The PhilPapers forums are now closed to new posts but remain available for viewing. The forums are replaced by the PhilPeople news feed and discussion groups.

Philosophy of Science, Misc

 1 - 7 / 7 
Would like some responses on these thoughts:

Space is the negation of substance, of reality, of being; thus, space is nothing, unreality, non-being.

Can anyone see nothing or imagine nothing? Yes, for space is nothing. To see nothing means to see no thing.

Consequently, we do not see things in space; we see things alone and their negation, viz.,space.

Things do not occupy space. For then, what does space occupy?

Things negate space, i.e. nothing.

Take a plastic bottle of 1 ltr. How much water can it contain? 1 ltr. Squeeze it, can it contain 1 ltr of water? No, why? Because the bottle being squeezed increasingly negates space allowing less negatability for another (meaning that negatibility for it increases at the same time). For perfect density = perfect negation of space; less density = less negation of space. That which is negated cannot be again negated without the destruction of that which negates it.

Zero = infinite; therefore, space = infinite; it can be infinitely negated by things wi ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Because of Copyright, I am not yet in a position to upload this article. If you have any interest, feel free to contact me anytime.  (Author)

James Fetzer’s recent article, “Evolution and atheism: Has Griffin reconciled science and religion?” (Synthese [2011] 178: 381-396) purports to offer a well-founded critique of David Ray Griffin’s philosophical arguments for “a version of theistic evolutionism that can do justice both to the facts that count in favor of evolution and those that count against the neo-Darwinian theory of it” (Griffin, 2000, p 243). Fetzer claims that Griffin’s detailed characterization of neo-Darwinism is inaccurate, “exemplifying the straw man fallacy, where an exaggerated version of a position is presented in order to knock it down” (p. 382). Fetzer not only makes strong claims for the inadequacy of Griffin’s work on evolutionary theory, but also asserts that Griffin has made fundamental errors of logic and argument and is not “morally justified” in holding the views he propounds. Fetzer’s article, however, fails to back up these claims.

Amazingly, Fetzer does not provide any evidence that he has actua ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Springer has commissioned an edited volume in The Frontiers Collection (which deals with forefront topics in science and philosophy) about the singularity hypothesis and related questions, such as the intelligence explosion, acceleration, transhumanism, and whole brain emulation. The book shall examine answers to central questions which reformulate the singularity hypothesis as a coherent and falsifiable conjecture, examine its empirical value, and investigate its the most likely consequences, in particular those associated with existential risks.

Seeking to promote this debate, this edited, peer-reviewed volume shall be concerned with scientific and philosophical analysis of the conjectures related to a technological singularity. We solicit scholarly essays offering a scientific and philosophical analysis of this hypothesis, assess its empirical content, examine relevant evidence, or explore its implications.  Commentary to selected essays will be solicited to develop the discussion.

Imp ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

I have somewhat arbitrarily chosen this thread for this particular posting.  It would be better off perhaps in some thread devoted to teaching, curricula, or related areas; but there don't seem to be any fora appropriate to that at the moment (well, the subtitle of this site does say "research").  In any event ...

I have recently developed a course in "practical ontology" that I will begin to give at North Carolina State University in the fall of 2010.  Initially, this course will have both a traditional classroom variant and a "distance learning" variant.  My intention is not to draw any distinction between these two manifestations of the course, making all material in each available in the other.  Accordingly, for example, the classroom sessions will be video recorded and put on the web for use by the DL students.  The DL part of the course will be taught through the use of pretty sophisticated "virtual classroom" technology, but will al ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


Many medical research protocols pay for medical care for subjects who do not have insurance but bill insurance companies if they do. Is this ethical?

e.g. 2 subjects in a cancer chemo protocol, each has an annual income of $100,000:

A Has chosen to pay for insurance. His insurance is billed for care.

B Has no insurance. He pays nothing.

 Is this ethical?

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

 1 - 7 / 7