ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Science

Do the laws of science disprove the existence of ghosts? The universe adheres to strict physical laws and constants; as Stephen Hawking notes; these laws MUST be adhered to 100% of the time, or they wouldn't be laws. In science, a theory can be supported by thousands of separate pieces of separate empirical evidence but it only takes ONE piece of empirical evidence which contradicts a theory for that theory to be disproven; in which case the theory must be discarded or modified. The existence of ghosts is evidence which would contradict thousands of theories in science; in physics, biology and chemistry (Newton's laws of motion, Einstein's equivalence of mass and energy, etc. etc.) The immutability of the laws of science are verified by the products of man's understanding and manipulation of these laws; technology, transportation, medicine, etc. etc. These things form the bedrock of modern civilization. I know that in science it is said that nothing can be "disproven"; for example, we can't completely...

Science is fallible. There is a long tradition of claiming phenomena to be "physically impossible" or "against the laws of nature" and then finding out that it is the laws that are the problem, or some underlying assumptions. E.g. in the 16th century, it was against the laws of nature to claim that Earth moves around the sun (it turned out that Aristotelian physics was wrong) and e.g. in the early 20th century continental drift was thought to be physically impossible (it turned out that continents do not move over the sea floors, but stick to them, making motion possible along with the formation of new ocean floor). So I'm not a fan of saying that the laws of science disprove the existence of anything that we have independent evidence for. I think it is more scientific, in fact, to ask "what evidence do we have for the existence of ghosts"? and take it from there.
Gender

I was reading an article where constructivist feminist views on gender were being discussed, and an example was given on how gender was constructed, how being a boy or a girl had nothing to do with physical bodies, and how physical bodies themselves are constructed by society. The text is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Instead, our sexed bodies are themselves discursively constructed: they are the way they are, at least to a substantial extent, because of what is attributed to sexed bodies and how they are classified. Sex assignment (calling someone female or male) is normative. When the doctor calls a newly born infant a girl or a boy, s/he is not making a descriptive claim, but a normative one. In fact, the doctor is performing an illocutionary speech act. In effect, the doctor's utterance makes infants into girls or boys." Isn't this kind of thinking somehow flawed? Surely, if the child was born with male genitals and the doctor said "It's a girl!", the parents would be briefly...

Most constructivists think that assigned sex has something do with physical bodies; but how physical/biological information is incorporated into gender categories can vary depending on cultural, historical, pragmatic etc interests. Genitalia are one way in which we assign gender, but not the only way; we recognize, for example, that genetic males can have external genitalia indistinguishable from those of "normal" women (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), and that genetic females can have masculinized genitalia (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia). There are also true hermaphrodites (individuals with both ovarian and testicular tissue). And then there are transsexuals who look one way and yet are "gendered" another way. There have been some cases of parents/doctors choosing the gender of an ambiguous infant, and sometimes the gender identification takes, sometimes it does not (we do not all have an inborn gender identification that resists change, although many of us do, and for most of us it...
Value

Can you in detail explain the diffrences between intrinsic value and instrumentally value?

"Instrumental value" is the easiest to begin with. It is the value that something has because it helps you get something that you really ("instrinsically") value. So money is valuable because you can buy things that you really like/want with it. Money would not be valuable if you could not use it in that way. Intrinsic value is "value for its own sake" or "value independent of the consequences." Kant thought that goodness is instrinsically valuable. (Others, for example Bentham, thought that goodness is valuable only in so far as it increases the total happiness of a community.)
Happiness

Dear Philosophers, I've been told the "dream girl" as the "dream job" as the "dream life" don't exist. I disagree, I found a wonderful partner and got married to her. It is not a dream, meaning not everything is perfect: I have my flaws and so has she. the question is I've been looking for a career, an activity, anything that can make me happy, energetic, feel alive. (find the job you love and you won't have to work for the rest of your life; find what you love and you will wake up early and go to bed late because without feeling tired, and so on). I've tried to go for the prestige, and worked in bank and multinationals without any results. I then decided to go for the skills, played guitar, surfed, snowboarded, read, did marathons, learnt languages and so on but couldn't get any money from this and evidently it is not my vocation/career. At last I thought I could be a good salesmen and applied for many job. I have a decent job, that for many could be a dream one, as a sales manager, but I hate it, it's...

You are looking for a job that satisfies your three criteria (1) you love it (2) you can devote yourself to it and (3) you get rich. This isn't a mathematical puzzle with a definite answer; just like your search for the perfect mate, it may or may not exist i.e. is is contingent on the jobs available to you. Obviously you are putting a good deal of effort into your search, and I wish you good luck. It might be helpful to read a basic book on figuring out what career is right for you (like What Color is your Parachute? ). But perhaps you have tried this already. Here are some further ideas. You may not have met your perfect job yet because there is no job that satisfies your three criteria. One option then is to create your own job (find a niche and be self employed). Another option is to relax some of your criteria. "Getting rich" is overrated as a source of happiness (see recent work by Daniel Kahnemann, described in the NYTimes this week, which suggestions that about $75K per...
Physics

Can something really be divided into an infinite number of parts? It seems like it's theoretically possible to infinitely continue dividing something, but that is in no way the same thing as saying that something can be infinitely divided at any point in temporality, since an infinite period of time must be reached before something has been infinitely divided (which is not even a theoretical possibility). It seems like vast claims and supposed paradoxes in physics and mathematics are founded on this dubious assumption that an object or shape can be theoretically divided into an infinite number of parts.

