- Recognize and explain how the scientific method is used to solve problems.
- Make observations and discriminate between scientific and pseudoscientific explanations.
- Weigh evidence and make decisions based on strengths and limitations of scientific knowledge and the scientific method.
- Use knowledge of biological principles, the scientific method, and appropriate technologies to ask relevant questions, develop hypotheses, design and conduct experiments, interpret results, and draw conclusions.
the top notch act the possibility of safetyand passive nihilism is destroyed, (ibid) “in the exception the powerof real existence breaks thru the crust of a mechanism that has becometorpid with repetition.” there is a robust theological undertone tosuch violence. the exception right here functions similar to the sacrifice inreligion. it's miles that that is outside the limits of the rule; thatwhich is obtainable as much as some thing in reality interior. certainly, we couldgo up to now as to mention that what the miracle is for theology, the kingdom ofexception is for schmitt. each are exemplary, singular: and but bothdefine the basis for the guideline: one by proof of god’s existence, theother by using proof of the lifestyles of sovereignty. when guy is attuned to war, he'll another time comprehend the character ofexistence and for this reason the nature of sovereignty. schmitt here reveals astrange bedfellow within the socialist georges sorel, who he quotesapprovingly on many occasions. in his essay on sorel, he notes(schmitt: 1933:18) “warlike and heroic conceptions which are certain upwith warfare and battle had been taken seriously once more… as the trueimpulse of an intensive life.” each schmitt and sorel agree on the needfor swift action and decision, both at the need for man to besubservient to a higher fable. there handiest point of confrontation is onwhich particular delusion desires to be observed. sorel, as a marxist, usesthe fantasy of the proletarian. but, for schmitt that is anon-political belief, allowing thoughts of economics to infuse what shouldbe a natural sphere of sovereignty. the idea of the country is that onlymyth which can preserve this type of purity alive. in a staggering display ofblindness to history schmitt notes (1914:70): “the more potent myth isnational. the country wide myth has until nowadays always been effective.” onthe same challenge he rates mussolini approvingly (ibid: seventy five-76) while heclaims “we've created a delusion, this myth is a perception, a nobleenthusiasm: it does now not need to be a truth.” we ought to note at this juncture numerous subtleties of schmitt’sargument. even as he reverses clausewitz, and claims politics need to beplaced in the motive of battle, he does so most effective to the quantity that waremerges as a possibility to go back to an self sufficient notion of thepolitical sphere. schmitt does no longer advise violence for the sake ofviolence, but instead, as a way to convey democracy to its restrict factor.at this restrict point, guy will realize the impermanence of his life(the friend: enemy distinction on the heart of politics) and realisethat only a total nation permits for this difference to be transcendedthrough absolutely the belief of sovereignty. thus, warfare appears inschmitt as a constant possibility: that is to say, as a way ofconstantly realising the nature of guy’s lifestyles. on this, theausnahmmezustand (kingdom of exception) isn't diverse from whatheidegger (1962:312) calls a grenzsituation, wherein “dasein glimpsestranscendence and is thereby transformed from viable to realexistence.” similarly, the connection of violence to the nation of exception shouldbe clarified. the nation of exception isn't, in and of itself, violent.schmitt makes two awesome arguments here which might be structurallysimilar. he argues that through war man can realize the basic conceptof the political and rise above the bourgeois mentality to grow to be ahero. in this, man is amazing and breaking thru the policies ofpeace time. he additionally argues that it's far within the country of exception that wefind the genuine nature of sovereignty and most effective a country that keeps thisabsolutely singular notion of sovereignty might be capable of succeed. itis crucial to undergo in thoughts these arguments are separate and schmittis no longer arguing for violence for itself. but, he does make several errors of analysis it's far pertinent todemonstrate here. whilst schmitt dislikes the bourgeoisie immensely, itis placing to be aware the degree to which his thesis on the strength ofviolence as a singularity in which being is rediscovered is comparable tothe argument of bourgeois artists (most pertinently the futuristmarinetti, who embraced italian fascism) in favour of art for artssake. the problem in this argument is that there may be nothing in violenceper se that makes it singular. as a series of ethnographies of warfare(richard: 1996) have made clear: warfare follows cultural patterns and, farfrom being cleansing, may be banal and pretty the other of agrenzsituation. schmitt’s eulogisation of law looks like the yearningsof a bourgeoisie after an real life expressed in anexoticised different. regardless of the truth that the state of exception and the violence/wararguments are separate, their structural similarity ought to make usaware that for schmitt, an aestheticisation of politics (politics as apure sphere being equal to art for humanities sake, or in schmitt’sconcept of the nation, the state is simply that that is for itself)underlies his complete political theory. furthermore, this aestheticisationis a facile one that is at odds with the nature of warfare and the natureof vio>GET ANSWER