Interested students and philosophers turned the Forest Suite of the Union into an overflow of contemplative thought and rhetorical question for two days last week during the 25th Annual Nammour Symposium.

The event consisted of many different subtopics in Ways of Knowing and approached discussions through inquiries into fundamental essences of human nature.

The discussions brought wit and criticism out of the audience. Philosophers asked students to question themselves and their ways of knowing, as well as their ways of not knowing.

“Our knowledge of the external world,” “The Possibility of Transcendental Knowledge,” and “Varieties of Knowledge,” were the main topics of discussion, but each philosopher discussed these topics in their own light.

Students were especially interested in “Does chicken taste like chicken?” led by philosophy professor Matt McCormick. He presented a formulated scientific plan to “test reality by means of access to human sensations,” he said.

He talked about a make believe secret government project designed by a team of neurosurgeons and philosophers that experiments on the minds of human beings.

He said there are “Twisty Heads” and “Non-Twisty Heads,” differentiated through our sensations. By this, he explained a simile to two people as one who functions normally, and senses the color red as red, and another individual who’s on psychedelic drugs, per say, and sees the same red as raspberry, or even more twist, as Calvin Klein.

“We don’t have access to other people’s minds so we never know how twisty or normal we are compared to others,” McCormick said. His discussion was relatively simple, but complex by nature of philosophy. It contained satirical humor entwined with philosophical perspective, and the students were engaged.

Philosophers entertained a room overflowing with listeners with the idea of possible worlds and understanding miracles. Other featured topics included “How to make sense of Epistemological Pluralism,” and “Does Spot know when he’s been bad?”

Philosophy professor Chris Bellon argued from a feminist critique of scientific objectivity.

In ways of knowing, it is important to recognize “what claims are held for being true and your right for believing them,” Bellon said.

“Existing thought (of feminism) is problematic as it inverts reality to a feminist extreme,” she said. By this, she means that feminism in science is represented through poor interpretation of the definition of feminism.

The audience raised questions about claims in Bellon’s argument regarding the prescriptive and descriptive roles that she believes science plays in objectivity.

“Science has become a model as an example to shape other disciplines, such as psychology and sociology,” she said. Since it shapes what we believe and justify for belief, it is important to change the way science is conducted, she said.

“If we have this masculine ideal behind us, science is misconstrued,” Bellon concluded.

Ideologies and philosophical inquiries into different ideas made the Nammour Symposium a place for students to bring unanswered questions, intellect and possibilities for new adoptive ideas.

Three students took home awards for their philosophical ideas. Philosophy students Robert Boughton, Bernard Goldsmith and Justin Smith were announced as winners of this year’s Nammour Student Essay Competition as part of the symposium.

The Nammour Symposium and Essay Competition were sponsored by the department of philosophy at Sac State, and coordinated by professor Randy Mayes.