It may help to say that we only need "infinite divisibility"--we don't need the division to have actually taken place, only to be possible in principle. Also, what is your model of "dividing" here? Do you imagine scissors and paper and a lot of cutting? Perhaps there are other ways of conceptualizing infinite division that don't require time.
Ethics

I'm certain that if we could go back in time and undo mistakes, our lives wouldn't be any better. But I can't figure out why this is so. Why then are mistakes so hard to live with if undoing them doesn't make things any better?

Your question takes off from your certainty that if we could go back in time and undo our mistakes our lives wouldn't be "any better." I'm asking you to critically reflect on that certainty. Let me ask you a question: are you certain that if we could go back in time and undo our mistake that our lives would be pretty much the same (i.e. we don't have much control over the way things turn out) or is it that you think that our lives would be different but no better (e.g. if we undo one mistake only to make another)? Whichever you think, can you agree that these are empirical claims, that is, claims that can be tested (in empirical psychology, for example, we can see whether decisions make a difference, and if so, what kind of difference). It may be that in some areas of life we have little control, in some areas of life we have control but can't make things better, and in some areas (quite significant areas, in my knowledge and experience) we have control and can make things better. ...
Science

What's the status of the so-called "scientific method" among philosophers of science these days? I realize that there are and have been many different methods employed in what we call or want to call scientific investigation, so I appreciate how misleading the singular term might be. But, with that caveat in mind, in school and elsewhere you hear all about this great 'method' we've established. And certainly scientists take themselves to know and share some activity. To put a finer point on this question, let me sketch what I get the impression this 'method' looks like: 1) It's empirical, that is, it involves observation and experimentation. 2) The scientist makes some initial observations, forms a hypothesis, deduces some predictions from it, then designs and performs a "controlled experiment" to "test" them. This experiment is done by attempting to identify variables, some independent, one dependent to ensure (obviously with fallibility) that the appropriate relationship/conditions are being...

"The scientific method" is often poorly or incompletely or misleadingly described in science classes (especially high school science classes). So I'll say a little about that first, and then something about recent philosophical discussions of scientific method. As you (and many others) describe the method, it begins with "the scientists makes some initial observations and forms an hypothesis." This is typically understood as the inductive part of scientific method. And, while it is true that scientists sometimes start with inductive generalizations, most of the time they start with a deeper hypothesis, one that offers a causal explanation for what is observed. If all we ever did was make inductive generalizations, we'd never get beyond the observable--never get to atoms and magnetic forces and osmotic pressures and all those other invisible entities or abstract concepts that form part of scientific theories. So really, the scientist starts with a hypothesis that is arrived at by abduction (...
Medicine

Definitions of health tend to focus on the absence of non-health, as in "health is the absence of disease," or in terms of what health affords us, as in "health allows one to lead a vital life." These approaches seem to avoid consideration of what health is. Why do we do this? Is it possible that something can only be defined in terms of what it is not, or what it leads to? How would we go about considering a definition of health?

Actually, the WHO defined health in 1946 as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being." So health can be defined positively; the question is how useful such a definition is. Some think that this definition sets the bar too high (who among is is healthy according to that definition?) others that it gives us no help with prioritizing health care interventions (is it more important to improve the health of those who are already fairly healthy or those who are not health at all?), still others that it confuses general well-being with health. It may be that we do not need a general definition of health, just particular definitions appropriate to particular contexts.
Happiness
Value

I am sixty and I find myself becoming removed from my life (my very nice life, I might add). I watch, rather than participate. Everything I read about, see, or experience is similar to that which I have read about, seen or experienced before. I've been down that road before, I know where it goes, it's hard to stay engaged. It's hard to care. I know that in the broadest view everything turns out fine- all good things end and all bad things end. I am not unhappy at all. Am I just old?

You sound either bored or depressed (you say you are "not unhappy" which sounds anhedonic). Perhaps philosophy can help. You say, "all good things and all bad things end"--what follows from that? Value can be found in non-eternal things. It may be unhelpful to think in terms of age (am I getting old?) and more useful to think in terms of developmental stage (I'm ready for the next stage, what will that be?). And if there is nothing that you can think of that you want to do for yourself, how about helping others?
Ethics

I recently overheard a man saying he was kicked out of his apartment because he "peeped on" his female roommate in the shower. He said, "A peeping tom isn't hurting anyone." I don't think this is universal, but, to what extent is he right?

If the peeping Tom didn't hurt anyone, why did he get kicked out of his apartment? Perhaps Tom would say, "An undiscovered peeping Tom isn't hurting anyone." But is he right about even that qualified claim? Even if he isn't hurting anybody, his action may still be wrong (e.g. it may violate the roommate's privacy). It is likely that he is harming any relationship he has with his roommate, even if she never finds out (secrets have a way of getting in the way of friendship). He may be hurting himself by developing anti-social habits. And, he did get discovered, and harmed his roommate (presumably she was upset and felt violated). Tom's defense amounts to "I'm looking, not touching, so I'm better than a rapist"...not much of a defense, really.

Pages