Hello there, I have a question about why exactly there's a problem or a paradox with the concept of Bleen and Grue from N. Goodman's writings on the New Riddle of Induction. I understand that at time T, the color is Bleen (or Grue) and that any prediction we make about a color of some object (for example) can be green or blue- and it will be right. Is that the essence of the paradox? Can I claim that it is similar to Schrodinger's cat paradox? If we examine an object after time T, and it's green then its original color should be named Bleen, but I have hard time understanding why it is so?

Is sadism immoral?

Hello, everyone. I have a question about my situation. I am a senior a UCLA, and my major is mathematics of computation. My GPA is 3.0. The reason for low GPA is because I spend much of my time pursuing my own study. I love to learn, but i tend to not like to be feed what I need to know. Plus, I realized what I wanted to be only at this quarter! I WANT TO BE A PHILOSOPHER THAT SPECIALIZES in the philosophy of mathematics and physics. Here is the thing: I want to apply for graduate school in philosophy of science, but it depresses me how I am going to do it. I want to go to the best school in the philosophy of science. I don't have enough philosophy courses to get a minor, and this is my last quarter at UCLA. So here is my solution: 1. Get top grades in the GRE general, and GRE math. 2. Get into a not so good master degree program, and rise my GPA. 3. Get some good rapport in my master degree program. (I.e.: letter of recommendation.) From 1, 2 and 3, I want to get into the best Graduate degree in...

I absolutely recognise the primacy of logic. But logic isn't always, at least obviously, the best tool with which to attack an issue. For example animal rights, and culturlal relativism. For instance, I believe it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to cause suffering to any creature, irrespective of for what reason, or in what culture. To what extent do philosophers/does philosophy allow for instinct, or gut feelings?

Why do we consider the death penalty immoral in a situation where a sadist (a very immoral person) commits heinous crimes and is sentenced to life imprisonment where he is protected from lynch mobs, given access to education, therapy (which has proved not only to be non effective in rehabilitating sadists but frees them from responsibility for their actions), medical care, food, clothing, televison, gym, etc. all at the taxpayers expense and one of his victims (a child) who has survived the trauma and torture inflicted is sentenced to a life of physical and psychological disability, in later life unable to work or pay for his ailments and who lives in constant fear that the sadist will be released and come and get him again? Is it possible that our reluctance to inflict the death penalty is out of fear but that we simply rationalize this as morality as that is the more palatable excuse. Are we just moral cowards? Wouldn't we all be relieved if the sadist suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack? And if...

When we deliberate, we often make note of pertinent constraints as we form our opinion. For instance, a jury member might arrive at a different recommendation than she would have otherwise if she observes a judge's instructions to ignore a particular piece of testimony. Does the ability to determine our beliefs by considering some factors and not others show we can in some sense control what we believe?

Hello Philosophers, Does an act of betrayal have to produce harm to the person or group of people being betrayed? For instance a man Bob promises to his wife Mary that he will quit smoking. Mary believes that Bob has not smoked for over a year when in fact he has been smoking the whole time without her knowing. Would this be considered betrayal even though his smoking is causing no harm to Mary as she is unaware? would it be considered betrayal only when she finds out?

A lot of people think we shouldn't conduct stem cell research or cloning based on the idea that man shouldn't 'play god.' My response; why not? Now, I'm an atheist, but even if we were to assume the bible were literal truth, why should we not try to emulate god if he is so perfect and wondrous? Is there any logic behind the playing god argument? What logic *can* be attributed to religion, at any rate...

Is it wrong to desire power?

What is the difference between sensation and perception? Can you have perception without a sensation?