Reducing Incidences of Child Obesity Research Proposal

Reducing Incidences of Child Obesity - Research Proposal Example The imbalance leads to such weight differences and redefines the way children will develop later in life. Genetic factors also form a huge part of the obesity trends. Many children are seen to be susceptible to obesity-conducive genes, which makes it easier to develop such weight problems if the parents do not offer a chance to capitalize on retaining a healthy lifestyle always. Â  The important thing is to generate new understanding of what obesity is all about. The case involving the utility of the resources available for the sake of intervening in the very early years as a way of preventing the obesity from taking shape and allowing the society to move from a rational way of dealing with the issue to an emotional one. Many of the parents fear that keeping their children from the junk they are used to may be a way of keeping them away from themselves (Rippe, 2013). This means that they do not offer them any guidance that could provide them with a chance of dealing with the issue when it is still in its early stages (Gorard, 2013). Evidence from difference sources highlights the impact that lifestyle choices could have in tracking obesity and allowing adults to lose weight and keep fit, as well as allow the children to choose better lifestyles. The purpose of introducing the changes from a tender age is the fact that they are easily receptive at this age ( Rippe, 2013). Preventing its occurrence is essential as a way of managing the weight issues amongst the children. Â  Obesity amongst children has in many developed countries reached epidemic levels. This means that so many children are falling into this trap when they are much younger than they should be. At least 25% of the children in the US alone are in the overweight category with 11% of these falling into the obese category (Ahima, 2013).

Original Component Essay Example for Free

Original Component Essay The goal was to determine a credible and accurate method for measuring human capital. Knowledge capital is a concept that has not received much attention in terms of research. One of the unique aspects of this study was the fact that the data collected were from the information technology field, particularly from those who deal with knowledge management. This was in contrast to previous studies where finance, accounting, and/or human resources professionals were the respondents. The findings indicated that the methods currently used to value human knowledge were borrowed from either human resources or from finance. This also indicated that knowledge management was not embraced as a part of its strategy. Since the responses were received from knowledgeable experts, the results represented a true picture of the problem. Another reason for its uniqueness was due to the fact that the study was conducted in two separate phases with their corresponding findings compared. It was also important to note that the companies selected represented all of the industries. The combination of all these attributes thus, made the method unique. According to previous studies, much research has been devoted to knowledge management. In addition, books, journals, and articles have all been written about the said topic. However, none has focused on knowledge capital valuation and its related impacts. Individuals and organizations became reluctant to pursue this type of valuation. This was due to the fact that many felt that it was impossible to accurately measure knowledge capital. For this research, all of the respondents agreed that the methods to measure knowledge capital do not fully represent its true value because they were only based on assumptions. On the other hand, companies, researchers, and scholars struggled with the question of how to value knowledge capital because it increasingly gained importance. In this case, the study has formed a base for other researchers to build on. This study has also provided a way of perceiving knowledge capital and proposed an easier way of calculating its value. The study clarified the possibility of measuring knowledge capital. However, organizations can only measure the value of knowledge by identifying the knowledge gaps within its current employees. In this context, knowledge management must be incorporated at the highest levels of the organization. 6. 4 Contributions Knowledge capital has become one of the most important assets in any organization, including corporations, government agencies, and non-profit organizations. However, without knowing its value, organizations cannot determine whether they are fully utilizing it or not. Most Internet businesses have no physical assets, while some rely solely on outsourcing. Therefore, there is a need to determine the value of human capital to ascertain the value of an organization. Moreover, many Internet businesses were publicly traded, and were obliged to represent the true and accurate value of their company to investors . During mergers and acquisition transactions, companies experience the problem of determining the value of knowledge or human capital. In turn, they use the term â€Å"goodwill. † However, goodwill is actually an invented concept. If companies can determine the value of their knowledge capital, there is no need to use the vague concept of goodwill. Knowing the value of knowledge capital helps a company hire the right people, assign the proper people to particular jobs, and provide employees with the appropriate tools and environment. Without knowing the value of what is needed, how can they measure knowledge capital or increase its value? This research aimed to contribute information to both the knowledge field and to profit-making organizations. The purpose of this research was to examine how organizations determine the value of their human capital, while gaining a sustainable competitive advantage. The research effort will be applied by and for profit organizations to determine their true value, maximizing the value of human capital to increase the shareholders’ wealth. Individuals will understand the value of their human capital and be able to start managing it for maximum return to themselves, as well as their organizations. In addition, E-businesses will find the results useful because the value of their organizations depends primarily on the value of their intellectual capital. The study also focused on the determination methods used by profit-making organizations in the evaluation of human capital. Therefore, other researchers may find the results of this study relevant, while conducting other studies in the future. 6. 5 Limitations Several difficulties or challenges were encountered while conducting this study that may have influenced results, either positively or negatively: Limitations faced by the researcher during the process of this study included the persuasion of organizations to adopt the new or standard metric of measuring Knowledge Capital, communication for benefits to be derived from findings, the lack of industrial experience and practical knowledge, and the deficiency of funds for quality productions. 6. 6 Scope for Future Research The purpose of this study was to determine how organizations value knowledge capital and how they make it grow. The study examined data collected across industries and the responses were nearly uniform. They all agreed that there is no standard method of measuring human capital. In addition, all agreed that the methods currently used to measure knowledge capital are inadequate for representing its true value. Hence, the value of knowledge capital is not calculated. Based on this study, the author recommends that further research be conducted to develop a model or standard method for measuring knowledge capital across all industries. The model must be easy, accurate, and practical. Moreover, while conducting future research, future researchers should bear in mind the following recommendations: It is important to be in partnership with someone who has industrial experience, or better yet, seek support or sponsorship from companies. This would also solve the problem of funding. Second, use a combination of data collection instruments, such as face-to-face interviews and questionnaires. Collect both quantitative and qualitative data to validate the results. Lastly, a year or two would be the best preference in conducting this research, especially it it is on a global scale.

