Young Philosophers Research Talk is Online

By Andrew Cullison | February 8, 2010

Just a heads up. I just posted Chris Tucker’s research talk – “What Open-Minded People Should Endorse Dogmatism”

Posted in Announcements, Link of Interest, Philosophical Inquiry, Philosophy of Religion, Theory of Knowledge | Leave a comment

First Night

By Andrew Cullison | February 8, 2010

This is just a little post about some things from the course blog that I want to talk about in class today.

  • In this post, Margaret asks, “when dealing with ideas and questions about immortality and the soul, is scientific reasoning completely valid for such arguments?”
  • In this post, Skzambi foreshadows what some regard as a serious problem for the materialist.
  • Nice exchange between jrg325 and thespian13 in this post.

Handouts

Posted in Philosophical Inquiry | Leave a comment

Too intelligent for a designer? Or too intelligent for this author…

By yesiamgodsgirl | February 8, 2010

On of the most interesting arguments discussed in this article was the argument of evolution.  The section that stuck out the most to me was the discussion about the enhanced chicken.  The author explains about how domestic chickens are much greater in size compared to their wild ancestors.  The domestic chickens were said to have been “produced” by “intentional modification of a species through human intervention”.  This is a great example of microevolution.  The comparison of the intentionally modification of a species via human intervention (which by the way, shows a “designer/creator” through the use of a farmer) was then made with the entire species of dogs and the vast variety that exists between them.  The author went on to elucidate that evolution is quite similar, but lacks the selection of people, rather it was done by nature.   This paragraph is then ended with the sentence “if random genetic mutations and artificial selection can accomplish such radical change in a population of dogs, surely genetic mutations and natural selection can do so in other species.”

Within this article, a definition and example were given of an argument of analogy.  An argument of analogy was described as two things being similar in many important and pertinent ways, therefore they are most likely similar to each other in the way that they were caused.  It seemed as if the author was trying to disprove this specific type of argument.  I couldn’t help but think that the author’s example of comparing the intentionally modified chickens to the evolutionarily developed vast types of the species of dogs (which is still microevolution since it is a change within the species) was exactly the argument of analogy.  The author had stated that if evolution can happen in dogs, then it must be able to happen in other species, which is a similar effect from a similar cause.  Maybe I’ve missed something and the author isn’t trying to disprove that argument, but the language and tone of the article causes me to believe that he is.

Also within that same passage, the author began acting as if he was going to expand and support macroevolution, but with his example of dogs, he solely proved microevolution.  The reason that I feel as if the author was trying to credit macroevolution with this example was because of the sentence “the differences between a St. Bernard and a Teacup Poodle are not minor.”  They may not be minor, but they sure are not a result of macroevolution.  Microevolution was defined as a change within a species, while macroevolution was a change from one species to another.  As I recall, the change within the types of dogs is a change within the species. They are all still dogs and no different species were proven to be made from dogs (at least none that the author exclaimed).  I also couldn’t help but ask myself that if macroevolution had happened so far in the past, why is it not happening now?  Why are there no more productions of species from other species occurring within our generations?  I’ve been given apparent “evidence” of macroevolution occurring very very far back in the history of this earth, but personally, I have never been given evidence of macroevolution happening anymore.  Why would it just…stop occurring?  The scientist in me just jokingly thinks of the First Law of Thermodynamics: Nothing can be created nor destroyed, leading me to think that all is finished, no need to create anymore species.  And of course this law is describe the conservation of energy, but it keeps coming to mind :) .

Another section that caught my eye was the paragraph explaining how the skin “records light exposure,” leading some scientists to believe that because the skin can “record” light, the eye may have developed like that also.  I couldn’t help but question that statement…”records light exposure”?  As far as I’m concerned (and my knowledge of sunburn I suppose), sunburn isn’t because your skin is “recording exposure”, it’s because energy from the sun is penetrating deeply into the skin, ultimately causing damage to the DNA of the skins cells.  This in turn causes the skin to darken, and/or burn. There’s no recording involved, and in fact, after sunburn, the skin must repair the damaged cells using the rapid regenerative capacity of keratinocytes.  The only thing recorded was the amount of cells that had to be repaired.  This post wasn’t to disprove the existence of God or the belief of atheism, but the credibility of this author.  The “facts” within his arguments don’t tend to line up with everything he’s describing.  Whether I agreed with his belief or not, this article surely would never convince me of anything.

