This might be a silly question, but can you argue against opinions? Someone once wrote to me "u can't argue with opinion". Is that true? I would think arguing against a person's opinion happens regularly-- philosophers certainly do it. And I thought that was the plain answer, but I thought about it more and well, question it. It is possible that this someone is already accepting the fact, or assuming that "opinion" is neither true nor false. For example, "It is my opinion that X is beauty, and Y is beauty for you," knowing that there is a difference of opinion, of which both can claim truth, you therefore can't argue with my opinion. This might be a case of relativism, "what's true for me, may not be true for you, etc". Anyways, I just want some clarity with the claim that "u can't argue with opinion."

I agree with Sean's response, but I'd like to add a few, um, opinions of my own. Some students believe that only "authorities" (e.g., teachers) know the "correct" answers to all questions. And they believe this until these students meet "authorities" who disagree. Such disagreements are not usually about mathematical or scientific questions (after all, everyone agrees that 2+2=4, and any math teacher who says otherwise is not really an authority on math). Rather, such disagreements are often about topics in the humanities, social studies, or philosophy (" Huckleberry Finn is the great American novel", says one; "No, it isn't", says another. "Mental states and processes are identical with brain states and processes"; "No, they're not". And so on.) After encountering "authorities" who disagree, these students often decide that there are two kinds of questions: those about which "authorities" know the answers and those about which "authorities" don't know the answers yet (but the answers...

Sometimes my students want to argue that "my opinion is as good as anyone else's opinion." How do I counter this view with a reasonable philosophical argument? Thanks! Richard in New York

The opinion that all opinions are equally good is one that is usually held by people whose attitude toward knowledge is what some psychologists call "Multiplism" or "Subjective Knowledge". This is the view that, because there are often conflicting answers to questions (or conflicting solutions to problems), people must trust their "inner voices", rather than external authorities (like teachers or professional philosophers:-). In particular, many "Multiplists" believe that most questions (or problems) are such that we don't yet know what their solutions are, and that this is why everyone has a right to their own opinion. Although I like Allen Stairs's counterargument--if all opinions are equally good, then so is the opinion that all opinions are not equally good--I'm not convinced that a Multiplist would find it convincing! In general, Multiplists are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with logical argumentation. A better way to get Multiplists to see that proposed solutions to problems (call them ...

How can philosophy be applied and/or related to engineering? I have a passion for both philosophy and the application of the general sciences (which is done through engineering...). I was wondering how a person can use philosophy in order to enhance his productivity and skill in engineering. (I am sorry if this question is a bit vague.)

There are 2 ways to interpret your question. One way is as a request for information about the philosophy of engineering. If that's what you're asking, I can suggest two good books to start with: Florman, Samuel C. (1994), The Existential Pleasures of Engineering, 2nd edition (New York: St. Martin's Press). Davis, Michael (1998), Thinking Like an Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a Profession (New York: Oxford University Press). The first was written by a practicing engineer, the second by a philosopher. Both deal with questions like: What is engineering? How should engineers behave? You might find some other references on the webpage "What Is Engineering?" for my Philosophy of Computer Science course . There is also a branch of philosophy called the philosophy of technology, which deals with related issues. Check the article with that title in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The other interpretation is as a request for information about how to apply...

What do we really mean when we say that a theory is "true"?

Peter Smith's use of the deflationary theory of truth to answer this question is just one way of approaching it. Another is to use the correspondence theory of truth. According to (a highly simplified version of) the correspondence theory, truth is a relation between beliefs (or sentences, or propositions) and "reality": A set of beliefs (or sentences, or propositions) is true if and only if they correspond to reality, i.e., iff they "match" or accurately describe reality. Now, a (scientific) theory is just a set of beliefs (or sentences, or propositions). So, a theory is true if and only if it corresponds to reality. But how do we access "reality" so that we can determine if our theories (our beliefs) correspond to it? How can we do the "pattern matching" between our beliefs and reality? One answer is by sense perception (perhaps together with our beliefs about what we perceive). But sense perception is notoriously unreliable (think about optical illusions, for instance). And one...

I have recently seen references to a "branch" of philosophy (or perhaps a discipline unto itself) called "metaphilosophy." Apparently, metaphilosophy is the examination of the nature of philosophy itself (e.g. what questions it addresses, how it answers questions, etc). The existence of such a branch or discipline is surprising to me, though. I had always thought philosophy was open to every possible question in some way, and so how could anyone justify such a new discipline? Isn't philosophy itself "metaphilosophy"? And, of course, what happens if someone wants to ask what question should be addressed in metaphilosophy? Do we then need a "meta-meta-philosophy"? Is "metaphilosophy" taken seriously in professional academic circles, or is it just a budding internet fad? Is such a branch of study really necessary?

Metaphilosophy is a perfectly legitimate branch of philosophy. After all, if there can be a "philosophy of X" for (almost?) any X, then surely there can be a philosophy of philosophy. As with any "philosophy of X", it studies the fundamental assumptions, methods, and goals of philosophy, investigating what philosophy is and how it canbe done. Some people might think that the philosophy of philosophy isthe height of "gazing at your navel", but it's really what's involvedwhen you think about thinking. So its existence shouldn't really surprise you. It's certainly not "a new discipline": It has probably been around at least since Socrates's (or maybe Plato's) time, though probably not so-named. The journal Metaphilosophy has been around for 40 years and is taken seriously, so metaphilosophy is certainly not "budding" or an "Internet fad". I wouldn't say that (all of) philosophy is metaphilosophy, though all of metaphilosophy is philosophy. (In fact, philosophy is one of the few academic...

I have two questions about fairness and value in relation to achievement. Suppose student A works very hard for his exam results and gets the grades he wanted. Suppose also that student B is much lazier, putting in significantly less effort, but achieves the same results due to their greater "natural" ability. Firstly, which student's achievement, if any, is of greater significance or greater value? Secondly, is it fair that student B achieves the same results as student A without putting in the same level of effort (albeit the same level of effort was not required from student B due to his greater "natural" ability)?

Although the question is framed in terms of justice, fairness, and value, I would like to consider it in terms of attitudes towards knowledge and learning. According to the psychologist William Perry's "Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development" , students who have what he called an "early multiplistic" attitude towards knowledge believe that all questions have answers and that all problems have solutions, but that there are two kinds of questions or problems: those whose answers or solutions we know , and those whose answers or solutions we don't know yet . Such students see their task as learning how to find the "correct" solutions. And students who have what Perry called a "late multiplistic" attitude believe either that most problems are of the second kind (hence, everyone has a right to their own opinion) or that some problems are unsolvable (hence, it doesn't matter which--if any--solution you choose). (What I've summarized here is a vast oversimplification for present...

Why does it seem that everything that I read in philosophy always uses "she" or "her" instead of "his" or "he"?

Although I try to use "he or she" or "she or he", and I do like "s/he" and even the allegedly ungrammatical "they" (though I read somewhere that it's not really ungrammatical), often the best solution is to rewrite the sentence to avoid the problem. The best advice on this appears on the American Philosophical Association's website: Warren, Virginia L. (2001), "Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language" .

Pages