Area 51 » Science

189

followers

Announcements

This is subjective and argumentive! – Ivo Flipse Jun 3 '10 at 12:12

Philosophy itself is basically a series of debates of ethical issues and morality. How can it be a Q&A site if there are no answers? Just a lot of questions and a lot of debates. The only things that can be answered are history questions, which is the really boring part of philosophy. :( – Corey Jun 5 '10 at 8:38

@Corey Sarnia: Philosophy is not about just ethical issues and morality. It's also about pure reasoning. I personally would love to see a site where someone could post: "Help me strengthen this thesis" or: "Help me find the holes in my argument" and answers would be provided by users with a background/talent in logic & reasoning. I could definitely see the benefit. – Dan Tao Jun 15 '10 at 12:30

show 29 more announcements

90 Example Questions (13 closed)

active newest votes

up vote 26 down vote

added by Nathan Osman, edited by Robert Harvey Aug 26 '10 at 5:25

I'd imagine all "What is an [argument type] argument?" question will be very useful. Along with fallacy questions. – colithium Jul 17 '10 at 1:56

This is likely to be an example when this hits commit so I have to bring this up; "straw man" is not an 'argument' per se, it is a fallacy. Could you please revise? – mfg Aug 25 '10 at 13:46

up vote 21 down vote

added by herzmeister Jun 5 '10 at 8:25

Certainly sounds interesting, but is there any consensus on this? – moioci Jun 8 '10 at 6:26

If there was any consensus on it, no one would have to ask that question :-> – herzmeister Jun 8 '10 at 7:14

@herzmeiser: I disagree: I don't think questions with correct answers are out-of-place on an SE site. Just look at SO! – Dan Tao Jun 15 '10 at 12:31

If the "what can" is answered with a "how does" reply it is definitely objective as any respondent could cite examples of particular supporting arguments. – mfg Jul 21 '10 at 15:03

up vote 20 down vote

added by Jaydles Jun 3 '10 at 2:07

Good formulation of a question. But isn't that Locke's problem? (cf. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, goo.gl/70Nf) Incidentally, example of a possible comment to good questions. – Matt Jul 10 '10 at 21:15

up vote 19 down vote

added by Good Person Jun 3 '10 at 13:02

Wouldn't this question be better suited for a site on debate? – Daniel Trebbien Jun 27 '10 at 16:46

Logical fallacies are well defined and asking about the differences between two is an answerable question. – colithium Jul 17 '10 at 1:56

up vote 19 down vote

added by JohnFx Jun 18 '10 at 16:08

Would be good to see the answers to this, but it's still somewhat subjective and probably not the best example for the site. – Shane Jul 7 '10 at 13:07

This would have to be CW... – Seamus Sep 7 '10 at 11:10

up vote 17 down vote

added by Robert Harvey Jun 3 '10 at 4:17

Valid mathematical proofs all amount to tautology and therefore have no philosophical implications. Might be useful to have that somewhere for reference, though. – moioci Jun 4 '10 at 8:06

@moioci: If the statement above was true, it would be an example of a mathematical proof (that all proofs are tautologies) with a philosophical implication (that mathematical proofs have no philosophical implications). Therefore false by contradiction – Casebash Jun 5 '10 at 4:30

@Casebash: Nice try, but I'm not buying. "Valid mathematical proofs all amount to tautology" is not itself a valid mathematical proof, in my book. – moioci Jun 8 '10 at 6:18

@moicoi: The philosophical implications of a proof come from the result, not the proof itself. "Valid mathematical proofs all amount to tautology" isn't a proof, but a result that can be shown using a mathematical proof. – Casebash Jun 11 '10 at 9:59

Obviously on topic since Godel. – cindi Jun 17 '10 at 16:25

show 1 more improvement suggestion

up vote 13 down vote

added by JohnFx Jun 18 '10 at 15:39

Isn't this more of an ethics question? – Nathan Osman Jun 18 '10 at 15:56

@George: I wasn't so much trying to get at the idea of whether it was right to do that, more about whether committing ones self to an irrevocable act of death and the actual fulfillment of it are interchangeable, philosophically. Perhaps I could have worded it better. – JohnFx Jun 18 '10 at 16:07

Ethics is part of philosophy. Why is that an objection? – Ron Gejman Jun 19 '10 at 7:50

