Let's say that by positing the existence of some unobservable entities (e.g., strings), we can form theories which reliably predict observable behavior. Does the success of such theories provide evidence that the posited entities actually EXIST? Or is the significance of such entities merely heuristic?

If we consider the possibility of superior life forms and the possibility of their interference of our own human species for their own gain, and then looking back at our own treatment of animals (inferior species), are Zoos ethical?

I cannot understand how things move. Consider the leading point of a pool ball: for the ball to move, that leading point has to dematerialise from Point A and materialise at Point B. When I attempt to explain this to others, they invariably respond with something along the lines of 'But it just moves a small distance'. This is what causes me a problem because, regardless of the distance moved, small or large, the leading edge of the pool ball must be in one place at one moment, and the next moment, it is in a different place. What else can this be other than dematerialisation / materialisation. Which, as I understand, is not possible. So how do things move?

Nowadays the things I thought and said when I was younger seem to be silly and I am ashamed for it. On the other side we admire the child's purity. So is it the education or our origin which is "good"? Why are we educated when everyone loves children and their attitudes?

Would Aristotle argue that torturing babies is evil in itself, and is not a virtue to be learned?

I would like to find a scholarly article which sheds light on the question whether Socrates' statement "know yourself" has indeed been adopted from the work of Heraclitus.

There are billons of people on this earth, and yet so many people proclaim that they have found their one-and-only soul mate. Is it reasonable of them to say that if they haven't met everyone on the earth? Is there really such a thing as a "soul mate"? If not, then is it safe to assume that people simply settle for what is within their reach and then redefine what love means to them?

Is it possible to have an opinion on something and not have a bias in any way? Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example. If I were to research both sides extensively, learning every single fact I could from every single possible source, then find that one side was clearly in the wrong most of the time. Could I say "Israel is in the wrong more than the Palestinians" without having a Palestinian bias? And furthermore, what does the word "bias" entail? What is its meaning?

The phrase "You must forgive" is often bandied about - especially in religious teachings. Surely this is not fair - the wrong-doer has an entitlement from the wronged? What if the wronged is unable to forgive? Is forgiveness an emotion?

Is there a logical contradiction with the notion of having two or more minds? What if it is intelligible that there are two or more minds and that you're the only "self" that is existing but you got so lonely that you created an elaborate delusion (that other minds exist) so that you can escape your loneliness? (Solipsism.) Is the plurality of minds/selves a coherent concept?