Recent Responses
In a debate about faith and doubt in which I was doubting all existence and my friend argued in favor of existence, he challenged my rationalistic perspective by asking me this: Your reasoning depends upon the rules of logic, but there is a problem: how do you KNOW, conclusively, that the rules of logic are sound? Isn't that an act of faith? Can't you conceive of a universe in which logic *appears* to work, but in which logic is actually an illusion? How do you know that you don't live in that universe? <i>Cogito ergo sum</i> did not cover this one. I was stumped. Can you help me out?
Alexander George
May 15, 2007
(changed May 15, 2007)
Permalink
Also, if I were to tie your hand behind your back and then ask you whether you can touch your nose with it, that would be a peculiar question. And something similar is going on when one's asked whether one can defend all one's principles of reasoning. The whole practice of defending something... Read more
My question is what is the importance of gaining knowledge, without any materialistic interest, and just for the sake of gaining knowledge. If a very knowledgeable person has no wealth, fame, power and any other materialistic plus point, still can he say that he's successful just and just because he has knowledge? For example if a person, Mr. A, led all his life in the pursuit of knowledge, just because of his curiosity, and earn no money, fame, power; he didn't convey his learnings to anyone by writing or any other means. He got no self satisfaction by knowing that he has become a great scholar (because to him there are tooooo many things he don't know even then). And in this pursuit he died. Can we say that Mr. A led a successful life?
Peter Lipton
May 14, 2007
(changed May 14, 2007)
Permalink
One aspect of success is getting what you want, so if Mr. A wanted knowledge, and he got it, then he was successful. Indeed getting what you want is an aspect of success even if you don’t realise that you are getting it. For example, if I want to be a good role model for my children and I am, then... Read more
Society holds the viewpoint that it is wrong to attempt to create better humans (through Eugenics). That is, we shouldn't play god. Medicine goes against natural selection, and therefore it is playing god. It theoretically also makes evolution stall, and makes our species as a collective whole, weaker. So, is medicine right?
Marc Lange
May 12, 2007
(changed May 12, 2007)
Permalink
One of the reasons that eugenics has often been considered disreputable is that the criteria for "better" humans have been considered arbitrary or worse. But if we could implant a component in our genes that would give us immunity to some dread disease (like those for which we now have vaccines), then... Read more
Am I correct to think that learning one's native language greatly is the best method to becoming an intelligent, much thinking person? For it seems to me that words relate one to reality (to the extent that one can become related to reality). As I learn new words each day (I buy books similar to Merriam-Websters Vocabulary Builder and read them daily, among other books), I feel as though they are figuratively unlocking doors to new thoughts that were not accessible by my mind without the words. Is this a fact: one is literally superior in thought (not in an imaginative sense) to one without the words the former knows? Or am I an arrogant charlatan, and think I am better for just knowing some words? Or, better yet, why are words so powerful? Could you please recommend some books that elucidate the answer to my questions?
Jerrold Levinson
May 12, 2007
(changed May 12, 2007)
Permalink
I think you are correct to think that expanding one's vocabulary expands one's ability to think, because it expands one's ability to formulate thoughts of greater complexity and sensitizes one to subtle distinctions one may not otherwise have noted. It also makes one's thinking and communication... Read more
I have a question about probability (and baseball). Say that a hitter has consistently hit .300 for many years. Now, suppose that he begins a new season in a slump, and hits only .200 for the first half; should we infer that he will hit well above .300 for the second half (and so finish with the year-end .300 average we have reason to expect of him), or would this be an instance of the gambler's fallacy?
Marc Lange
May 12, 2007
(changed May 12, 2007)
Permalink
Since you are obviously interested in probability and baseball, here's a fun question for you to think about. How can it happen that player A has a higher batting average than player B in the first half of the season, and A also has a higher batting average than B in the second half of the season, but... Read more
In a debate about faith and doubt in which I was doubting all existence and my friend argued in favor of existence, he challenged my rationalistic perspective by asking me this: Your reasoning depends upon the rules of logic, but there is a problem: how do you KNOW, conclusively, that the rules of logic are sound? Isn't that an act of faith? Can't you conceive of a universe in which logic *appears* to work, but in which logic is actually an illusion? How do you know that you don't live in that universe? <i>Cogito ergo sum</i> did not cover this one. I was stumped. Can you help me out?
Alexander George
May 15, 2007
(changed May 15, 2007)
Permalink
Also, if I were to tie your hand behind your back and then ask you whether you can touch your nose with it, that would be a peculiar question. And something similar is going on when one's asked whether one can defend all one's principles of reasoning. The whole practice of defending something... Read more
I can recognize the importance of logic in argument but it never seems to apply in the 'real' world. You never see headlines along the lines of SYMBOLIC LOGIC REFUTES SENATOR Z'S CLAIMS ABOUT DEPLOYMENT OF TROOPS IN IRAQ SHOCK, followed by 'if A then not B' stuff. No political columnist ever cites logical validity or fallacies to support their view or dismiss the views of others - it is all opinion and anecdote (even if they did, few would get their point) - so how does logic work outside of the rarefied realm of philosophy?
Marc Lange
May 12, 2007
(changed May 12, 2007)
Permalink
Well, I happen to think that it would be better if political columnists DID point out logical mistakes in the arguments made by public officials. There is no shortage of mistakes to point out. Of course, to point out mistakes in the arguments made by politicians, there would have to be arguments to be... Read more
Are there ever good reasons to believe in hypotheses which are not falsifiable (i.e., "scientific")? Is it implicit in the idea of a falsifiable hypothesis that we should throw non-falsifiable claims by the wayside?
Marc Lange
May 12, 2007
(changed May 12, 2007)
Permalink
The notion of a "falsifiable" hypothesis is very difficult to make precise in a way that allows us to count as "falsifiable" all and only those hypotheses that we are inclined to regard as "scientific." Take the hypothesis that the total amount of energy in the universe is the same at every moment in... Read more
I've heard it said that philosophers as a demographic are overwhelmingly single (in the unmarried sense). I don't know if this is true, but if it is, could it be because love and reason conflict? For example, if your lover has a habit of losing valuable items, locking him/herself out of the house, etc., practical reason forces you to confront them with suggestions implying "you ought to be better - I'm telling you how you should be better", a suggestion which is often infuriating to someone who's supposed to be in an equal relationship with you. Love, on the other hand, urges you to look with forgiveness and even humor on your significant other's faults. Given these consequences, if you're agreed that love and reason pull us in these separate directions, shouldn't humanity focus on love and forgo reason?
Jerrold Levinson
May 10, 2007
(changed May 10, 2007)
Permalink
I think it's true that philosophers tend to be single more often than non-philosophers, but I'm not sure I would attribute that to their being bound by the dictates of practical reason to regularly and overtly draw the attention of their partners to their moral or prudential failings. It may r... Read more
Do we "see" black objects in the same sense that we see objects of other colors? Black objects being those which reflect no light, how is looking at a black object different than closing your eyes (it seems absurd to say that we see anything with our eyes closed); in either case, no light reflects from the object to our eyes. If I have a white piece of paper with a black spot on it, do I "see" the spot, or do I infer it?
Peter S. Fosl
May 10, 2007
(changed May 10, 2007)
Permalink
This question reminds me of an experience I had going to rent a tuxedo. I told the clerk I wanted a black tuxedo, and he responded with the question, "What shade of black?"I suppose the answer here depends upon what you mean by "see" and by "black." I'm inclined to think that all "seeing" of objec... Read more