Jericho's Philosophy Corner

[Prinapocalypse]

Definitely the word theory seems to be used incorrectly, in everyday conversations. I still wouldn't use fact as a way to explain a scientific theory since at least in my own personal definition, fact would be used for something that is fully understood. And theories are much more flexible than that, and can change drastically, such as the flat-earth theory.

Question for you, though.

I know why science does it, but I simply can't agree with ruling out plausible possibilities, like they do. Of course there's usually no facts, so it's understandable that they wouldn't give it as much credibility.

Can it be plausible without backing from facts? (I've already talked about how much research is going on for different things, but still)

I think some things can be plausible without facts. For example aliens could be living on some far away planet, that hasn't been discovered yet. There's no way to currently see the far reaches of the universe, so I would call it plausible. Even though there's no way to currently prove such a thing, I would personally say it could be true, and shouldn't be disregarded.

Edit: Almost forgot to say you don't normally come off as condescending. It was just that one post and you were probably tired when you wrote it anyway~ ;P Nothing to worry about~

[vampko]

Let us not turn this into a battle on what a theory is.

What Prin is discussing, is in fact philosophy. What Red is discussing is what philosophy tends to have problems with.

I think some things can be plausible without facts. For example aliens could be living on some far away planet, that hasn't been discovered yet. There's no way to currently see the far reaches of the universe, so I would call it plausible. Even though there's no way to currently prove such a thing, I would personally say it could be true, and shouldn't be disregarded.

This is going back to the Anti-mystery thing really. Sure, we have no proof that aliens exist, but new evidence could pop up to suddenly make it evident that aliens have been among us.

This also feels a good deal like the opinions of Pragmatists. Wherein there really isn't Truth. We only say there aren't aliens, because our viewpoint tells us they don't exist. It is the same with ghosts. How do we know that there aren't certain people who can see ghosts, and the majority of people lack this 'third eye' so to speak? You can't prove whether this is right or wrong, because you can only 'verify' that which you 'know' about yourself. And that which you have seen.

I apologize if this has already been discussed on here, but as you know I came into this thread rather late. I also am taking a philosophy class of sorts, and am just now getting familiar with what philosophy is considered exactly. So, this is a form of studying for me pretty much.

[Redhorse]

The flat earth theory didn't change much. It just went from 0 to a very small number (curvature per mile), is what I'm getting at. Cause the Earth is nearly flat; they were just off by that much. And then, it turns out, that very very small number happens to make a huge difference in the resulting shape. And then we go and use the curvature for new, important purposes! (must.. resist... creating... random wall-text.... on the Physics.. of satellites....not... resisting... well...)
^for unnecessary clarification; you already know what I meant.

I think some things can be plausible without facts. For example aliens could be living on some far away planet, that hasn't been discovered yet. There's no way to currently see the far reaches of the universe, so I would call it plausible. Even though there's no way to currently prove such a thing, I would personally say it could be true, and shouldn't be disregarded.

That isn't disregarded though (the example you provided, anyway ~ ), and there are many ways to see far into the universe. Not only is it not disregarded, but it is considered quite probable given the universe's size. Many areas of science spend a lot of time looking for inhabited planets; it's big news when they find solar systems capable of supporting life. Also, we've been sending out various signals saying things like "We're here, is anyone else out there too?" that also give maps to our location (not using our language, but by signing of course). We do this even though we know (if there is life out there, which is considered quite probable) they are not near enough for the signal to reach any time soon (the signals travel much slower than light, by the time we get a reply or by the time it even reaches them, we could all have died off long ago). We also spend quite a lot of time trying to see if the moons on Saturn and Jupiter might have life (we can see that they have water, but it's frozen over; the idea is that there could be a whole ocean underneath filled with sea life); even Mars seems to have once had water (Mars is very much like Earth would be if we had some disaster that killed life off; it might've had water before, it's about our size, it's close to the sun, the atmosphere isn't all that bad, etc.).

