Jimmy the cricket was determined to visit the dental floss store. The trip to the store was a long one, and Jimmy was only a small cricket. However, Jimmy was tenacious. Jimmy had dreamed of visiting the dental floss store since he was a larva. If any cricket in Cricketville could make it to the dental floss store, it was Jimmy. He was healthy, strong, and eager to explore new lands.
Sadly, all was not well in Cricketville. Due to unforeseen effects of El Niño, the grass crop had withered, leaving no food for the crickets. Jimmy remembered a large tomato plant that supposedly fed their ancestors. This plant was their only hope. Some crickets said that the tomato plant is a myth; some remember tales of its bounty. A faction developed in cricket land. Between disputes and the gnawing of their little cricket bellies, the peaceful cricket community quickly degenerated into the kind of mayhem one would expect in the town of those degenerate termites down the block.
A volunteer was needed. Some cricket had to find a tomato and bring it back to Cricketville. Jimmy knew what he had to do. He had to postpone his trip to the dental floss store and save his village. He stepped forward. "I'll do it," he squeaked bravely, "I'll bring back a tomato and feed the village." An elder crickets scoffed, "Don't be too hasty, Jimmy. We don't even know if such a vegetable exists, much less where to find one." "It's a fruit," another cricket chirped. "It is not," rebuked another. Soon all the crickets were fighting again, and Jimmy slipped out of the village.
He started west, not knowing fully why, but arbitrary decisions had been one of his specialties. Jimmy was a lucky cricket. So lucky that he had no sooner stepped out of the village than he discovered the tomato plant. He looked up to see if there were any birds around, and he saw a multitude of red, bulbous objects. Jimmy had never seen a tomato before, but he assumed that those could be tomatoes just as easily as anything else. Jimmy was amazed. The entire town of Cricketville was built under a giant tomato plant.
Jimmy nimbly climbed up the plant and sat on one of the tomatoes. He began to gnaw at the top of the tomato, and soon it broke off from the plant and plummeted toward the village. It hit with a sizable thump and exploded. Tomato covered streets, houses, and pedestrians. Every cricket rushed to the remains of the tomato to see what had happened. Jimmy exclaimed, "I have found a tomato! We can eat again!" The crickets did not hesitate to feast on tomato soup, tomato sandwiches, tomato juice, and tomato soufflé.
Unfortunately, the crickets had made very little progress in the field of oral hygiene. Soon the villagers experienced a plaque buildup like they had never seen before. Much worse, they ran a risk of developing gingivitis. "This is an emergency!" the Cricketville council declared, because, as everyone knows, when crickets contract a gum disease, the world will end. Soon, Jimmy went from being the town hero to being responsible for the destruction of the earth. Suddenly, he remembered the prophecy that the aphid at Delphi had told him earlier. The prophecy stated that that he would one day find something important in the dental floss store. Jimmy realized that the time had come for the crickets to learn how to floss.
He once again set off to find the dental floss store. This time he went east. He had never wandered far from Cricketville before and was surprised by the change in scenery. The withered grass that was painfully familiar to Jimmy soon led on to different terrains. Jimmy soon discovered the joy of mud, the tediousness of sand, and the agony of molten lava. Jimmy persevered through the unexplored land and found his way to the door of the dental floss store.
His luck soon ran out when he discovered that at the entrance to the dental floss store laid a cat. Jimmy was not afraid, though, and asked the cat, "What could I give you, sir, in exchange for a container of dental floss?" The cat lazily peered at the cricket and said, "I will give you your dental floss if you bring me those two birds." Jimmy looked and saw the predators in the bush. Birds were the only things that frightened Jimmy. He hesitated. The cat stiffened and asked Jimmy. "Are you going to bring me the birds or not?" Jimmy defiantly sneered at the cat and made an obscene gesture. The cat became enraged and leapt at the cricket. Jimmy was quick and hopped out of the way. The cat tried to get his revenge, but soon exhausted himself and slumped off, defeated. Jimmy took the dental floss and started his long trip home.
Jimmy did not return a moment to soon. The crickets had horrible breath, and none of the adolescent crickets could find dates to the cricket prom. He distributed the dental floss, and, before long, life returned to normal. The world was safe. "How did you do it?" asked Aunt Bee (whom everyone suspected was adopted). "I just remembered what you told me when I was young," answered Jimmy. "What did I tell you?" Aunt Bee inquired. Jimmy looked into her tiny, segmented eyes and replied, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I used your advice and that is how I changed the world."
