Recent Responses
After you have achieved tenure, has the quality of your work increased or decreased?
You have asked your question
Charles Taliaferro
May 28, 2015
(changed May 29, 2015)
Permalink
You have asked your question in a way that makes it extremely hard to reply to, for (at least in my case) I may not be the best qualified to indicate when my work has improved or decreased in quality. Tenure decisions are usually made on the basis of past accomplis... Read more
I need some constructive advice about my dissertation topic. I am literally just starting out my research. Though I won't be starting for another year or so, it's an extensive topic and I could use some advice to make sure the basic idea and outline is sound. Thing is, the few professors in my department who work in this area don't want to be bothered, so I'm stuck. I'd like to email about, but I'm not sure if that's allowed on this site?
Thing is, the few professors
Stephen Maitzen
May 28, 2015
(changed May 28, 2015)
Permalink
Thing is, the few professors in my department who work in this area don't want to be bothered, so I'm stuck.
I find it hard to believe that professors in your department who work in your area of research "don't want to be bothered" with questions about a research topi... Read more
Why do scientists seem to dislike philosophy so much? (For example Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss). Even Dawkins seems to have joined the club (which is odd given he now seems to spend most of his time making what seem to me to be fairly clearly philosophical arguments). Is it simply that they are using different definitions of the word than philosophy professors? Are they generally attacking just bad philosophy and taking that unrepresentative sample? Do they mean philosophy as in "that thing taught in philosophy departments" or some more abstract notion about the relations of ideas? I really don't understand what their problem is with philosophy (and why they don't define their terms)...
I'm not sure why Tyson,
Stephen Maitzen
May 28, 2015
(changed June 2, 2015)
Permalink
I'm not sure why Tyson, Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, Coyne, Feynman, et al., express so much contempt for philosophy. But my best guess is that they're ignorant -- unaware -- of what philosophy is when it's done well, perhaps because they received little or no academic tr... Read more
When reading a philosophy book, what is your method for understanding and remembering the content? Tips for when one is presented with a massive philosophy book with many subtle points (e.g. Plantinga's "Warranted Christian Belief")?
Excellent question. I have
Charles Taliaferro
May 28, 2015
(changed May 28, 2015)
Permalink
Excellent question. I have found it extremely helpful either to type out or to write out by hand key claims and arguments. For almost 40 years I have carried around 5 by 7 inch cards in which I have written out parts of different texts that I update and go over con... Read more
What makes Xeno's paradox paradoxical? It sounds more like a trick question than a bona fide paradox. Achilles and the tortoise are going to have a half-mile race, and Achilles gives the tortoise a 1/4 mile head start. Suppose Achilles runs as fast as a decent male high school track athlete, and he can cover 1/2 mile in 2-1/2 minutes. He gives the tortoise a head start of 1/4 mile. According to a quick internet search, the average turtle moves at 3 to 4 mph. Let's say our tortoise is particularly fast, and moves at 5 mph. It thereby takes the tortoise 3 minutes to cover 1/4 mile. Achilles finishes 30 seconds ahead of the tortoise. Where's the paradox?
The reasoning you gave
Stephen Maitzen
May 28, 2015
(changed May 28, 2015)
Permalink
The reasoning you gave illustrates why Zeno's example has a chance of counting as a paradox at all. As you show, of course Achilles will overtake the tortoise. But Zeno claimed to have equally good reasoning showing that Achilles never overtakes the tortoise. That's the para... Read more
Why are there so many different theories of truth in philosophy and does the concept of "truth" have a different meaning compared to how it is generally used by non-philosophers? "Truth" for us non-philosophers seems to denote that which is absolutely incontrovertible and not open to debate. As an example, for non-philosophers, it is the truth that JFK was shot on November 22, 1963; it is debatable as to exactly WHO shot him and HOW but there is no denying he was shot that day. So do philosophers agree that it is the truth that JFK was shot on that day or is even that open to interpretation using the multiple theories of truth out there and what does that even mean?
I suspect that so many
Stephen Maitzen
May 28, 2015
(changed June 14, 2015)
Permalink
Perhaps so many philosophical theories of truth exist because the concept of truth is central and fundamental and because philosophers have been discussing it for such a long time. See the SEP entry on truth for a survey of various theories.
As for non-philosophers, I doubt... Read more
I am a bit bewildered when I try to think about empty space. Does it make sense to think about space insofar as it is space? What sort of existence, if any, does it have? Is it nothing? Thank you!
There are two major views
Allen Stairs
May 24, 2015
(changed May 24, 2015)
Permalink
There are two major views about space, and they give different answers to your question.
One view is "substantivalism." On this view, space really is a thing of a certain sort—a substance. Space would exist even if nothing else did. Needless to say, space it not like things... Read more
to what extent is the definition of mental "health" conditioned by society and social mores? To what extent is the job of a psychotherapist grounded in and/or free from the beliefs of the society in which s/he operates?
I may be wrong, but I have a
Charles Taliaferro
May 21, 2015
(changed May 21, 2015)
Permalink
I may be wrong, but I have a sense that your key interest is the extent to which matters of mental health are grounded in nature or in a reality that is independent of changing or contingent matters, right? I am checking in to make sure I get the question, for ther... Read more
Is is true that justice is an essential element of law such that without it, law cannot be law?
The big issue behind your
Allen Stairs
May 21, 2015
(changed May 21, 2015)
Permalink
The big issue behind your question is the relationship between law and morality. That's a very big question, though on at lest one important view of what laws are (legal positivism) the answer to your question is no. On the positivist view, laws are, roughly, what lawmaking... Read more
I'm having a difficult time determining if a certain math problem should be classified as using Formal or Informal Logic. Here it is: 1. ALL except 2 of my pets are dogs. 2. ALL except 2 of my pets are cats. 3. ALL except 2 of my pets are birds. Q: How many pets do I own? A: 2 or 3 So, while it's obvious why the answer could be 3, it's not obvious how it could be 2 as well. The reason why is because the phrase "All" could be zero, which would represent an empty set. And, of course, I could own pets other than the ones mentioned (fish / lizards). So, knowing that, we can substitute that example back into the original problem as follows: I own two, pets, which are both fish. All except 2 of my pets are dogs, which in this case, is equal to zero. So, the set of dogs can possibly be an empty set. So, anyways, I was wanting to know if the puzzle itself could be considered "formal", or is it informal because most people would mean "All" to at least equal one, and we add that assumption in there?
I read you as asking this:
Stephen Maitzen
May 19, 2015
(changed May 19, 2015)
Permalink
I interpret you as asking this: Why do we find it puzzling or counterintuitive that statements 1–3 are true in the case in which you own exactly two pets, neither of which is a dog, a cat, or a bird? Is it because we assume that "all" implies "at least one"?
Those are em... Read more