I was recently having a discussion with someone about the argument from ignorance fallacy, or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." We think that the following is a fallacy: 1. Alien spaceships orbiting the earth are observable through a telescope. 2. No one has observed alien spaceships orbiting the earth. 3. Therefore, there are no alien spaceships orbiting the earth. However, what if you changed the premises slightly to this: 1. Alien spaceships orbiting the earth would PROBABLY be observable through a telescope. 2. No one has observed alien spaceships orbiting the earth. 3. Therefore, there are PROBABLY no alien spaceships orbiting the earth. Even though I agree with the conclusion, I think this argument is also a fallacy since it follows the same form as the first one. But then I seemed to remember some kind of rule that the premises of an argument must be absolutes. You can't introduce probabilities, otherwise the laws of logic do not even apply and all bets are off. Or does it not...

I've been thinking about derogatory words for people who belong to specific groups. These words, I think, not only identify these persons, but they also kind of "state" that those persons are bad, inferior, or something like that. For instance, if you would call someone a "boche" (e.g. "She is a boche!"), you would not only be saying that that person is a German citizen, but also that ALL Germans are, say, despicable. Do you think this is a plausible view? And, if it is, don't you think that it is strange that a single word, as apllied to only one person, somehow contains a statement about a whole group of people?

Is it possible for any legitimate science to prove, if not now at least someday, that God indeed exists? Or is Richard Dawkins more intuitively right in saying that "someday we would have to understand the whole of the universe without anymore referring to a supernatural being"?

Is there really a fundamental moral difference between "killing" and "letting someone die"?

Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems represent one of the foremost achievements in mathematical logic's proud history. AskPhilosopher's very own panelist Peter Smith obviously is greatly intrigued by these theorems. Suppose out of jealously -- though I doubt he would succumb to such a vice! -- he decided to build a time machine. Imagine, moreover, that he went to a time before Gödel had proven the theorems and gave the great logician, say, the idea of Gödel numbering, the key to proving the incompleteness theorems. My question thus is as follows: Who would deserve credit for proving the incompleteness theorems? Gödel seems to have gotten the idea from Peter; Peter seems to have gotten the idea from Gödel. Is it possible that neither would deserve credit?

Why does it always seem that inner beauty, or beauty in personality and character is more often believed to be more beautiful than just outer beauty? As such, you will hear people saying, "I'd rather have an ugly wife with a beautiful soul than a gorgeous woman with an ugly soul?" Should this kind of attitude towards beauty be followed?

Is time-wasting immoral? The books I read tell me many times not to waste my life doing nothing, but if I choose to do it by the way, would it be immoral?

What does a person do when his or her co-workers do not do their job and he or she is always doing their job?

After researching on what it's like to be a budding PHD hopeful, I'm a little scared at the thought of going for a PHD. Being in debt, along with the high drop rate, is a little intimidating. Combine that with the fact that I might be a nomad if I graduate. What I want is to be able to read cutting edge journals with some ease, and contribute to the discipline by writing in them too. I am aware that I'm able to do this without the paper, but how exactly would I know I'm not a crank? This is why I want the education. Would going for a master's give me the skills to read and write for journals? Is it much harder to read journals or write in journals with just a master's degree? Is that an area that is totally reserved for someone with a PHD (skill wise anyways)? As I've stated before, the road towards a PHD is very intimidating, and it seems there is a lot less to lose if i go for the MA.

How much do I need to give to charity before I can splurge on a new iPod and not feel guilty?