The following essay was written as a response to this topic: "The symbol for UGA is the arch. What would your symbol be and why?"
If I were to have a symbol, it would be the toilet plunger. Consider its function: it is used to prevent many disagreeable circumstances. When someone needs a plunger, there are few alternatives. It goes in depths that few other tools dare to explore to get the job done. A toilet plunger rarely fails to accomplish its designated task; it would take a very unsparing situation to thwart the operation of a toilet plunger. The toilet plunger is a very pragmatic tool: efficient, robust, and indispensable.
Likewise, I would consider myself useful to have around. When faced with a difficult assignment, I am not afraid to work hard or perform an unsavory task to achieve a goal. In fact, I enjoy being challenged. When I research a topic, I read every article that I can find: I am never satisfied with superficial answers. I want to extract all the knowledge that I can from every topic.
I am often called on to help my friends in desperate situations. Whenever they are stuck in holes, I am always willing to pull them free. As an actor, I have been a last minute replacement in more plays than I can remember. If someone drops out, I am always there to fill in the gap, and people know that if I make a commitment, I will stay until the end. I do know my limits, however. Although I hate to say no to people, I have learned that some fardels are too heavy for me to manage by myself. I do what I can and accept what I cannot.
I love life, and am always eager to try something new. Like the toilet plunger, I am a sedulous worker, and I enjoy serving others. Although I do not always have the most glamorous assignments, I immerse myself in whatever I do and suck out all the marrow of life.
Last year I had the pleasure of taking a class called Theory of Knowledge. On occasion, I had to write a few essays concerning various topics. Here are a few of those essays.
This essay was written as a response to a Socratic dialogue concerning the difference between belief and knowledge.
The Socratic dialogue concerns the important distinction between belief and knowledge. Belief is limited to the individual. One's beliefs are the statements that one feels are valid. Knowledge is the universal set of absolute truths. There is a definite, though infinite, amount of knowledge. These words are very similar and often confused. The Greek word meaning "to know" is "ginosko". "Ginosko" denotes the realization of information, a progressive attainment of true knowledge. The Greek word meaning "to believe", "pisteuo", denotes trust. "Pisteuo" which is the verb form of "pistis", faith, means a complete acceptance of information which hasn't been directly observed by the believer.
This distinction is very important because it there is a great difference in validity between these two concepts. A belief can either be right or wrong. If one person believes that Islam is correct and another believes that Hinduism is correct, they can not both be right. One belief automatically negates the other. Both parties can claim their statements as true, but they are opinions, not facts. One religion or the other could very well be true, or they could both be wrong, either way at least one of these beliefs is not knowledge, because knowledge is absolute fact. The problem with knowledge is that it can't always be completely verified. All human knowledge is belief, but not all beliefs are knowledge. For example, over a century ago there were many rational people who believed in a science called phrenology, which related head shape to one's mental capacity. This science has been proved false, so it is not knowledge although it was believed by some to be true.
This difference in knowledge and belief causes the problem of conviction. Conviction falls into two categories: conviction of knowledge and conviction of belief. Conviction of knowledge is accurate and helpful because it is the understanding of what is definite and true. Conviction of belief does not rely on knowledge and can therefore be incorrect and misleading.
The mechanisms of communication are relatively similar between humans and animals. Both rely on sounds, facial expressions, body movements, and other efforts of the body. The main difference between human and animal language is complexity. The reason why human languages are more complicated than a bee dance or the olfactory exchanges of dogs is that humans are capable of more abstract thought processes. Language exists to express ideas from one organism to another. I am convinced that lower animals have no concept of alternate realities, an afterlife, or other such philosophical inquiries. If an animal develops the ability to analyze abstract thoughts, that ability will be accompanied by the language to express such intelligence.
Language is the medium through which an organism, including a human, thinks. I use the same words to hypothesize an abstract thought to myself as I do in expressing that thought to others. Language does not only communicates ideas, it also organizes them and makes them understandable. In short, language is the means by which we perceive ideas.