The Belief In Miracles Philosophy Essay

The Belief In Miracles Philosophy Essay I will proceed in the following way: First, I will respond to Humes charges against the belief in miracles. Then, I will present conditions that, if met, would justify a belief that a miracle has occured. The arguments against miracles in Humes work can be divided into three categories. The first arguments attack the coherence, or intelligibility, of the concept of the miraculous. The second accept, for the sake of argument, that the concept is coherent, but target the plausibility of miracles, arguing there could never be sufficient evidence for believing in a miracle. The third attacks the reliability of the reports of those who claim to have witnessed miraculous events. This paper shall concern the first two arguments but not the last, because I cannot disagree with Hume that historically, the evidence for miracles has indeed been remarkably weak. Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to further clarify what I am not trying to prove. I do not contend that there ever has been a miracle, nor that the things commonly considered evidence for miracles are evidence at all. What I do contend is that given certain conditions, the most rational explanation for an event could be that it was a miracle. A miracle may be accurately defined, says Hume, a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent. Note that there are two conditions set out in this definition. First, a miracle presents as an exception to the established laws of nature. But that is not all; an events exceptionality is not enough to warrant it miracle status. The exception must be attributable to some sort of supernatural interference with the laws of nature. Thus, we may paraphrase Humes definition as the following: A miracle is a violation, enacted by a supernatural agent, of the laws of nature. This is how Hume defines it, and accordingly, this is the conception I shall use in my refutation of Hume. The first charge I shall address is the charge of unintelligibility, or incoherence. It is Humes most ambitious argument against miracles. However, what exactly Hume meant by this charge is the subject of debate. The first view to be considered is Anthony Flews. He interprets the argument as the following simple argument: Laws cannot have exceptions. The definition of a miracle is an exception to the laws of nature. Therefore, miracles cannot exist. But this argument is unsound, specifically at the second premise. Miracles are not just exceptions according to Hume, but violations, the result of supernatural interference with nature ¿Ã‚ ½s normal course. The laws of nature cite relations of natural causes to their effects, not supernatural causes to their effects. In other words, the supernatural is beyond the proper subject matter of natural laws. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable to expect for the laws of nature to account for miracles, which are events caused by the supernatural. So because miracles are caused by forces external to the natural realm, and because natural laws describe only those causes within the natural realm, miracles present no problem for our acceptance of the laws of nature. We may accept the laws of nature as accurate descriptions of the natural world as it usually functions. What would be incoherent is an internal exception, that is, a natural exception to the laws of nature. But of course, Hume ¿Ã‚ ½s miracles are not of that nature. The second interpretation of Hume ¿Ã‚ ½s argument connects the charge of incoherence to Hume ¿Ã‚ ½s particular conception of lawhood. Hume ¿Ã‚ ½s conception of the laws of nature is one that places strict checks on the use of the natural-supernatural distinction. It claims that we form our ideas of natural laws based on all the evidence, exceptional events included. Thus, there can be no clear way of distinguishing what is a natural event from what is supposedly supernatural. As Hume ¿Ã‚ ½s natural laws encapsulate all observed events, there is no basis for saying that some events are miracles that should be excluded from the scope of these laws, but be instead placed in a conveniently created supernatural realm, as we do when we label them miracles. To respond to this argument, one need only point out that it is not free from some quite substantive assumptions about lawhood. It attaches the charge of unintelligibility of miracles to a particular and narrowly defined view of lawhood, substantially limiting the argument ¿Ã‚ ½s scope, and likewise weakening it. There are other theories of lawhood, such as the Naturalness theory of laws, which have no problem excluding anomalous events from the explanatory scope of natural laws. (Lierse, 19__) Thus, this charge of Hume ¿Ã‚ ½s is not one of unintelligibility or incoherence, but a charge of incompatibility with a particular conception of lawhood. And of course, that two ideas are incompatible is just as much a problem with either one the two as it is with the other one. So why see this incompatibility as a problem with the concept of miracles when we can easily construe it as a problem with Hume ¿Ã‚ ½s theory of lawhood? The charge against Hume ¿Ã‚ ½s theory of lawhood being t hat it clashes with the intuitive idea of a miracle. The claim that miracles are incoherent is, therefore, unfounded. Now for Hume ¿Ã‚ ½s second charge. He argues that given the vast body of empirical evidence that has established the laws of nature as laws, it would be impossible to have comparable evidence supporting a miracle claim. In other words, the fact that any law of nature is a law means that, in our experience, it has never been violated, so any claim that a law has been violated is in direct contradiction to a vast body of evidence. Thus regardless of how trust-worthy a person reporting a miracle may be, that report cannot possibly be more likely to be true than false. As a result, Hume argues, it is never reasonable to accept reports of miracles. What this argument tries to do is pit the evidence in support of a miraculous occurrence against the evidence for the laws of nature. But in truth, the two do not negate each other. When we label an event that violates a law of nature  ¿Ã‚ ½a miracle ¿Ã‚ ½, we are not contradicting a law of nature, but in a way defending it; we are protecting the law ¿Ã‚ ½s integrity. An anomalous event would seem to challenge the law it violated, but not if that event is a miracle. If the event is a miracle it is no longer counter-evidence to the law, because the law is not expected to account for it in the first place, as it has a supernatural cause. So we may continue to claim there have been no observed natural events that have contradicted the law, and therefore, we may conclude the law still stands. As an example, imagine there were a 2000 year old monk living somewhere up in the mountains of Tibet. The law of nature that all humans are mortal would seem contradicted. But if the monk ¿Ã ‚ ½s extraordinarily long life is a miracle, then his longevity is ultimately the effect of some supernatural force interfering with his natural life-span. We could argue the law of