Recent Responses
Is there a best way to do everything? Would there be a best way to brush your hair? Or, are there sometimes multiple ways to do something that are just as good?
Jean Kazez
February 12, 2009
(changed February 12, 2009)
Permalink
I love your question, but sadly I think it has a pretty easy answer. No, there's not a best way to do everything. Take your own example. The best way to brush your hair depends on what your hair-goals are. You might want shiny, smooth hair, or you might want the tousled bedhead look. If... Read more
Why not compromise on the creationism vs. evolution argument and simply require that high schools offer an elective class in theology? This way the students still get the more pragmatic information of evolution but at the same time parents are given the option of introducing their children to the opposing ideas if they feel it is appropriate. Along this same line of thought, why not compromise in the argument of safe sex versus abstinence and simply offer both? Allow parents to select which class their child should be enrolled in, but require it to be one or the other? Children are individuals too. Some would benefit more from a conservative class while others would gain from a liberal class. Personally, I’m an eighteen-year-old virgin saving himself for marriage. I was raised on an abstinence program and it worked for me. A peer of mine was raised on the same system and is now at his doctor being tested for hepatitis C. By generalizing all children aren’t we guaranteeing that we’ll fail at least a few of them?
Jean Kazez
February 12, 2009
(changed February 12, 2009)
Permalink
I think the two compromises you propose bring up very different issues. Letting parents choose between two types of sex education classes is problematic. Although you have personally chosen abstinence--which is entirely fine, of course--studies show that abstinence education generally (on... Read more
How does one _prove_ that an informal fallacy is a fallacy (instead of just waving a Latin name?)
Allen Stairs
February 11, 2009
(changed February 11, 2009)
Permalink
But two qualifications to William's comments. First, not all arguments are susceptible to truth-table analysis. (For example: every horse is an animal. Therefore, every horse's head is an animal's head.) Second, there are plenty of good arguments (inductive arguments, for short) whose prem... Read more
Aren’t political parties essentially tools to avoid having your own opinion? I mean, it’s very easy for me to say, “I’m a Democrat,” and then just believe whatever the Democratic political party tells me. Doesn’t that seem a bit like simply selling your mind and letting somebody think for you? It seems to me to be the modern equivalent of the medieval Church.
Allen Stairs
February 11, 2009
(changed February 11, 2009)
Permalink
At least in the USA, political parties aren't monolithic. Though we're in a period where there may be more uniformity among Republicans (at least in Congress) than there has been historically, Republicans disagree among themselves, and any Democrat thinks ruefully from time to time of Will... Read more
I am a philosophy student that doubts philosophers; I can't write papers, or at least trying to make the connections emerge from details is damn near the hardest thing I've ever done. I have the right ideas (that I am sure of) and I can talk philosophy (intersbujective exp. confirms this) but my papers fall into detail etc. (No one has ever said, WOAH this paper should be published). But even when, one night, I curse the very subject matter and damn it all to hell, I wake up the next morning prepared to try again. But still, at night I try to cast the dead weight from my shoulders in despair. Question: if one's temperament is philosophic should they steer away from academic philosophy? Question 2: Should the person who falls in love with wisdom only to damn her at night continue to make the effort, indeed, should one rule out a life-long marriage with the enticing specimen?
Jonathan Westphal
February 9, 2009
(changed February 9, 2009)
Permalink
Answer to Q1: Why should a person who loves philosophy not steer towards academic philosophy? The better one knows her the more she has to offer, such as fascinating arguments. Answer to Question 2: If you are in love with someone, you really should marry that person, other things equa... Read more
Why do so many people feel that abortion is not a major issue? Regardless of what end of the field you stand on, you’re either defending human rights or you’re defending human life, based on your perspective. Both of these things are clearly important issues so why do so many people attempt to devalue the controversy of abortion?
Peter Smith
February 9, 2009
(changed February 9, 2009)
Permalink
I wonder what you mean when you say that "many people attempt to devalue the controversy "?
I suppose that it is true that a lot of people are not at all tempted by either "end of the field" -- if that means holding at one end that abortion is tantamount to murder, or holding at the other end... Read more
How does one _prove_ that an informal fallacy is a fallacy (instead of just waving a Latin name?)
Allen Stairs
February 11, 2009
(changed February 11, 2009)
Permalink
But two qualifications to William's comments. First, not all arguments are susceptible to truth-table analysis. (For example: every horse is an animal. Therefore, every horse's head is an animal's head.) Second, there are plenty of good arguments (inductive arguments, for short) whose prem... Read more
Why do so many people on the pro-choice end of the abortion argument insist that life does not begin until after birth and that a fetus is not a human? I mean, you can say that an embryo is not a human because it has no cognitive abilities. You can use science to show that it has no cognitive abilities too, but you cannot use science to prove that cognitive abilities are the defining attribute of a person. As a matter of fact, don’t scientists identify organisms as members of their respective species based on their unique genetic signature? Human beings have a genetic signature of their own. Every human has it and no other species shares it with us. So, scientifically the fetus is a human, it’s only when we put religious sentiment into the mix that we can define it as anything else than a member of our species. The life argument is more effective except that biologically there’s no significance to the instant of birth. It’s culturally significant but is there any real transformation in the 32-week old fetus as it slides into the hospital?
Peter Smith
February 9, 2009
(changed February 9, 2009)
Permalink
If someone says of a (human) foetus that it is not human, then presumably they are not making a biological remark. They are not foolishly assigning it to the wrong species!
Rather, they are expressing -- not in a very happy way -- a moral view. The claim is that a foetus. at least at sufficie... Read more
How does one _prove_ that an informal fallacy is a fallacy (instead of just waving a Latin name?)
Allen Stairs
February 11, 2009
(changed February 11, 2009)
Permalink
But two qualifications to William's comments. First, not all arguments are susceptible to truth-table analysis. (For example: every horse is an animal. Therefore, every horse's head is an animal's head.) Second, there are plenty of good arguments (inductive arguments, for short) whose prem... Read more
Astrophysicists maintain the idea that time and space came about with the Big Bang. Is there any way in which this notion can be related to Kant's concept which states that time and space are not objectively real, but that both are transcendental conditions of the perception of objects in terms of phenomena? Yours, Stephan R. (Aachen, Germany)
Jennifer Church
February 5, 2009
(changed February 5, 2009)
Permalink
First, it should be noted that not all astrophysicists agree that time and space began with the Big Bang. There may be no meaningful way to measure or study space and time before the Big Bang, but that does not necessarily mean that there is no such thing. Scientists can agree on empiric... Read more