Recent Responses
My question is about the ethics of working in applied vs. pure research. I'm a student in a technical field. I am now trying to choose between a few subfields, some of which contribute more to practical technology than others. Say I'm a physics student with a choice between black-hole research, or designing a better solar cell. What, if any, are my ethical responsibilities in making this decision? Is it ethically wrong to devote my time to what amounts to a very expensive hobby, and at taxpayer or university expense? Is it better to use my education and skills to work for solutions to urgent problems? In short, what is the ethical difference between a career in pure and applied scientific research? Thank you for any response.
Charles Taliaferro
July 22, 2010
(changed July 22, 2010)
Permalink
Great question! You are in a great position if you have the skills to do either pure or applied science. I am not sure about classifying black-hole research as "a very expensive hobby," but I think the answer to your question(s) depend on the urgency of the problems facing your community,... Read more
What do you professionals think of when the common person thinks about philosophy? I often look around book stores, and see tarot cards in the 'metaphysical studies' section, a section that separates itself from the 'philosophy' section but it's right next to it. In the 'philosophy' section, I see many books on existentialism, Nietzsche has an unofficial row to himself, lots of Ayn Rand in some stores, it has many of the classics, a few postmodern works, and there's many books on pop culture and philosophy. Perhaps this is just my experience in my section of the United States of America, but in the book stores I go to, this is what I see. Does the public have the right perception on what philosophy is or should be? What is the general reaction of people when you say you're a pro philosopher? What do most people think philosophy is? What are your general thoughts on what us layman think of when we think philosophy?
Charles Taliaferro
July 22, 2010
(changed July 22, 2010)
Permalink
Interesting set of questions! I am not sure of my fellow panelists but I do find it quite depressing when the philosophy section of a bookstore is severely limited and I am in heaven when I find bookstores that are brimming over with philosophy, classical and contemporary. In my mind, the... Read more
I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion for the following problem: suppose I live in country where my constitution upholds my right to practice my religion (I mean a secular country), how justified is another person when he tells me that my children are not welcome in a school that is run under some other religious guidelines ? I mean the religious foundation on which the school was found is different from the religion I (and my children) practice at home. Does this person have a right to say that I cannot practice my religion in his premises ? Even though we both live in the same (secular) country. Isn't my constitutional right being violated ? I also want to bring to light the recent proposal by France to ban burqua, which has gathered a lot of unwanted attention. Also, does being secular mean freedom from religion or freedom of religion ?
Gordon Marino
July 24, 2010
(changed July 24, 2010)
Permalink
I'm in aggreement with half of Charles' last point. I don't think that your constitutional right is being violated if the government has good reason to believe that the practice of your religion might lead to violence and so the suppression of the rights of others. Also, though the meaning of wo... Read more
When I write a philosophy paper, should I be concerned with developing a personal style? Or are philosophy papers best written in a manner similar to physics lab reports or mathematical proofs--that is, in a technical, impersonal way.
Peter Smith
July 22, 2010
(changed July 22, 2010)
Permalink
Neither.
Assuming by "philosophy paper" you mean student essay, then what you need to be doing is evaluating arguments, as carefully and as honestly and as rigorously as you can. You must aim for maximum explicitness, maximum clarity, maximum organization of your thoughts. But you are writing order... Read more
In ZFC the primitive "membership" usually has the statement "x is an element of the set y". My question is "is the element 'x'" of a set ever not a set within ZFC?
Richard Heck
July 25, 2010
(changed July 25, 2010)
Permalink
To add a bit more, there are some interesting applications of urelements in set theory. Perhaps the most famous example is Quine's theory New Foundations. NF, as it is known, which does not permit urelements, remains something of a puzzle: It is not known if it is consistent. But NFU, which is jus... Read more
I have trouble understanding what people mean when they use a phrase with the word exception. To me it sounds like a contradiction. So my question has two parts: A) Is using the term exception ever legitimate? B) Does the term "except" usually contradict the general rule that comes before it? For example, All ice cream should be taxed, except vanilla. This seems that the quantifier "all" is false if a member is excluded. For example, All students passed the final exam except Roy. Seems to me this means only Roy failed the final exam and the quantifier "all" makes the sentence false. Please help me make sense of the term exception. Thanks for your help.
Alexander George
July 22, 2010
(changed July 22, 2010)
Permalink
I see what you're thinking: that in sentences such as:
(1) All teams lost except Spain
we give in one hand what we take with the other. We are affirming that all teams lost and also that Spain did not lose. You're right that this would indeed be a contradiction.
But I don't think the logi... Read more
I am an atheist fully in favour of a secular society. However I have recently been alarmed by the burka ban recently put in place by the French government. This to me seems at best to be a draconian, knee jerk reaction to something that effects a very small number of people (apparently 1,900 women in France) and at worst thinly veiled racism. I am in no way in favour of the burka or any form of religious dress, but a carpet ban seems to me to be wrong. Surely it is better to live in a society in which such things are allowed, in the hope that one day the people wearing the burka feel they no longer need to. It is often cited as a reason for the ban that it stops oppression of muslim women, but it seems that taking away the option to wear something is a form of oppression also. As an atheist who wishes for as secular a society as possible, am I justified to be concerned about such a law and people lobbying for a similar ban in Britain?
Sean Greenberg
August 13, 2010
(changed August 13, 2010)
Permalink
It should be noted, first, that there is considerable disagreement even in the French Parliament regarding the ban on the wearing of the burqa; it has been suggested that the ban is a political ploy on the part of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. (For more on the internal disagreement rega... Read more
I've had as good a time as anyone else discussing armchair philosophy based on cosmology and human nature, but now take the position that it would be professional negligence to engage in same without a firm grounding in e.g. particle physics and evolutionary biology. Other than a Dan Dennett (on evolutionary bio side), who are some contemporary philosophers who are exploring this space? For example, I would love to read the extent to which Aristotle survives or thrives in the light of scientific discoveries over the intervening millenia.
Peter Smith
July 22, 2010
(changed July 22, 2010)
Permalink
I agree that philosophers should engage with relevant science. But of course, what science (if any) is relevant depends very much on what philosophical questions you are tangling with.
If you are concerned with the metaphysics of time, for example, then you'll no doubt want to know something of wha... Read more
Is circumcision cruelty?
Eddy Nahmias
July 20, 2010
(changed July 20, 2010)
Permalink
To offer an opposing view to Professor Leaman's (and nothing particularly philosophical): there is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting certain STDs, such as herpes and HIV. Though there is disagreement about this evidence, if it is substantiated, then this benefit of... Read more
What do we really mean when we say that a theory is "true"?
Peter Smith
July 20, 2010
(changed July 20, 2010)
Permalink
Perhaps it is worth taking continuing the conversation just a bit further.
The idea that a proposition (statement, belief) is true if and only if it "corresponds to reality" is -- as I'm sure William would agree -- not entirely transparent. What does it commit us to, exactly?
The deflationist about... Read more