human mortality, correctly construed, only applies to people whose lives have not been interfered with by the supernatural, and accordingly, it is fully coherent to suppose that interference by a supernatural force could cause the law of human mortality to be violated. Just like the law of human mortality, other laws of nature can also be protected from perceived counter-instances in this way. By appealing to the supernatural, laws can be saved from apparent counter-evidence. Of course, there are other ways to explain anomalous events without appealing to the miraculous. There seem to be three other options: we can dismiss the evidence for the event, we can posit another law as the cause, or we can modify the law to accommodate the anomalous event. In order to demonstrate that miracles are possible, it must be shown that a miracle could be the best explanation available in certain circumstances. And that is what I shall demonstrate in what follows. I begin with an admission. In explaining an apparent violation of a law of nature as a miracle, all other explanations must first be completely ruled out. This is because if we accept that a miracle happened, it may pose a challenge to the coherence of our established beliefs. If we accept a miraculous explanation for an event, then we are accepting that a supernatural power exists, and not only exists, but also interferes with the natural world. This may lie in contradiction to our established beliefs about such matters, and this threat to coherence may very well be considered evidence against a miracle claim. However, a miracle may nevertheless be the best explanation available for certain events, because all other explanations may in fact be impossible. This can occur when a number of conditions are met. The first condition is repetition. If an event is only reported once, even if the only reasonable explanation is the miraculous, we still might reject the report as evidence. This is because no matter how convincing the evidence may seem, we are aware that our track-record for assessing the reliability of evidence is weak, and we can deny that a miracle has in fact occurred on those grounds alone. But if an event is reliably reported to have been repeated enough times, and by enough people, this concern is taken care of. The more the event is reliably reported to have occurred, the more difficult it becomes to deny that the event has taken place. Consider the following example. Suppose there were reports that Tom Cruise could cure cancer with his mind. And not just individual reports, but double-blind placebo controlled scientific studies, published in all the top medical journals. We would, it seems, be forced to rule out other explanations and seriously open our minds to the possibility that Tom Cruise has supernatural powers. We are not be able to dismiss the reports as faulty because of the degree to which they are reported, and the reliability of the sources reporting them . But could the laws of nature be modified to permit this occurrence? It seems unlikely. In this case, Tom Cruise is violating numerous laws of nature. If we are going to modify a law of nature, we need to be able to explain our reason for doing so, as well as provide a plausible account for why the exception we are permitting is in fact justified. Normally, when we modify a law to account for an exception, we can provide an explanation for why the law should not apply in the exceptional case. But there is no biological difference between a cancer that Tom Cruise wills to go away with his mind and one he does not. Any law we would devise for this phenomenon of cancers spontaneously healing would have to rely on a completely non-physical property: being willed to heal by Tom Cruise. So if we modify our laws of biology to allow that can cers can be spontaneously disappear, not only must we explain why some cancers spontaneously disappear and some do not, but we are also faced with the challenge that the only description we can give for the set of exceptions refers to the non-biological property of being willed to disappear by Tom Cruise. Now this is of course a very odd sort of exception to a law of biology, one that is completely unprecedented in any other biological law. Alternatively, trying to explain it in natural terms is a completely hopeless endeavour. However, claiming that Tom Cruise ¿Ã‚ ½s ability is a miracle, and given a Scientologist world-view not unexpected, provides two important advantages to the above explanation. Firstly, it provides us with an explanation for why cancers willed to heal by Tom Cruise are disappearing, and not other cancers. Secondly, it allows us to retain our natural laws as comprehensive, simple, and therefore useful descriptions of the natural world. So appealing to the miraculous is the best explanation. And though we can always modify our conception of the laws of nature to avoid introducing miracles into the equation, it would, as demonstrated in the above example, be crazy for us to do so. My defence of miracles has a potential objection that must be addressed. Problems of the unreliability of evidence for reported events, I argued, could be defeated by appealing to the repetition of miracles. That miracles can be repeated, however, is sometimes denied. One objection is by Swinburne. Swinburne is not prepared to allow that a miracle could be repeated, though he does allow a single miraculous occurence. He argues that any repeated miracle would nullify the credibility of the miracle and demand a modification of our law. This argument is weak. Firstly, it grants God the ability to interfere with nature, but just one time for any particular kind of interference, which leaves us with a rather odd sort of metaphysics. Secondly, if it is logically possible that a law can be violated once, then why can it not be violated again? It is arbitrary to insist that the point where a law requires modification is when an anomaly is repeated. Some modifications of laws provide poorer explanations for events than does an appeal to the supernatural, and that anomalies may be repeated does not change that fact, as we saw in the case of Tom Cruise. The reasonable conclusion is that a miracle can possibly be repeated any number of times. Even the possibility of  ¿Ã‚ ½miracle laws ¿Ã‚ ½ is something we should be willing to accept. Miracles can themselves be law-like despite being violation of laws. This is coherently understood in the case of supernatural laws violating natural laws, an instance of laws violating other laws. For example, consider the biblical story of the Israelites ¿Ã‚ ½ God turning the Egyptians ¿Ã‚ ½ water into blood. What is claimed to have happened is that any and all water belonging to an Egyptian spontaneously turned into blood. The spontaneous transformation of water into blood is certainly in violation of the laws of nature. Thus, by the biblical account, a supernatural power created a supernatural law, and caused the laws of nature to be violated in doing so. Any remnants of disreputability that miracles may have been tainted with should be taken care of by the admission of  ¿Ã‚ ½miracle laws ¿Ã‚ ½.