Whether this is on-topic or not, it's probably not one of the best example questions for the site. – Shane Jul 7 '10 at 13:06

Not to burrow too far into semantics, but culpability falls in line with liability easily and this could be misconstrued as a legal question, rather than one about free-agency. – mfg Jul 21 '10 at 15:05

show 2 more improvement suggestions

up vote 12 down vote

added by Tom Morris Jun 15 '10 at 19:40

While I'd want to edit the question (I assume that it is asking about empirical work that informs the debate as opposed to work that affects how we perceive it), I very much like that it encourages the thought that philosophy is not wholly disconnected from empirical work. – vanden Jul 23 '10 at 6:44

up vote 12 down vote

added by Ryan Elkins Jul 9 '10 at 3:52

	Philosophers have been obsessed with this question – adrianos Jul 15 '10 at 11:14
	ldub0711.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/… – Nathan Osman Jul 15 '10 at 20:45
	You are. Now you know :).....Is this question good but not as a defining question ?...anybody ? – Rusty Sep 3 '10 at 18:45

up vote 8 down vote

added by JohnFx, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jul 12 '10 at 22:59

up vote 6 down vote

added by dsolimano Jun 3 '10 at 2:50

	Might be a good sample question, if I understood what it meant. Probably a good example if this site is intented to be a graduate-level site like MathOverflow is. – Robert Harvey Jun 5 '10 at 1:44
	It is a bit obscure, but that's why I'd like other people to think about it with me. Restated, in Scholastic thought it is God's will that keeps say a rock in existence, whereas in Schopenhauer's thought, the rock has a will that keeps it in existence (as I understand it). I was wondering if there was a relation here or if it was coincidental overlap of terms. – dsolimano Jun 5 '10 at 3:11
	No, Schopenhauer's will is more akin to blind energy. This blind energy is combined to form the world. These forms -- humans, rocks, frogs, tables -- then have what amounts to a will to live in that they have a tendency to remain in their form. – Sarhanis Jun 23 '10 at 7:02
	But, of course, this will be better dealt with when the site goes up. – Sarhanis Jun 23 '10 at 7:03
	The inclusion of a brief definition of terms for question such as this should be encouraged. It would certainly benefit those, like me, that think read this question as: What contingencies are covered by a living will ? – Rusty Sep 3 '10 at 19:01

up vote 6 down vote

added by JohnFx Jun 18 '10 at 15:41

up vote 6 down vote

added by Vortico Jun 19 '10 at 17:16

	I don't think philosophy is "a science" as the word is used colloquially. It is more of a "discipline." – Ron Gejman Jun 20 '10 at 7:18
	@Ron Gejman, you're right. But surely there are areas of philosophy that have been scientifically answered to an extent, such as the connection of consciousness to biology. (Though these scientific facts tend to open more questions than they answer.) – Vortico Jun 20 '10 at 17:54
	@Vortico, yes, there have been—although the connection between consciousness and biology is not one of those (I would argue). The problem is that disciplines tend to move out of philosophy and become sciences in their own right. So it's a bit deceptive to call philosophy a science since historically it has "spawned" sciences but has not been a science itself. – Ron Gejman Jun 21 '10 at 5:34
	What has science got to do with it? This question concerns what constitutes progress in philosophy. As for disciplines moving out of philosophy to become sciences, this hasn't happened for several hundred years. – adrianos Jul 15 '10 at 11:17
	@adrianos: I think we differ a bit on the history of psychology, economics, and political "science". – vanden Jul 27 '10 at 21:02

up vote 5 down vote

added by Satanicpuppy Jul 1 '10 at 15:14

up vote 5 down vote

added by mfg Jul 21 '10 at 18:20

up vote 4 down vote

added by Tom Morris Jun 15 '10 at 19:45

up vote 4 down vote

added by Shane Jun 24 '10 at 21:09

up vote 4 down vote

added by Shane Jun 24 '10 at 21:10

Homework Question! =) – JohnFx Jul 19 '10 at 15:26

Why is this off-topic? What makes it "homework" compared to other questions? – Shane Jul 19 '10 at 18:57

Hmm... this question seems to be representative of a sticking point for the venture as a whole. Some people think we should steer this towards being a graduate level site (in which case this question, reading, as it does, like the title of an undergraduate essay, would probably be likely just that), others see this as more 'for those interested' (in which case, this is indeed sufficiently technical, although it would be hard to see if it was on topic without the text body for motivation) – Tom Boardman Jul 20 '10 at 11:24