Therefore, animal language, like animal thought, is not identical to human language or thought, but they are similar enough in form and function not to be overlooked. Consider early humanity, The first cave people probably had to communicate through grunts, facial expressions, and hand gestures. This is not too different than the language of many modern social animals. Our Neanderthal ancestors did not ponder the existence of right and wrong or other abstract ideas until after language had developed enough to allow such issues to be contemplated. I would then venture to hypothesize that, with enough time and development, other animals could also eventually debate metaphysics with an appropriate expansion of language. However, until this occurs, the human languages are an elite group of expression that is "without significant analogue in the animal world."
Before I can make any claims to knowledge, I must first define knowledge itself. There are three types of knowledge: propositional knowledge, knowledge by acquaintance, and skill knowledge. Propositional knowledge is knowing that. It involves the recognition of one specific fact such as "the sky is blue" or "The capital of the United States is Washington D.C." Knowledge by acquaintance is more broad. It leans more upon experience of an object or idea as a whole than on knowing a specific fact. Knowledge by acquaintance incorporates many propositional facts into a general feeling about a thing. For example, instead of saying, "I know that my dog likes beef", "I know that my dog wags its tail when it is happy", "I know that my dog enjoys my company", and so on ad infinitum, one could simply sum it all up with the sentence, "I know my dog." Knowledge by acquaintance involves a direct object following the verb know. Skill knowledge is knowing how. An example of skill knowledge would be knowing how to ride a bike. With skill knowledge one can perform a task although he or she may not have analyzed every individual part of the task.
Knowledge is classified by four characteristics. All of these characteristics must be met before one can make the statement "I know that p." P being any piece of propositional knowledge.
These justifications for knowledge can come in several forms. There are nine main examples of good reasons, although some are regarded as being more authoritative than others.
1. Sense perception- Sense perception is the most common justification for knowledge. If one sees a blue chair then one could have ample justification to honestly say "The chair is blue." Some philosophers claim that sense perception should not be regarded as perfect, because our senses are easily deceived. This may be true, but for practical purposes sense perception can be regarded as trustworthy.
2. Logic- Logic is probably the most absolute justification of knowledge. It is the method by which Descartes casts doubt on every other justification. If one accepts that my father's surname is Jenkins, that my mother is the wife of my father, and that women adopt their husband's surname when they marry, then on would find difficulty disproving the logical conclusion that my mother's last name is Jenkins.
3. Intuition- Intuition is less concrete than logic or sense perception, therefore it is often regarded as a less absolute justification for
knowledge. Nevertheless it is still a good reason. If a mother intuitively feels that her child is in danger, only to later find out that her intuition was correct, intuition has served its purpose as a justification for her knowledge. Intuition could possibly be a form of extra sensory perception or a combination of other justifications (such as sense perception, memory, and logic) pieced together in the subconscious.
4. Self-awareness or introspection- This justification of knowledge is irrefutable by anyone outside of one's self. If I make the claim that I am happy, you can't deny it. Introspective knowledge is simply known by existing.
5. Memory- Memory is extremely useful for recalling previously learned knowledge. Memory is not perfect, however. Psychiatrists have found that many memories have not really been experienced, but were created by the mind to explain information that occurs later. For example, if a father falsely tells his daughter of a time when she was lost in a store, she may claim to remember that occurrence even though it didn't happen.
6. Authority- One assumes that an authority on a subject would know more information about it than us, so we generally accept their comments about their area of study to be true. One should be careful when accepting this information, however, because the authority comes from the believer not the "expert".
7. Consensus gentium (general consensus)- General consensus is useful, but contains no guarantee of accuracy. Before the 1400s, people generally agreed that the world is flat. We know now that the world is spherical, so consensus gentium can be handled with a degree of skepticism.
8. Revelation- Revelations are rare and are doubted as easily as intuition or faith, but may still justify a belief. If his vision was true, Saint John's revelation about the destruction of the world is his justification for the knowledge of how the Earth will end, regardless of its credibility.
9. Faith- There are some philosophers that claim that faith is not a justification for knowledge, but the actual belief in it. In other words, it is the second criterion in the above list of characteristics of knowledge, not the third. However, many people claim to know things, such as the existence of God based on faith alone. Faith could also be influenced by intuition.