Posted in Analysis Post, Philosophy of Religion | Leave a comment

What good are counterexamples?

By thewhorocks515 | February 8, 2010

Brian Weatherson’s paper, “What Good Are Counterexamples?” basically lays out an argument that is against intuition. Weatherson states that we should not trust our intuitions because they can be misleading and unreliable. Gettier cases are cases that rely on intuition to tell us that there are certain instances where justified true belief is not knowledge. Weatherson goes on to claim that since we cannot trust intuition, Gettier cases do not hold as much weight as they normally would and instead we should go back to the basic “Knowledge is justified, true, belief theory” because it is simple, systematic, and works very well most of the time.

Weatherson starts out by explaining the difference between “intellectual seemings” a.k.a. intuitions, and beliefs. He takes the idea from George Bealer and uses examples such as, “Frege’s Axiom V seems to be true, though we know it is false.” and “Some people may have the intuition that the continuum hypothesis is true, even though they believe on reflection that it is indeterminate whether it is true.” Weatherson makes this clarification to show that Gettier cases are only “seemings” and therefore can be mistaken. He goes along to say that intuitions cannot be properly calibrated and therefore aren’t reliable. The Wason Selection Task, shows that our beliefs (which arrive out of false intuitions) are prone to logical mistakes. Slavery shows that people can have mistaken moral intuitions. The intuitions that Mars is a star and whales are fish prove that humans make conceptual intuition errors as well. All of this evidence is put forth to prove that intuition is not nearly as reliable as theory.

I want to question this notion of intuition being less reliable than theory. First of all, don’t theories arise from intuition? Therefore, a theory is no more reliable than intuition. If a theory is correct, shouldn’t it account for all of our intuitions? Since counterexamples rely on intuition, shouldn’t counterexamples have an impact on a theory? To me, disregarding counterexamples is a huge flaw in a theory. Good theories are supposed to embrace skepticism and be able to account for every scenario no matter how crazy.

Another problem I had with Weatherson’s claim that “theories are better than intuition” were the examples that included Utilitarianism. Weatherson claims that utilitarian theories are generally not flawed because of intuition. I would disagree and say that our intuitions about an action that results in the most utility being morally wrong is extremely harmful to the theory to the point that it should no longer be accepted. A later example says that utilitarians may concede that “it seems that punishing innocents is the wrong thing to do” but “this might be one of those things that seems to be true despite being false.” I would disagree and say our intuitions here have strong evidence against utilitarianism just as counterexamples relying on intuition such as the Gettier cases have strong evidence against the JTB theory of knowledge.

Posted in Analysis Post, Theory of Knowledge | Leave a comment

Mind and Brain Analysis

By cassidycala | February 8, 2010

In Mind and Brain: The First Night we are introduced to three different people; Mary who represents the materialists, Dave who represents the dualists, and Steve who speaks for the all the skeptics. All three bring about very interesting arguments which made it very hard for me personally to pick a side. For example, throughout the first few pages I agreed with Mary because of the statement, “I have a difficult time understanding why a supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good Being would allow so much misery and evil to exist in the world.” When I think about the existence of God this basically sums up my opinion. I want to believe in God, but when I see and hear about the terrible things that have happened in this world I find it very hard to believe in this Being who supposedly looks out for all of us. I don’t believe that the terrible things in this world have to happen, and there is no justification for these events. Although I agree strongly with Mary’s opinion on this subject, I do not support her materialistic views. I may not fully believe in God, but I do believe in some kind of after-life and I do agree with Dave in that the brain is separate from the mind and that souls exist.  I find it very hard not to believe in some sort of after-life and I find it hard not to believe that souls continue to exist even after someone’s death. Materialists stick to what they can prove, which is understandable; but in doing this they leave no room for the possibility that others’ beliefs may be true, that there is a soul, and that people can ‘exist’ even after their death in this world. All three people made good arguments and presented very strong points to support their beliefs, but I still find it impossible to completely side with Mary in that the brain and mind are two separate things. I believe the brain and mind do go together and one cannot function without the other, but they are not one and the same.