But yeps, I get your point. Just give them some time to find their evidence ~

Edit: Almost forgot to say you don't normally come off as condescending. It was just that one post and you were probably tired when you wrote it anyway~ ;P Nothing to worry about~

Oh, good, that was worrying me. *relief*

edit: ninja'd as always! Because everyone seems to be able to type faster than me! o:

edit:
@vampko: I am merely trying to separate the philosophy from the misconceptions ~

And the things you guys said about the aliens and ghosts things... they aren't true. There's tons of evidence aliens could exist, and ghosts are being researched; if they've found out anything about paranormal activity, I wouldn't know though 'cause my knowledge of the paranormal is lacking. You'd have to find out yourself.

The rest of what you said is pretty sound; that's awesome that this doubles as studying for you btw ~

@Jericho: Your topic kicks ass. If that hasn't been said yet.

[vampko]

I wasn't wrong. I said we have no 'proof'. Not 'evidence'. There's a large difference between the two. I myself don't believe in aliens in the way that is sensationalized. Especially not highly technological beings.

[Prinapocalypse]

@Red - Glad I was able to get my point across.

@Jericho: Your topic kicks ass. If that hasn't been said yet.

Agreed with this~

@Vampko - I don't really believe in aliens either, but I used it as an example simply because I don't think it will ever be possible to know for sure they exist, unless they're found/show up. Since the universe is so large.

[Redhorse]

There hasn't been a question in a while. So here is a crappy one! =D

Is it ethical to have pets? Yes, they may live longer and love you, but they can't have as many choices in life. People decide when they can eat, go the bathroom, you put leashes on them, you get them spayed and neutered, etc. But at the same time, on their own, they may make choices that get them hurt (getting hit by cars, etc.). And sometimes it seems more like the animal is bossing you around (cats evolving to make a noise to get you to pet them, etc.). So is it okay to keep an animal? Is this love and mutual benefit and protection? Or is it selfishness and delusions and unfairness?
And what about laws regarding pets, are they very fair? What about laws that force you to put down animals if they bite someone or ones that require you to remove parts of their voice boxes when they bark too loudly?

Taken further, what about livestock? Is it fair to make animals work and draw vehicles, then put them down when they aren't of use any longer? What about chickens forced in small cages and used only for our stealing their eggs? What about pigs that are only raised for a year or two before being killed for food?

Also, is it right to be able to take an animal's children away? Often, we sell the babies of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc, but is that very fair to them?

[Rednal]

In the animal kingdom, some fathers kill their sons so as to have less competition for females.

o wo

Wrong of us to intervene?

[Redhorse]

In the animal kingdom, some fathers kill their sons so as to have less competition for females.

o wo

Wrong of us to intervene?

Question was about pets, livestock, etc. Besides, despite the vagueness of that example, that isn't all that strange. In the human world, people'll kill each other over lesser things, such as bits of green paper.

[dood]

I don't think it's wrong to take freedoms from animals away. Animals are idiots and only run on instinct so I don't really think there's a reason to care about them or what happens to them. I personally hate animals, different reasons for different animals. I don't like the idea of pets though because you have to use money to take care of them and it seems like a waste of time. People can say animals love them but in actuallity animals just stay around us for food.

[SaturnineTenshi]

That, as any morally-charged quandary, would be commanded chiefly by your ethical beliefs. I don't think it's a matter of an apodictic yes or no, just as I don't think murder is inherently immoral or unethical. Oh, it's a sore extreme, and one that will typically—and fervently—marshal a whooping unethical. But, since this is discussion: I think animals taken as pets are our rightful playthings.

Now that isn't a claim of superiority so much as it is an effect of superiority. While humans are by no means omniscient, omnipotent or any godly omni, within our realm we are verily theomorphic. That isn't to say we shouldn't have a code of conduct with respect to our pets; it is however an assertion that we're simply wielding our rank.

That's only my perspective; and even being misanthropic, I'm fairly latitudinarian when it comes to beliefs, including my own. I don't feel there is a right or wrong answer. The same reasoning could be applied to much of the discussion here.

[Prinapocalypse]

I think it's ethical. I know someone who has a cat that's as old as I am! There's no way it would've lived anywhere near that long if it wasn't a pet.