To conclude, knowledge is a true, justified belief. To know that one knows something, one would have to recognize the completion of all four criteria for knowledge. This creates an interesting paradox from the skeptical point of view: because no one can ever be sure of truth, no one can know that he knows anything. Practically, we can assume that any justified beliefs are true as long as they are not refuted by later evidence.
For a juror to find a defendant innocent or guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" provokes considerable mental exertion. To reach such a state of certainty would require a tremendous amount of evidence for or against the defendant. Furthermore, the responsibility of such a decision is magnified by the severity of the crime being evaluated. If it is a felony, such as murder, the consequences of the verdict will be more severe; therefor, a juror is obligated to not make a decision until a definite, well-supported argument shows itself as truth.
With stakes as high as life and death, it is apparent that a strong conclusion must be reached, but is it necessary for that conclusion to be "beyond a reasonable doubt"? After all, as Descartes pointed out , there is the possibility that everything that we think we know is wrong, including our senses and reason. According to this train of thought, one couldn't rule out the possibility that all the evidence that the juror thinks he sees is merely an illusion put forth by the prosecuting attorney, who is an evil sorcerer bent on the destruction of the innocent defendant.
This doubt may be conceivable, but is it reasonable? I think not. By accepting such an extreme circumstance, one would have to invalidate a large amount of previous knowledge. It is hardly reasonable to disregard most knowledge gained about basic laws of the universe in order to accept an extreme theory simply because it cannot be disproved. This would be unreasonable according to all three theories of truth put forth by Jeffery Olen in Persons and their World .
With such outlandish possibilities aside, the are, however, more reasonable obstructions to finding truth "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court case. What if there is conflicting evidence? Testimonies of witnesses often change or disagree with other testimonies. An incriminating piece of evidence may be offset by an equally strong piece of evidence in the defendant's favor. How could a reasonable juror accept one set of evidence and ignore the other? There can only be on truth. Either the defendant committed the crime or he didn't. A concord must exist in this discord, but where?
If there is sound evidence presented by both sides, can a verdict be rendered without a reasonable doubt? It is up to the lawyers to explain how logically all the evidence can exist and still prove one argument. This could approach Descartes' proposition of logical uncertainty. Some evidence could be fake. Witnesses can lie. Photos can be doctored. Certain items could have been planted by investigators. Once again, how does a juror in that position determine what the truth is "beyond a reasonable doubt"? With so much to consider, it's no wonder our legal system is so slow.
Olen describes our beliefs as a web with strong beliefs, such as math, in the middle and weaker beliefs, such as what I had for dinner three weeks ago, along the fringes. The weaker beliefs can be replaced or removed with little disruption to the web as a whole, while stronger beliefs are more firmly set. According to this system, in evaluating the truth in a matter, the most reasonable choice to accept would be the one that causes the least disruption to one's web of beliefs.
Let's suppose that the juror has had previous experience with two witnesses. He knows witness A to be honest, while witness B is not very trustworthy. These two witnesses give conflicting testimonies. So, who would a reasonable juror believe? The juror would most likely believe witness A. Why? Prior to the testimonies, there were two beliefs in the juror's web of knowledge: 1) that witness A always tells the truth, and 2) that witness B often lies. By believing witness A, no disruption has occurred in the juror's web of beliefs, if he chose to believe witness B, then he would have to ignore two of his pervious beliefs, thus disrupting the web.
Likewise, the juror may hold different forms of evidence in different places in his web of beliefs. A fingerprint may be stronger evidence than a photograph, which may be faked. A crowd testimony may be put in a more central location in the web than a single testimony, because a single person has a higher probability of lying than a group of people. It is in this manner that the juror could rank the evidence as to which arguments are the most sound.
This method does not, however, remove all reasonable doubt. Any plausible evidence against the winning argument could cast a reasonable doubt against a verdict. Further developments in the case could explain the discrepancy, or that exhibit could remain unchallenged. A verdict must be reached eventually, and both sides could run out of evidence.
In that case, much relies on the morals of the juror and his interpretation of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause. If the juror feels that it is more important for a criminal to be punished than for an innocent man to be wrongly accused, then the juror would probably choose to ignore the weaker evidence and convict the defendant. If the juror feels that it is worse to convict an innocent man that to release the murderer, then he would probably choose to vote not guilty, depending on the strength of the evidence.
