Recent Responses
The rulers of country X are dictators in every sense of the word. Due to their repressive policies, living conditions of the inhabitants of X have dropped to pathetic levels. The rulers of X, because they have the money and wealth, decide to send their children to a country C which has better living conditions than X. Is it just for the rulers of C to deport these children back to X?
Thomas Pogge
July 24, 2007
(changed July 24, 2007)
Permalink
One needs a bit more detail here. Guessing at what interests you, let me fill this in. Let's assume the children were granted a proper visa, for instance a student visa after having been admitted to a university in C. They have started their study, and their parentage now comes to light. Should th... Read more
Mathematicians use proofs in order to determine whether mathematical theorems are true. But how can the proof itself be justified? The theorem is justified by the proof. What is there to justify the proof itself?
Alexander George
July 24, 2007
(changed July 24, 2007)
Permalink
For an answer to a similar question, see Question 773.
Log in to post comments
As I understand it, people use the word "believe" when they are somewhat but not entirely sure of a proposition (e.g., "I believe that he likes cheese", as opposed to "I know that he likes cheese"). If a person "believes" a proposition p, does he KNOW that he BELIEVES that p? Is he absolutely certain that he believes a proposition of which he is just somewhat certain? Or does he BELIEVE that he BELIEVES that p? (Are there other possible formulations?) -ace
Richard Heck
July 23, 2007
(changed July 23, 2007)
Permalink
You are right that people usually use the word `believe' only if they are not entirely sure. If they were, then they'd say something else, maybe "I know that...", or "I'm sure that...", or just "...", all by itself. But it does not follow that "I believe..." MEANS "I'm not absolutely certain", etc... Read more
Dialetheist: "Some contradictions are true." My question: "Who claims (if any), that some tautologies are false?"
Thomas Pogge
July 24, 2007
(changed July 24, 2007)
Permalink
In colloquial speech there are some apparent tautologies that are used to make a substantive point that can be disputed. There is the famous Yogi Berra saying "it's not over till it's over" used to make the (disputable) claim that the team behind can still catch up. And there is "boys are boys" ex... Read more
I'm engaged in a debate with a scientist over science and politics (I'm the political scientist). I'd like to know if the 'conduct' or 'process' of science is inherently 'political' or is it 'value-free'? Is science as a 'body of knowledge' political?
Douglas Burnham
July 23, 2007
(changed July 23, 2007)
Permalink
It is certainly possible to show, empirically, that the natural sciences are very often influenced by political forces, broadly speaking. For example, the practices of scientists of all disciplines are demonstrably affected by: decisions about research funding and criteria; how research problem... Read more
I'm engaged in a debate with a scientist over science and politics (I'm the political scientist). I'd like to know if the 'conduct' or 'process' of science is inherently 'political' or is it 'value-free'? Is science as a 'body of knowledge' political?
Douglas Burnham
July 23, 2007
(changed July 23, 2007)
Permalink
It is certainly possible to show, empirically, that the natural sciences are very often influenced by political forces, broadly speaking. For example, the practices of scientists of all disciplines are demonstrably affected by: decisions about research funding and criteria; how research problem... Read more
If people who think irrationally are happy and don't have the trouble of thinking about abstruse matters, and thinking rationally brings distress to you, is it irrational, in this case, to be rational?
Thomas Pogge
July 25, 2007
(changed July 25, 2007)
Permalink
Let me add two thoughts to this.
One may distinguish between theoretical and practical rationality. The former employs reason in the service of improving one's understanding and beliefs toward clarity and truth. The latter employs reason toward formulating and achieving ends. Much of the problem... Read more
If you are someone who likes to help others, is helping them actually a selfish act that is only done to avoid feelings of guilt that would otherwise occur? Is it really any less selfish than a sadist who hurts others for personal enjoyment, despite the happiness that may be felt in those who are helped?
Miranda Fricker
July 23, 2007
(changed July 23, 2007)
Permalink
In the general muddle of psychological impulses that might come under the category of motivations for a given action, we can distinguish between our principle aim(a) in doing the action, and enabling conditions such as its being broadly in their interests to do such actions. The mere existence... Read more
What's the METHOD in philosophic research? Don't tell me, please, that it's logic or the principle of inconsistency. The logic can be applied to all kinds of thinking: scientific, religious, philosophic, and even artistic. What I mean by METHOD is something like case-control or cohort methodology in scientific research. Is there any methodology in philosophic research? Do philosophers conduct any research for testing their propositions/hypotheses with some kinds of evidence? How? Which kind of evidence are they concerned about? How much evidence is enough for approving or refuting a hypothesis?
Peter S. Fosl
July 22, 2007
(changed July 22, 2007)
Permalink
While it's right to say that philosophy has no single distinctive method, over time it has developed what I suppose could be called families or quivers of methods and tools. In some ways this collection has also determined the distinctive character of philosophy as a form of investigation. Amon... Read more
As I understand it, inductive reasoning is considered by most a posteriori; yet I had learned about induction in a statistics class similar to the way someone would understand a clearly a priori mathematical theory. Assuming one would consider some conclusions based on induction, is it a priori or a posterori? John
Thomas Pogge
July 22, 2007
(changed July 22, 2007)
Permalink
You should distinguish here between the inductive method of extrapolating from observed cases to as yet unobserved cases, on the one hand, and particular extrapolations derived by using this method, on the other hand.
Particular extrapolations are a posteriori. They depend on what has actually be... Read more