As for livestock, etc, I have no problems with that either, I'm kind of biased though since I like meat.

I feel any house pet should be treated well by their owner though.

[dood]

I think it's ethical. I know someone who has a cat that's as old as I am! There's no way it would've lived anywhere near that long if it wasn't a pet.

As for livestock, etc, I have no problems with that either, I'm kind of biased though since I like meat.

I feel any house pet should be treated well by their owner though.

Yeah but what's the point? Their just animals.

[Prinapocalypse]

Because once they've been a house pet they become reliant on humans and because it should be the owners responsibility to take care of it. They wanted a pet so they should handle the responsibilities that come with that. If they're unable/unwilling to do that, then their unfit to own it.

[Redhorse]

Another question the responses to which I would be interested in:

1) Thoughts on war in general.
2) Is it really possible to be a "war criminal"?
3) the two atomic bombs dropped/ fire bombing in WW2 by the U.S., good or bad, should we have or shouldn't we have
4) opinions on America's system of foreign policy (kinda on the borderline of being philosophical, but meh)
5) is it right to interfere in the affairs of other countries? and if so, when is it okay and when isn't it?
6) Is war justified? Can it ever be?
7) The 20th century was by far the bloodiest century in history. Why do you suppose that is? (duh, because of WWs, etc. mostly, but I mean what do you think was the cause of so much war between humans)
8) Is it ever morally appropriate to target innocent civilians?
9) Are all non-combatants innocent?
10) Are all combatants appropriate targets?
11) Opinions on prisoners of war? Should prisoners even be taken? If so, how should they be treated?
Related quote: "A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him." - Winston Churchill.
12) Should terrorists in other countries who are american citizens be given due process of law? Should we expend lives just to take these people alive?
13) How should a state army deal with civilian human shields, voluntary or involuntary, who protect the enemy with their own bodies? How much risk must the state's soldiers assume to minimize casualties among the civilians on the other side?
14) In war, what actions can be considered immoral?

[SaturnineTenshi]

Another question the responses to which I would be interested in:

1) Thoughts on war in general.
2) Is it really possible to be a "war criminal"?
3) the two atomic bombs dropped/ fire bombing in WW2 by the U.S., good or bad, should we have or shouldn't we have
4) opinions on America's system of foreign policy (kinda on the borderline of being philosophical, but meh)
5) is it right to interfere in the affairs of other countries? and if so, when is it okay and when isn't it?
6) Is war justified? Can it ever be?
7) The 20th century was by far the bloodiest century in history. Why do you suppose that is? (duh, because of WWs, etc. mostly, but I mean what do you think was the cause of so much war between humans)
8) Is it ever morally appropriate to target innocent civilians?
9) Are all non-combatants innocent?
10) Are all combatants appropriate targets?
11) Opinions on prisoners of war? Should prisoners even be taken? If so, how should they be treated?
Related quote: "A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him." - Winston Churchill.
12) Should terrorists in other countries who are american citizens be given due process of law? Should we expend lives just to take these people alive?
13) How should a state army deal with civilian human shields, voluntary or involuntary, who protect the enemy with their own bodies? How much risk must the state's soldiers assume to minimize casualties among the civilians on the other side?
14) In war, what actions can be considered immoral?

1) It happens; in fact, I'd go as far as saying it's doing the world a favor by thinning humanity. Sure, it isn't the most efficient method, but you take what you can get.
2) Only if you lose the war.
3) It's war, not Saturday at the jungle gym. Use whatever means necessary as long as the benefits outweigh the detriments.
4) I don't agree with being jambon-fisted with political and ethical standards.
5) Countries with the power will do it, whether it's right or not.
6) See 1.
7) It wasn't really due to increased antipathy so much as an increase in murder technology.
8) Yes.
9) Nope.
10) Yes.
11) Like you'd treat them on the field of battle.
12) No.
13) Kill them instead of empowering the enemy. It's an unnecessary risk both strategically and when taking into account the lives potentially lost trying to save someone.
14) None.