Posted in Analysis Post, Philosophical Inquiry | Leave a comment

Analysis Post – Intelligent Designer(s)?

By A.Liddell | February 8, 2010

  I think perhaps the most interesting to me of this reading was the concept that all of these arguments do not seem to be able to prove theism.  Hume states that a being with only 90 percent of the knowledge and power that “God” has would be able to create our Universe.  Which makes sense.  If “God” were all powerful or all knowing than one would think that the teleological traits would be without flaw.  But this is not so.  Many of the Teleological things we may see in life may seem to be very persuasive until we see things that do not work as they should.  I would surmise that the number of objects that have a very apparent purpose is about equal to the number of objects that do not.  There are so many loopholes in the “God” of classical theism that the pantheistic option that Hume briefly mentions becomes fully viable.

   After reading this passage, I started to think about how the arguments we discussed for classical theism would fare against a pantheon of Mythological beings, such as the pantheon of Ancient Egypt or Greece.  To be honest, these pantheons seemed to stand up just as well, if not better.  Having a vast array of deities, each with their own flaws and talents seemed to make everything much easier to understand.  ”If X deity cannot do it X1 can.”  There are myths and stories about how things came to be, and the “Who designed the designer” argument cannot even cause too much trouble here.  The Greek Gods were brought about by the Titans, who were brought about by Earth and Sky.  Which still leaves the initial start to be the big question.  

  Having a Pantheon would result in there not being a Triple O being, but having more than one being who is at perhaps 90 percent of the Classical Theists God, which as Hume stated would have easily have been able to create our universe, with its natural flaws and gifts.  The same goes for the fine tuning argument.  These beings are powerful enough to keep our universe at a spot where it is able to sustain life, but not at a point where it is so perfect that there are no catastrophe’s.  There are still issues here but because no one God is a triple O being, they cannot be so blamed for the lack of perfection.

  These ideas obviously do not disprove Theism, nor are they conclusive in any way towards Pantheism, however I think they do lend more merit towards disproving Atheism.  The idea of having no creator at all seems a little bit ridiculous when one considers all the options that could be.  

  I was not raised in a Christian household, so my general knowledge of Christian lore may be a little rusty, I would be curious to know if all Christians consider “God” to be a triple O  being.  I think the fact that there can be intelligent design without having the trifecta of O’s is the most significant thing that I gathered from reading this.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mind and Brain: The First Night

By katiekaminski9 | February 8, 2010

In the beginning of The First Night, Mary claims herself as a materalist, Dave a dualist and Steve seems undecided on his position. The issue they talk about is immortality. Mary’s first argument claims that the human mind is made up of human processes and the mind is the same as the brain. Mary also claims that evolution is better explained through materialism. When your body dies, your brain goes with it and it’s not possible for you to exist past that point. This argument, althought reasonable, definitely makes you think. The question which brings up this immortality argument is obvious-  What happens after you die? If your mind and your brain are the exact same thing, then how does life end? When you think of immortality, usually you think of living forever; never dying as your age climbs. Do they mean immortality of the soul? However, Mary doesn’t believe in souls. If your mind dies with your brain because it is the same thing, then what happens? I feel as if Mary never answers this completely although her arguments explain everything from evolution to animals.

Posted in Philosophical Inquiry | Leave a comment

Weatherson and Intuition

By KatieBug | February 8, 2010

In Brian Weatherson’s paper, “What Good Are Counterexamples?” he discusses several ways that our intuitions can fail.  In showing that intuitions are not always more trustworthy than theory, he hopes to prove Gettier cases of knowledge are not enough to disprove the traditional justified true belief theory, and it is sometimes better to follow theory when our intuitions tell us otherwise.

