Recent Responses
Can you define logical validity? I'm engaged in a debate on the subject, with a friend, whom will not easily accept anyones word on the matter, so i would ask that you perhaps post your credentials? thank you for you time and effort!
Alexander George
April 25, 2014
(changed April 25, 2014)
Permalink
If you mean "valid argument," that's typically defined as an argument such that there is no interpretation of its premises and conclusions under which all the former are true and the latter is false.
Log in to post comments
Does having a mistrust of self identified feminist institutions make you an anti-feminist? When I heard that the university of Colorado invited a group of feminists (I think that's a fair description) from the APA my first inclination was to doubt their report because in my observation biased and otherwise problematic thinking patterns are typical of feminist organizations.
Miriam Solomon
April 24, 2014
(changed April 24, 2014)
Permalink
Your final statement expresses your views: "in my observation biased and otherwise problematic thinking patterns are typical of feminist organizations." You sound like someone who thinks that they are justified in being skeptical of the claims of feminists. Is that all you are asking?... Read more
I am relatively new to philosophy, as I am in an introductory philosophy class. My question is what made Francis Bacon's scientific method scientific since he was a lawyer or more into politics being he was more a political person than a scientist? I guess what I am saying is why is Francis Bacon's scientific method considered more scientific than it was political? Thank you.
Miriam Solomon
April 24, 2014
(changed April 24, 2014)
Permalink
Francis Bacon advocated the use of inductive reasoning in science. Inductive reasoning is going from particular observations to general conclusions. It is an empiricist method, and contrasts with the more rationalist methods of the time, such as the work of Descartes. Is there is a politica... Read more
How can I define myself? I'm basically a combination of cells created by DNA instructions who react to stimuli. Can I take credit for anything I do if everything I say, believe, and do is based on my genetic make-up and environment? Furthermore, how can I ethically love someone for reasons that aren't their doing? My parents tell me not to love someone for things they can't help, such as looks and intelligence, but you can't help anything you do. If I donate to charity, that's not really 'me' being a good person, it's my body reacting to my surroundings and determining it would be a good contributor to my overall survival. Is there a 'me?' Please help!!!!
Stephen Maitzen
April 20, 2014
(changed April 20, 2014)
Permalink
I responded to somewhat similar skeptical worries about personal identity in my reply to Question 4958. You might have a look there.
To respond to your specific claims here:
(1) Even if we grant that you're "basically a combination of cells created by DNA instructions [that] react to stimuli,... Read more
I guess some philosophers discuss whether in some exact location there is only one object, a statue, or two objects, the statue and the stone it is made of. Are there well-known philosophers who argue that this is a false question, a mere matter of choice of words, that there is no criterion to distinguish one object from two objects? Thank you.
Stephen Maitzen
April 19, 2014
(changed April 19, 2014)
Permalink
You might also look into the work of philosopher Eli Hirsch (Brandeis University), who argues that various disagreements in ontology, perhaps including the one you mentioned, are "merely verbal" disagreements.
Log in to post comments
I guess some philosophers discuss whether in some exact location there is only one object, a statue, or two objects, the statue and the stone it is made of. Are there well-known philosophers who argue that this is a false question, a mere matter of choice of words, that there is no criterion to distinguish one object from two objects? Thank you.
Stephen Maitzen
April 19, 2014
(changed April 19, 2014)
Permalink
You might also look into the work of philosopher Eli Hirsch (Brandeis University), who argues that various disagreements in ontology, perhaps including the one you mentioned, are "merely verbal" disagreements.
Log in to post comments
Does allowing one's child to become obese constitute child abuse?
Oliver Leaman
April 18, 2014
(changed April 18, 2014)
Permalink
On the other hand, there certainly have been cases where social services have removed children from parents where children have become obese, and the parents have been taken to be at fault.It seems to me to be an issue that needs to be considered on a case by case manner. There may be something... Read more
Hello, i was recently in a discussion regarding Kant's moral duties, and whether Kant would follow society's laws before following the duties derived from ethics. If a law in a society state "that it's a righteous sanction to torture another human being if this has broken the law", would Kant say; follow that law!. Or would he point out that his moral laws is dissimilar to that of human society? My argumentation rested on the relativity of cross-cultural law-systems, and thus, the universality of Kant's Maxims.
Oliver Leaman
April 18, 2014
(changed April 18, 2014)
Permalink
For Kant the key issue is whether a maxim can be universalized. If it can it is something we ought to act on, if not then not. We have a clear criterion then of when we should morally observe a state law. Can a maxim based on it be universalized?
Log in to post comments... Read more
A question like this was posted in Askphilosophers some months ago but was never answered, so I'll try it again. What kind of knowledge is chess knowledge? Some of it is deductive (e.g., if I move this piece over there it will be checkmate, given the rules of chess), but it is not possible to assess openings and middlegames deductively, since the number of possible positions until checkmate or draw is way too large for them to be computed. Some knowledge of chess players is empirical or has empirical grounds (e.g., if I play this opening my opponent will be worse, since s/he is not used to play it), but this is not exactly "chess knowledge", it is some application of "psychology" or common sense (there is also chess history, and that's empirical). Chess is mostly a non-physical matter, it is the abstract product of some rules and their possible applications. Anyway, chess players and other chess experts seem to know many chess things about openings and middlegames. If what they know is not empirical nor deductively established, what kind of knowledge do they have? Is it possible to have inductive knowledge about non-empirical, non-physical stuff?
Oliver Leaman
April 18, 2014
(changed April 18, 2014)
Permalink
Chess is surely a blend of the deductive and the inductive. The rules and legal moves are linked to each other deductively, but how they are applied has to take account of other factors, like the style of the opponent and the ability to hide strategy, for instance. Some players do not respond w... Read more
Is inter-country adoption immoral? (I'm a college senior doing an independent study on Korean transnational adoption and the Korean diaspora.)
Oliver Leaman
April 18, 2014
(changed April 18, 2014)
Permalink
I don't see why it should be. Like inter-ethnic adoption, it might be better for someone to be adopted by someone more like them, but then it might not be also. If there is no alternative, it seems to me to be often better than leaving the child where it is.Presumably the new parents would have... Read more