Recent Responses
Is it right for an author to publish a nonfiction piece arguing for a view the author does not really support? For example, say a tax professor writes and publishes an article arguing for a change in the tax law. The professor believes the change is worth considering, but should ultimately be rejected. Is it appropriate for the professor to publish an article arguing in favor of the reform (acknowledging perspectives against the proposal but concluding that it should be accepted)?
Joseph G. Moore
November 9, 2005
(changed November 9, 2005)
Permalink
That's an interesting question. Certainly we don't begrudge a person advocating a position she may not support when it's her role to advocate this position. I'm thinking here of lawyers and certain members of government. However, in these cases the idea (though perhaps not the reality) is... Read more
With respect to the nature of consciousness, do you agree with the phrase 'You cannot be that which you observe', or can you point at yourself and say ‘this is ME’?
Alexander George
November 9, 2005
(changed November 9, 2005)
Permalink
What am I missing here? I look in the mirror as I'm knotting my tie: surely I am observing myself knot the tie. That's the whole point of looking in the mirror!
It is admittedly rather odd for me to point to myself, say with my index finger, and exclaim "That's Alex". This isn't a c... Read more
Is "largest" and "smallest" only a result of comparison, or is there a single largest thing and single smallest thing that actually exist? Sorry in advance if this gets more scientific than philosophic.
Peter S. Fosl
November 9, 2005
(changed November 9, 2005)
Permalink
I am not a physicist, so I cannot state definitively the results that natural science has achieved with regard to this question. I can say conceptually that "largest" and smallest conceptually both define limits and are comparative--unlike "larger" and "smaller," which are comparative but... Read more
According to Descartes' demon hypothesis, would it be possible for the demon to deceive us about the rules of logical inference e.g. could my belief in the law of non-contradiction be caused by the demon?
Peter S. Fosl
November 12, 2005
(changed November 12, 2005)
Permalink
May I weigh in a bit? I think that panelists are right to suggest that while the dream argument addresses the veracity of perception about the world, the demon argument goes farther and addresses mathematical and logical inferences. I'd like, however, to return to Peter Lipton's question... Read more
Is "largest" and "smallest" only a result of comparison, or is there a single largest thing and single smallest thing that actually exist? Sorry in advance if this gets more scientific than philosophic.
Peter S. Fosl
November 9, 2005
(changed November 9, 2005)
Permalink
I am not a physicist, so I cannot state definitively the results that natural science has achieved with regard to this question. I can say conceptually that "largest" and smallest conceptually both define limits and are comparative--unlike "larger" and "smaller," which are comparative but... Read more
Even at the lowest levels of proof does not the existence of something in one's imagination give it at the very least a semblance of actuality?
Peter Lipton
November 9, 2005
(changed November 9, 2005)
Permalink
I'm with Alex: I can imagine a mountain made of pure gold without that mountain existing, even a little bit. But it may well be that my act of imagination entails that there must exist something else, namely that cause of that act.
Surprsingly perhaps, Descartes used this line of thought fo... Read more
Even at the lowest levels of proof does not the existence of something in one's imagination give it at the very least a semblance of actuality?
Peter Lipton
November 9, 2005
(changed November 9, 2005)
Permalink
I'm with Alex: I can imagine a mountain made of pure gold without that mountain existing, even a little bit. But it may well be that my act of imagination entails that there must exist something else, namely that cause of that act.
Surprsingly perhaps, Descartes used this line of thought fo... Read more
Isn't it more important to know what is true rather than what is truth? And can't one know the former without knowing the latter? If so, what is the point of a theory of truth, anyway?
Peter Lipton
November 9, 2005
(changed November 9, 2005)
Permalink
It's only a rough analogy, but just as the fact that we can see things without understanding how vision works does not remove the interest of a theory of vision, so I would say that the fact that we can know things without understanding the nature of truth does not remove the interest of a t... Read more
According to Descartes' demon hypothesis, would it be possible for the demon to deceive us about the rules of logical inference e.g. could my belief in the law of non-contradiction be caused by the demon?
Peter S. Fosl
November 12, 2005
(changed November 12, 2005)
Permalink
May I weigh in a bit? I think that panelists are right to suggest that while the dream argument addresses the veracity of perception about the world, the demon argument goes farther and addresses mathematical and logical inferences. I'd like, however, to return to Peter Lipton's question... Read more
If evolution is the truth and we argue that the qualities living things possess are the result of evolution, then can we say that qualities we do not like such as hatred, jealousy and greed serve or have served a useful purpose?
Mark Crimmins
November 9, 2005
(changed November 9, 2005)
Permalink
Even if all living things did come to be as they are through evolution, it doesn't follow that every particular trait of a living thing contributed to its ancestors' fitness. Indeed, there can be traits which confer a selective disadvantage, but which evolution hasn't managed to weed ou... Read more