A court case could be very straightforward with overwhelming evidence on one side. In that event, it is not hard to render a verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt". Other cases may not be as clear. In those situations, it could be impossible for a juror lacking omniscience to be confident "beyond a reasonable doubt". In those cases, one can only hope for good reasoning.
Bibliography
Descartes, René, "First Meditation". Meditations on First Philosophy.
Olen, Jeffery. Persons and their World.
I wrote this essay for World History my sophomore year. It is part of an assignment called "History and Me".
"The History of Popular Culture"
"Popular Culture, objects of creative expression, entertainment, and style that appeal to the society as a whole. "
Popular culture - it's everywhere. In modern, American society, it is nearly impossible to avoid. It seems that everywhere we turn, we are bombarded by advertisements from huge companies, the latest hit song from some new artist, the newest blockbuster movie, prime time television shows, the most recent fashion from Paris or New York, a media
exploitation of a politician, corporate mergers, acquisitions, downsizings, money, sex, pleasure, pain, what's new, what's old, what's hot, and what's not. Society as we know it is consistently changing everyday. It forms our opinions, tells us what to like, what to dislike, when to smile, and when to cry. It controls our emotions by reflecting the responses of the masses. The masses aren't robots, though. They are the combination of individuals who share the common thread of humanity.
Not everyone agrees with my positive view of western society. Some think of popular culture as a way of being exploited by the greedy upper class. Some think that corporate America is trying to shape our habits and beliefs by achieving mass appeal. One anti-capitalist author wrote: "Capitalism is much like a virus. It slips slyly around its host reproducing itself, it transfers itself to other hosts, and mutates itself in order to survive defensive measures taken against it. Since it remains out of site from its victim, the process of subduing a virus requires the services of one with the knowledge of how the virus functions. Immunities may be acquired but that does not destroy the existence of the virus of the virus itself. Later mutations use those very immunities to construct a stronger, more effective virus. The virus of capitalism, the virus of 'thingification' and greed, is one that is permeating the globe. Although I do believe popular culture has its share of intrinsic benefits for promoting class consciousness and true, harmonic growth of the individual, popular culture also is an incredibly useful tool, one of the most powerful tools today that the capitalist uses for the purpose of undermining and shaping our beliefs and our society. " I have a more optimistic, possibly naïve, opinion of popular culture. I have faith in humanity. I don't think that as a society we act as a herd of sheep with a tendency to follow the guy with the big stick. I think that humanity is composed of independently thinking individuals with many common interests and a shared desire for protection and fulfillment.
Popular culture has been around as long as man has belonged to a society. It hasn't always been as fast paced as it is now, but neither has life. None the less, in the most ancient civilizations special markings have been used to identify products with quality and origin. Archaic pottery has been found with stamps that were used to identify reliable potters. Similar marks have been used on Chinese porcelain, ancient Greek and Roman jars, and Indian goods from 1300 BC . In 4000 BC, Stonecutters' markings were put on Egyptian buildings. Livestock brands have even been used in prehistoric societies . In medieval society, many craft guilds, with their respective symbols, were formed. The guilds were the most practical way for most people to obtain quality specialty merchandise such as shoes, spices, or swords. These guilds controlled the commercial aspect of life. The other main elements of medieval culture were feudalism and religion.
This system worked well for hundreds of years until two inventions changed everything. The first invention was the printing press. Invented around 1440 by Johann Gutenburg , it made the rapid spreading of ideas possible. It also ensured that the ideas are conformed in a way that was not possible by word of mouth only. The other invention was the steam engine. Invented in 1765 by James Watt, it was what powered the Industrial Revolution .
Nothing has affected the culture of western society like the Industrial Revolution. The mass producing of items still affects the way that people shop today. Coincidentally, around the time of the rise of the Industrial Revolution, Christianity seemed to become less of a focus in the lives of the masses. Modern lifestyles, perspectives, and commercial habits have their birthplaces in the industrial revolution. "The production of so many inexpensive goods began to lead to a shift in the mass consciousness of the country. The old way of saving everything, of making use of rather than discarding, began to be replaced by a mentality that said, 'Throw away the old and replace it with the new!' With the nation's machines producing excess, frivolity began to come of age as an option for the masses. "
In the decades after the Industrial Revolution, labels on products became more common and elaborate. Items became packaged individually instead of in the bulk packaging that was common before. Also, name brands replaced locally made goods. Communities became less self-sufficient and grew to depend on factories hundreds of miles away.
