense)

1) What general conclusions about Wei-Hock Soon does the article draw?

The general conclusion made about Wei-Hock Soon (also known as Willie) is that he had deliberately allowed vested interests to influence his scientific research on the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change and global warming. The findings in the article indicated that Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had violated the hallmarks of ethical research by failing to be transparent and impartial regarding his scientific research and its findings. Secondly, Willie violated the scientific disclosure policy by not revealing the funding he had received from key players in the fossil-fuel industry. This is a serious allegation since Wei-Hock Soon is accused of not upholding scientific integrity and objectivity of research publications by not disclosing his relationship with fossil fuel companies fully. Therefore, the accusation that Will is alleged to have a conflict itself puts doubt on the overall credibility of his research publications in the presence of a financial or commercial relationship construed as a potential conflict of interest.

2) Even though does Wei-Hock Soon has a Ph.D. and is a scientist, why is not a credible expert on climate change in terms of the knowledge criteria of expertise?

First, Wei-Hock has failed to demonstrate authority on matters related to the contributions of human activity to the problem of climate change and global warming. As such, his failure to adhere to the standards set in the conflict of interest scientific disclosure clearly indicates that he may be motivated by financial considerations, which puts immense doubt on his reputation as an objective and impartial scientist. Secondly, while Wei-Hock Soon may claim to have requisite educational qualifications, his attempt to create distinct insights through his scientific research has been widely discredited as hot air. Therefore, the controversial narrative of climate change denial advanced in the writings of Wei-Hock Soon appears to isolate him from the rest of the scientific community.

3) What aspects of Soon’s relationship with the corporate world throw doubt on his trustworthiness as an expert on climate change?

First, Soon’s relationship with the corporate world is confidential and hidden. This is because the allegations against him are brought to the limelight following many years of investigations by leading advocacy groups such as Greenpeace. Secondly, Wei-Hock Soon violated research and publication ethics by failing to disclose the possible conflict of interest in several published papers. Thirdly, undeclared financial conflicts may be apparent since Wei-Hock Soon had failed to share relevant funding information, which significantly undermines the credibility of the author, the journals, and the scientific research itself.

4) What other observations do you have after reading this article?  (optional)

The disclosure of conflict of interest in scientific publications is an important step aimed at upholding transparency, objectivity, and impartiality. Researchers and authors must take appropriate measures to avoid bias and subjectivity and maintain integrity, credibility, and transparency in developing, reporting, and publishing research findings.

Information found on credible and trustworthy websites is accurate and reliable. Additionally, some of the sources have undergone peer review; as a result, the information comes from authors whose work has been adjudged to be of high quality. Educational institutions’ websites like webster.edu are an illustration of trustworthy websites. Websites that lack credibility are those whose information cannot be relied upon or trusted since some of it may be fraudulent. Wikipedia is an example of a website that lacks credibility since some of the sites it links to are questionable. The presence of the date in websites, which enables users to decide whether the content is current enough for their objectives, is one characteristic that lends credibility to websites. Including sources of information on the website and citations of those sources is another indicator of a trustworthy website. Credible websites have a good design, which makes information easier to obtain. A website that lacks references for its material and has poor spelling and punctuation is one sign that it is unreliable. Unreliable websites do not identify the authors of the presentations, which is a good sign that the data is unreliable.

CREDIBLE: https://www.doi.gov/library/internet/climate (Links to an external site.)

• Owned and updated by the U.S. Department of the Interior
• Provides verifiable, reputable news and information on climate change-related topics
• High credibility of the information sources annexed on the website.

NOT CREDIBLE: https://www.heartland.org/Center-Climate-Environment/ (Links to an external site.)

• Lacks reputation for integrity due to financial considerations resulting from its active involvement in anti-climate change communication and promotion of climate change skepticism.
• Lacks reputation for accuracy due to the controversial and unpopular content posted on the site about the role of greenhouse gases in the climate change crisis.
• The use of questionable expertise on climate change topics undermines the credibility and validity of the research findings on this website.

• How can climate change researchers and scientists conduct ethical research?
• How can individuals avoid the effects of unethical decisions and/or actions?

Key observations included the critical importance of the conflict of interest scientific disclosure in promoting transparency and impartiality in scientific research. Equally, the centrality of having valid arguments stood out as essential to ensuring proper decision-making and problem-solving, particularly in complex, uncertain contexts.