Hallucinations :: essays research papers

Hallucinations Hallucinations are defined as a perception of and external object when no object is really present. There are many reasons why people have hallucinations. Some reasons for hallucinations are prescribed drugs (SSRI), illegal drugs (LSD), and sleeping disorders (Narcolepsy). Some causes of hallucinations are from taking drugs, both prescribed and illegal. Both produce the same effect. The hallucinations from these have been described as dà ©jà   vu or hearing or seeing thing that aren't really there. Prescribed drugs such as SSRI which is used for ulcers has been reported to have hallucinations as a side effect. Dronabinol, which is used for the treatment of nausea in chemotherapy, has had the same reports. People with Parkinson's disease have complained of hallucinations when taking an antibiotic called selegiline. Illegal drugs have also been reported to produce hallucinations. These drugs are called hallucinogens. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) is a commonly used hallucinogen among the under ground drug world. Hallucinations from this are very unrealistic. Users say that they see very vivid color and geometric shapes when on a "trip". They tend to hear and see things that aren't there. For example, they will hear someone call their name or see something preposterous like a purple elephant. Peyote is another illegal drug that creates hallucinations for the user. It is much like LSD in that it has the same hallucinations. It is made from a small cactus in the southwestern region of the U.S. and in parts of Mexico. There have been several studies made on hallucinations and the effects of drugs in relation to hallucinations. Ronald Seigle did a study on the effects of peyote on the Huichol Indians. He concluded that the hallucinations of the Indians were exceptionally similar to that of college kids doing similar drugs. He believed that the portions of the brain that respond to incoming stimuli become disorganized while the entire central nervous system is aroused. There are no long-term effects to having hallucinations unless it is through drugs, in which case the drug will mess the user up in the future.