Both seem to have their good and bad points- a grad site would attract better technical help, but we'd probably have to lose our first OT question (what is a straw man?- go see wikipedia!). An interest site would be broader in its appeal, but potentially less useful. – Tom Boardman Jul 20 '10 at 11:31

Not to mention that a grad site would never get off the ground with the current Area 51 structure. If that's the intention, then I suggest starting a site with the open source equivalent... – Shane Jul 20 '10 at 12:48

up vote 4 down vote

added by Sarhanis Jun 30 '10 at 4:28

Not sure that learning to read at all would help with Heidegger. – Satanicpuppy Jul 1 '10 at 15:09

The same question for Greek language... – Aristos Jul 21 '10 at 14:24

Perhaps, but learning French to understand Derrida would be moot. – Geodesic Aug 8 '10 at 23:25

up vote 3 down vote

added by juanformoso Jun 3 '10 at 1:55

closed as off topic by Blorgbeard, DustyD, sepp2k, Willbill, user6376 Jun 25 '10 at 10:47

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

I love the idea that someday in the future someone might enter this question into Google, as a joke, and be taken to this site where he/she sees a "correct" answer has been accepted. – Dan Tao Jun 15 '10 at 12:33

@Dan: Wouldn't that be awesome though? – Nathan Osman Jul 3 '10 at 2:11

@Dan: It'd only be great if the answer was something like "Yes." Frankly these sorts of questions give philosophy a terrible reputation. – Satanicpuppy Jul 6 '10 at 21:41

@Tom, the recorder (and anybody listening to it after the event has been recorded) definitely qualify as an observer. This may sound silly... but it's one of the main controversial points of quantum physiscs, i.e. how the observer influences a phenomenon. – Massimo Jul 15 '10 at 9:26

And I think that's exactly where this goes from physics into philosophy. You can only prove there is a sound wave using experiments, which are based on observation. Some may say there is no indication that the observer influences the phenomenon in classic mechanics, but ultimately there is no way to prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Just because something worked 999,999 times in a row, it doesn't mean it will work the millionth time, and if you're not there to see it happen, you won't know. – alexsome Aug 13 '10 at 16:00

show 4 more improvement suggestions

up vote 3 down vote

added by Casebash Jun 5 '10 at 4:36

closed as off topic by Blorgbeard, zvolkov, Klas Mellbourn, Kent Fredric, Satanicpuppy Jul 1 '10 at 15:00

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

I posted this question to see if people are going to try to draw a line between religion and philosophy – Casebash Jun 5 '10 at 4:37

I think that these sorts of questions are perfectly fine here. I'm not sure what the difference is between asking "what is the meaning of life from the perspective of Christianity" and "what is the meaning of life from Schopenhauer's perspective" other than that one is traditionally classified as "religion" and the other as "philosophy." – Ron Gejman Jun 23 '10 at 5:36

up vote 3 down vote

added by moioci Jun 16 '10 at 13:25

closed as off topic by zvolkov, Ron Gejman, JohnFx, mfg, Coder Hawk Jul 26 '10 at 9:10

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

This belongs in Cognitive Sciences – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 20:18

@zvolkov: From the Area51 FAQ: Don't worry about whether a question might be asked on another site. Your goal is to make the best possible site for this community. – Robert Harvey Jun 24 '10 at 22:52

up vote 3 down vote

added by Ryan Elkins Jul 9 '10 at 3:47

up vote 3 down vote

added by vonjd Jul 9 '10 at 15:18

up vote 3 down vote

added by Noldorin Jul 17 '10 at 18:45

up vote 2 down vote

added by Nathan Osman Jun 3 '10 at 4:24

closed as off topic by cindi, zvolkov, Klas Mellbourn, JohnFx, luiscubal Jul 16 '10 at 22:35

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

The mention of pain obscures the real question of (nonhuman) animal consciousness. – moioci Jun 8 '10 at 6:28