After the First World War, many companies began to redesign trademarks and packages in an attempt to make all of their products united. Also, this was the golden age of radio where the public was exposed to an almost constant stream of information, programming, and advertisements.
During and after the Second World War, products and advertisements continued in their refinement. The Big Band Era gave way to Rock and Roll and the economy was recovering nicely from the depression. Actually, the economy was booming: " 'No nation in history,' observed President Harry Truman, 'had ever won so great a victory and asked for so little in return.' It was also true that no country had ever emerged from war so prosperous. In 1947, The United States produced half of the world's manufactured goods, 57 percent of its steel, 43 percent of its electricity, and 62 percent of its oil. Never before in history had so large a percentage of the world's wealth been concentrated in a single country. After World War I, the United States had turned to political isolationism. After World War II, however, the American attitude was different. The United States even offered to make New York City the permanent headquarters of the new United Nations. Shortly before his death, Franklin Roosevelt had said, 'we have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations. "
Another characteristic of the '40s and '50s is the conforming of all of the operations of many companies: "In the 1940s and '50s this emphasis on product-line design spread to include all of a company's operations, from delivery trucks to business cards to television advertising. The trademark became the focal point of a growing number of corporate-image makeovers as companies were made to realize just how exposed they were to the public eye. "
In the above paragraph is another invention that has changed our culture dramatically, the television. This machine has become more connected with popular culture than anything that I can think of. It has entertained, advertised, and spread propaganda in ways that print or radio never could. The TV became the babysitter of countless children whose most nostalgic memories are of Howdy Doody, The Ed Sullivan Show, or the moon landing. This generation grew up with a different set of morals and styles than the generations before it: "With the growth of television, a whole new breed of people emerged. They looked different. They talked differently. They dressed differently- in jeans and long hair and beads and beards; they spoke a language of their own, a cross between hip and Hollywood."
As time went by, this generation matured and had children of its own. Some of which are in their youth now. I am a member of that generation. We have products available to us that older generations never dreamed of. We have the laser pointer pen, we have Beanie Babies, we have Furbies, and we are the first generation to grow up with the Internet, which has more potential than any other communications medium before it.
Throughout human history, the human race has gradually gotten closer to understanding and appreciating each other, and thanks to the progression of technology and the unification of the media, we are linked together more now than ever before. Western civilization, which has spread to all parts of the globe, is sending the same messages, and selling the same products to humanity in a way more comprehensive than ever thought possible.
How does all this relate to me? At the moment, I am sitting in front of a Gateway 2000 computer, which runs on Microsoft Windows 95. I am listening to the song "Inside Out" by the pop band Eve6 and drinking a Coca-Cola. I am wearing Old Navy clothing. I live in the land of the free sample and home of the mini mall. I don't feel like an oppressed puppet of the capitalistic system, but like a member of a functional, civilized society. I don't agree with everything that I see on the television, I don't buy every product that I see advertised, and I don't like every song that hits the radio airwaves or record store shelves, but, for the most part, I enjoy the conveniences and commodities offered by the society which I belong to.
Bibliography
"Popular Culture". Microsoft® Encarta® 97 Encyclopedia. 1996.
Hughes, Stephen. Pop Culture Mania: Collecting 20th- Century Americana for Fun and Profit. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984. (1 - 310).
Krieger, Larry S; Jantzen, Steven L; & Neill, Kenneth. World History: Perspectives on the Past. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1992.
Matherly, Greg. "The Acceptance of Oppression or How to Sell a Revolution". The P.O.P. Culture Page http://www.mtsu.edu/~eng2001a/popculture/sell.html
Morgan, Hal. Symbols of America: A Lavish Celebration of America's Best-Loved Trademarks and the Products They Symbolize - Their History, Folklore, and Enduring Mystique. New York: Steam Press, 1986. (1-224).
Seidon, Hank. Advertising Pure and Simple. New York: AMACOM, 1976. (1 - 198).
1. p must be true,
2. I must believe that p,
3. p must be justified by good reasons, and
4. There is no evidence to refute p.