My Landlady’s Yard

In his essay, â€Å"My Landlady’s Yard,† Dagoberto Gilb seems to be writing about a climate and culture that he is both very familiar with and also very fond of, as he is in fact  ½ Mexican and lives in Austin, Texas. His landlady seems to be in some form of denial regarding her surroundings, which is evident in her attempt to grow grass and â€Å"Yankee† plants in a desert climate. I get the impression that the author is implying that his landlady is a â€Å"Yankee† but it is rather indirect so I cannot tell for certain. Through his statement that his landlady wants green grass in the middle of the desert, I think Gilb is implying the Proverb â€Å"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence† and by doing so, he is saying that his landlady wants what she can’t have. It makes me wonder if perhaps she had to live in that house at one time and she didn’t want to live there. The author states that she lived there as a young mother and wife. I picture a young woman who is trying to make the most of her domestic imprisonment, living in a place that is very foreign to her, and her attempt of making it feel like home was to plant familiar life, such as the green grass and shrubs that were indigenous to the climate she grew up in. Although there is some sarcasm in the author’s voice, I don’t sense that he is resentful of her. On the contrary, it seems to me that on some level he understands why she has done such a silly thing as to plant this grass and shrubbery out in the desert and is somewhat sympathetic to her. I know as the tenant, he must be obligated to care for the property, but I get the feeling that it goes a bit deeper than that, so he does performs his duty of caring for her property not only out of obligation, but out of sympathy for her. And he does it to his own chagrin, as he is wasting the precious water on this foliage that he knows will not thrive in this climate.

Qualities of a Good Parent

Parenting is defined as one who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother (The free dictionary, 2013). The definition does not mean that one will make a good parent. Becoming a parent can be one of the most exciting times in ones life, or it can be a horrific experience. For most, it is a good experience that brings them happiness, joy and excitement. Others fear the unknown, do not like kids, or have a negative impression of parenting.Truthfully, parenting is all in what you make of it. Good parenting is categorized by many different factors. Some of these factors that categorize a good parent are self-sacrificing, teachable, curious, and diligence (Mallory, 2013). Self-sacrificing means that a parent will do anything they humanly can to protect and take care of their child. Teachable means that you are willing to learn various aspects of parenting. Curious means that you are intrigued at finding things out about how to be or become a better parent.D iligence means that you work hard to be the best parent that you can. According to the article, What Qualities Make a Good Parent, becoming a good parent is a high calling that every parent should strive to achieve (2013). If one is not a good parent, they can always work at being a better parent. If they work at being a better parent, their child will notice those changes and in return not have a negative connotation of parenting. With the good, there always come the bad. There are certain qualities that make an ineffective parent.According to the article, Four Traits Common to Bad Parents, there are so many pitfalls in parenting, and no parent wants to raise a brat, a beast, a shooter, or a Clinton, but some of us do in spite of that (2001). The four traits addressed about bad parents are: poor excuses, no consequences for their actions, expect everything given to them, and defensive/critical (McKinney, 2001). These traits shed some light on the pitfalls of parenting, but one must rise above this and do better.The obvious answer to being a good parent is to be a loving, caring individual, and one who strives for excellence for their child. Good parents should have a plan to teach their self-control, personal integrity and a sense of responsibility to themselves, their families and their fellow citizens, even when it hurts both them (McKinney, 2001). By setting parameters and goals as a parent you are more likely to have a positive experience and feel as if you are a â€Å"good parent. Good parenting takes a lot of commitment, participation and sacrifice, it also takes a lot of mistakes. With these mistakes come learning, and in return the quality of your parenting will increase. References Mallory, D. (December 2012). What Qualities Make a Good Parent? Retrieved March 12, 2013 from http://www. wahm. com/articles/what-qualities-make-a-good parent. html McKinney, S. (April 2011). Four Traits Common to Bad Parents Retrieved March 12, 2013 from http://www. ente rstageright. com/archive/articles/0401badparents. htm