Recent Responses
Taking into account history, isn't it justifiable to resort to terrorism in the face of a vast empire?
Rachana Kamtekar
February 5, 2006
(changed February 5, 2006)
Permalink
This is a really difficult question. If terrorism is the killing of civilians in order to achieve some political end, vast empires as well as fringe political groups commit terrorist acts--sometimes appealing to a state of war to justify their killings (but a declaration of war doesn't... Read more
Am I correct in thinking that the definition of randomness is that all possible outcome had an equal chance of occurring? And that in an event being totaly random, absolutely anything could happen? The likeliness of a banana peeling itself open is the same as a whole new universe, the size of a basketball, appearing is the exact same? Thank you for your time. ~Kris S.
Marc Lange
February 5, 2006
(changed February 5, 2006)
Permalink
That is not one of the definitions of "randomness" with which I am familiar.
Rather than consider how to define "randomness", let's consider the idea of every possible outcome having an equal chance of occurring. Suppose I ask you to select a prime number "at random". What would it be for eve... Read more
Is feminism falsifiable?
Rachana Kamtekar
February 4, 2006
(changed February 4, 2006)
Permalink
'Feminism' can mean at least a couple of different things.
(1) As the view that women and men should have equal rights, or are owed equal respect, it's as falsifiable or unfalsifiable as any other moral/political position, e.g. that people should have equal rights or be given equal re... Read more
An old device called a stereopticon held two photographs taken from closely related viewpoints, such that on looking into it the observer saw a three-dimensional view of the photographed scene. This proves that we unconsciously construct, in our brains, a three-dimensional space out of two two-dimensional images, one per retina. Also, if you have someone hold up a finger, it is easy to bring your finger down on to its tip, but if you try this with one eye closed it is difficult -- proving that two eyes are necessary for seeing three-dimensional space. But this means that our three-dimensional visual space is inside our heads, whereas we clearly experience it as out side our heads. So which is it?
Alexander George
February 4, 2006
(changed February 4, 2006)
Permalink
I see the laptop on my desk. This seeing entirely depends on some fabulously complicated neural shenanigans in my head. The three-dimensional laptop certainly isn't in my head. But what about my perception of the laptop -- is that in my head? I make a fist. Its existence entirely de... Read more
Is it 'selfish', as is sometimes indignantly alleged, for an MP - I'm thinking of the UK parliamentary system - to vote on a Bill according to principle when that principle does not follow the party line?
Jyl Gentzler
February 4, 2006
(changed February 4, 2006)
Permalink
It seems to me that to call an action selfish is to imply (1) that the agent was motivated solely or primarily by considerations of personal self-interest and (2) the action is contrary to the significant interests of others. (I add this second condition because I don’t think that we would... Read more
Today you can read a lot about ethical and unethical doing and specially about companies that do act unethically or unfair. For a public person it's not always easy to determine if such accusations are righteous or not. My question: Is it unethical to invest in shares of companies, whose reputations are not that good because they are accused of repression of employees or groups (or supporting such repression), exploitation of nature and human, etc.?
Douglas Burnham
February 4, 2006
(changed February 4, 2006)
Permalink
An interesting and very timely question. It seems to me that it breaks down into several parts.
First, we need to ignore the problem that what one person believes is unethical corporate behaviour another believes is appropriate competitive behaviour. For example, much of the current trend... Read more
To Whom it May Concern: Mathematical results are assumed to be precise. But how can mathematics be precise if results are rounded up or down? Don't such small incremental "roundings" add up to imprecision? So, in general, don't "roundings", in some way, betray the advertised precision of mathematics? Sincerely, Alexander
Daniel J. Velleman
February 8, 2006
(changed February 8, 2006)
Permalink
You're right, mathematical results will not be precise if they are rounded off -- which is why mathematicians usually don't round off their results. I think such rounding is much more common among people who are applying mathematics to real world problems than among mathematicians doi... Read more
I believe that all human actions are born of self-interest (even 'selfless' acts are committed in order to assuage guilt or obtain approval from others). Do any great thinkers agree with this most cynical proposition? Is there any such thing as genuine altruism?
Thomas Pogge
February 4, 2006
(changed February 4, 2006)
Permalink
Jeremy Bentham comes to mind as someone who believed that people always seek their own happiness (pleasure minus pain). Given the great diversity of human conduct across epochs and cultures, it is easy to find plausible counter-examples. But such counter-examples can always be rebuffed by a... Read more
At what point does an immoral act, i.e. one that is in direct contrast to the ethics and laws of society, become an evil one? Both can be intentional, and with full knowledge of injury that the act will cause. Can we say that evil is an enjoyment of the injury? Is that the differentiating factor? My 17 year-old son asked me this question and we became a bit bogged down! --Laura (Australia)
Thomas Pogge
February 3, 2006
(changed February 3, 2006)
Permalink
A very interesting question! Ordinary language generally is not all that precise. Philosophers often try to make important terms more precise in ways that capture the essential meaning elements intended in most ordinary usage. But such precision cannot do justice to every ordinary use of the... Read more
What is music? Does music have to be mathematical and notated? Does it have to contain "melody" and "harmony"? Can the most abstract noise coming from any given source be considered "music"? Is music really art, in the accepted sense, when most music is made by accident? -David
Noga Arikha
February 2, 2006
(changed February 2, 2006)
Permalink
The cultural historical moment described by Richard Heck aside, it remains that there was something that Cage was turning on its head when he offered - composed would be the wrong word - the event that is 4'33: the experience of listening to music itself. There would be no history of music if... Read more