Is this not a science question? – cindi Jun 17 '10 at 16:07

This belongs on Cognitive Sciences – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 20:22

up vote 2 down vote

added by herzmeister Jun 5 '10 at 8:37

	...that explains both how it emerged out of non-existence and how it spawned everything else into existence, suggesting a recursive or fractal quality? – herzmeister Jun 5 '10 at 8:38
	"Let there be Light." – Massimo Jun 19 '10 at 3:37
	Yes, and it is. 7 x 7 – JohnFx Jun 23 '10 at 14:43
	A Theory of Everything most likely can't exist. Our universe obeys the laws of physics, which are mathematical formulas. Math is based on MULTIPLE axioms, so there must be at least as many theories as there are math axioms to cover "everything". Of course, we aren't supposed to answer questions on area 51, but I couldn't resist. – luiscubal Jul 16 '10 at 22:32

up vote 2 down vote

added by user5653 Jun 23 '10 at 16:56

up vote 2 down vote

added by user5653 Jun 23 '10 at 18:29

Is it just me, or does this seem like a very general question? I like the idea of questions directed at a compendium for given topics, but IMO, a majority of philosophers, at least since the modern era, have considered this at one point or another. – Matt Jul 19 '10 at 17:48

It seems this question would need to be more specific in order to keep it from being a list of X question. – mfg Jul 21 '10 at 15:40

up vote 2 down vote

added by user5653 Jun 23 '10 at 18:41

Would be good to see the answer, but it's neither a good example for on nor off topic. – Shane Jul 7 '10 at 13:09

up vote 2 down vote

added by Aristos, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jul 12 '10 at 23:02

This is a pertinent way to reintroduce personnal philosophic research in the programmers cultural fields. They only learn concepts with references to wich author that said that, but this one said better etc... – Mael Aug 2 '10 at 14:28

up vote 2 down vote

added by Matt Jul 10 '10 at 22:07

up vote 2 down vote

added by vanden, edited by Robert Harvey Aug 9 '10 at 4:41

1) I'm glad for the vote, so I'm not complaining. But, 2) I'm surprised that this was thought off topic. The Euthyphro is most naturally read as providing a negative answer to the question. The question does strike me as squarely within the domain of philosophy, albeit backed by some presuppositions that I don't share. – vanden Aug 9 '10 at 3:14

up vote 2 down vote

added by vanden Jul 23 '10 at 6:32

up vote 2 down vote

added by Noldorin Jul 23 '10 at 16:01

up vote 2 down vote

added by Seamus Aug 3 '10 at 14:07

How is this not a good example? This is a neat terminology question with a more or less well delineated answer... – Seamus Aug 31 '10 at 12:21

up vote 1 down vote

added by Robert Harvey Jun 3 '10 at 5:03

closed as off topic by Nathan Osman, Casebash, Charles Stewart, Tom Morris, fserb Jun 16 '10 at 20:21

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

	Way, way too vague. You could ask what a particular school of thought would consider the meaning of life – Casebash Jun 5 '10 at 4:35
	Too broad and very naive :) – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 20:21

up vote 1 down vote

added by moioci Jun 4 '10 at 8:08

closed as off topic by Casebash, JohnFx, user6376, Jamie Banks, Daniel Trebbien Jun 27 '10 at 16:49

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

Way too subjective. – Nathan Osman Jun 4 '10 at 17:28

Good question about the relevance of Kant to contemporary philosophy – adrianos Jul 15 '10 at 11:14

In his coffin...barring some late night shenanigans and a couple of shovels. – Rusty Sep 3 '10 at 18:39

up vote 1 down vote

added by JohnFx Jun 18 '10 at 16:09

The unexamined life is easier to make a living – cindi Jun 18 '10 at 17:08

Funny. I submitted this thinking it would be a good off-topic example. Apparently the community disagrees. – JohnFx Jun 23 '10 at 18:39

If you studied something with practical applications (e.g. Cognitive Science/Linguistics/etc) then there are places that might hire you. Otherwise it's either academia, or the coffee shop. Or you could take a second major in something practical. Trying to sell a pure philosophy degree in a job interview is extremely difficult: I double majored in philosophy and computer science at one of the best analytic philosophy schools in the world, and I have to defend the philosophy degree to this day. – Satanicpuppy Jul 6 '10 at 21:46

@John: Look at the votes.... seems like nobody can agree. – Nathan Osman Jul 15 '10 at 20:44

@Satanicpuppy: I'm not asking the question. I am proposing the question as an example. – JohnFx Jul 19 '10 at 15:28