The first ways in which our intuitions can fail are logical.  The Wason Selection Test shows a very large percentage of logical error in humans, and tests done by Kahneman and Tversky showed that probabilistic reasoning in humans is often faulty as well. Weatherson does concede, however, that these tests only implicate beliefs. His claim is that beliefs are grounded in intuition, so these tests still show human intuition can be logically faulty. Humans sometimes fail logically because they’re wired to follow heuristics, or patterns that help us process information faster. When we go to a new store for granola bars, we immediately look in the cereal isle because of certain logical intuitions- though of course we could very well be mistaken.

Our intuitions can also fail in many moral cases, says Weatherson. Slavery is an excellent example of this, since many people found it morally permissible for thousands of years. Some people find it morally obvious that abortion is wrong, while others intuitively believe the opposite- both of them cannot be correct, so somebody has to have a wrong moral intuition. Human intuition fails yet again.

People often have mistaken conceptual intuitions as well. Take the intuition that neutral actions, such as scratching your hear or coughing, are neither voluntary or involuntary. This could seem correct, since it is perhaps intuitive to think its odd to consider an action voluntary or involuntary when there is no reason to do so. Regardless of a decent explanation, this intuition is still plainly false. Another example of conceptual intuition failure relates to beliefs. We once thought whales were fish, and Venus was a star. We believed these false things because of intuitions we had about objects in the sky, and animals in the water. This is a conceptual error and not an empirical one because we didn’t need to learn anything more about the whale or the planet to know we were wrong, we only needed to learn more about the objects we grouped them in with. It is these types of errors, conceptual ones, which show once again human intuitions are not always grounded in truth.

So, if Weatherson is correct, human intuition fails in many different cases, so Gettier cases should not be seen as devastating to the justified true belief theory of knowledge. To put it in numbered premise form,

1)   If human intuitions are better than theories in most cases, then Gettier cases are good counterexamples to the JTB theory of knowledge.

2)   Human intuitions are not better than theories in many cases.

3)   Therefore, Gettier cases are not good counterexamples to the JTB theory of knowledge.

Posted in Analysis Post, Theory of Knowledge | Leave a comment

Mind and Body: The First Night

By slr15 | February 7, 2010
In the reading, Mind and Brain: The First Night, we meet Mary the materialist, Dave the dualist and Steve the skeptic. Although I think that the arguments are less than exemplary, I think that overall the arguments made in the reading are understandable. The part that really made sense to me was the discussion about the principle of simplicity. It states that if there are two theories that explain the exact same number of observations, then the one that should be chosen is the one that posits less or is simpler. I think that this makes thing a lot easier. Mary claims that this principle should guide people to choose materialism seeing as it is a simpler explanation to the mind-body dilemma. However, Dave disagrees with Mary about this. He believes that scientific theories shouldn’t be applied to metaphysical matters like the mind-body argument. I agree with Mary, that the simpler the theory, the more believable it is. Any theory should be capable of being applied to a question of any topic.

 

Posted in Analysis Post, Philosophical Inquiry | Leave a comment

The First Night

By Margaret | February 7, 2010

In this reading, we learn about Mary, the materialist, Dave the dualist, and Steve who seems to be unsure of his own views.  In the beginning Mary and Dave start to have a discussion about their own personal views.  Mary begins to bring up the scientific reasoning that supports materialism. Mary talks about how evolution is believable by a materialistic viewpoint.   She brings up the idea that during the evolutionary process we can believe that there is a closer connection to humans and animals then what Dave believes.  The next point that Mary brings up is one that can be argued about.  If in fact materialism is true then explaining the mental functions of the brain would be more possible.  However this argument cannot necessarily be completely believable due to the fact that the scientific investigation of the mind can be possible, but as Dave states it does not fully back up the beliefs of materialism.  The next scientific support brought up by Mary was the principal of simplicity.  This principal backs up the argument that materialism is somewhat more easily understood and expectable because of its simplicity.  However this also brings up an interesting issue for Dave and those of us reading this because we understand that there are issues at stake and science cant necessarily prove or disprove these issues. So what I am trying to figure out is if when dealing with ideas and questions about immortality and the soul, is scientific reasoning completely valid for such arguments?

Posted in Analysis Post, Philosophical Inquiry | Leave a comment