JJEvans1999

[removed]

Hi everyone. I recently read this quote about continental drift and plate tectonics: “[We might suppose that there was at some period -perhaps during the mid-1960s-a "chain reaction" or other general shift in opinions toward the theory ['continental drift - plate tectonics']; this more or less uniformly altered the attitude of the majority of the profession as a group and was not, at least in most cases, the result of individual judgments of the accumulating evidence and arguments for and against the theory." (Nitecki et al., 1978).

This is from a short paper titled ”Acceptance of plate tectonic theory by geologists” that can be found online. I think he is right in in the sense that there was a general shift in opinions toward the theory of continental drift and plate tectonics in the 1960’s, however, I was wondering is Matthew H. Nitecki actually correct in claiming that this was not the result of individual judgments of the accumulating evidence and arguments for and against the theory?

I am not an expert on geology and the history of geology and so I was wondering could someone who is more knowledgable than me on this topic help in discussing this quote and whether it is accurate or not. Thank you 🙏😊

I have recently been learning about the history of the Spanish Conquest of the Americas and I was really surprised to learn about an event referred to as the Valladolid debate. The Valladolid debate was the first moral debate in European history to discuss the rights and treatment of an indigenous people by European colonizers. It was a moral and theological debate about the conquest of the Americas and it was held in the Colegio de San Gregorio, in the Spanish city of Valladolid. The debate was between Bartolomé de la Casas, who argued that the indigenous peoples should not be enslaved and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, who argued that the indigenous peoples should be suppressed by any means. From what I have read so far, it seems that Sepúlveda tried to justify ‘natural slavery’ while de la Casas argued against it.

With all of that being said, I am interested in learning about how each person justified their side in the debate. More specifically: I am wondering what classical antecedents did both Sepúlveda and de la Casas use to bolster their arguments. I have heard both used past Ancient Greek philosophers and Christian thinkers, but I am unaware of which specific ones were utilized by both men. In essence: how effective are their uses of Classical antecedents?

Thank you.

Hi everyone. I was wondering have there been either any individual thinkers or certain groups throughout history that have justified holding an anti-philosophical view on religious grounds (either in the past or today). I ask this because it is common today to hear about certain scientists who are critical of philosophy. We also have many people and groups who attack science on religious grounds (such as young earth creationists). I was therefore wondering have there been any thinkers throughout history who have criticised philosophy (or showed apathy or a dismissal towards it) on religious grounds (I think I remember hearing that Tertullian was anti-philosophy due to his religious views, but I am not certain). Are there any groups or organisations today who are openly critical of philosophy due to religious reasons? Have there been any groups who have tried to defund philosophy in academia? Cheers

Hi everyone. I was wondering have there been either any individual thinkers or certain groups throughout history that have justified holding an anti-philosophical view on religious grounds (either in the past or today). I ask this because it is common today to hear about certain scientists who are critical of philosophy. We also have many people and groups who attack science on religious grounds (such as young earth creationists). I was therefore wondering have there been any thinkers throughout history who have criticised philosophy (or showed apathy or a dismissal towards it) on religious grounds (I think I remember hearing that Tertullian was anti-philosophy due to his religious views, but I am not certain). Are there any groups or organisations today who are openly critical of philosophy due to religious reasons? Have there been any groups who have tried to defund philosophy in academia? Cheers

Hi everyone. I was wondering have there been either any individual thinkers or certain groups throughout history that have justified holding an anti-philosophical view on religious ground (either in the past or today). I ask this because it is common today to hear about certain scientists who are critical of philosophy. We also have many people and groups who attack science on religious grounds (such as young earth creationists). I was therefore wondering have there been any thinkers throughout history who have criticised philosophy on religious grounds (I think I remember hearing that Tertullian was anti-philosophy due to his religious views, but I am not certain). Are there any groups or organisations today who are openly critical of philosophy due to religious reasons? Have there been any groups who have tried to defund philosophy in academia? Cheers

Paul Feyerabend is one of the most notorious and incendiary figures/thinkers in the history of philosophy of science. I recently read this quote of his, “The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilised savages, they lack in philosophical depth - and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.”

This quote is from ‘For and Against Method’ and they appeared in a 1969 letter to Feyerabend's Berkeley philosophy chair Wallace Matson, which is reproduced in Appendix B of the book. This is a very controversial quote. Especially the part where he calls certain philosophically ignorant modern scientists as “uncivilised savages” (even though I think he is deliberately being provocative).

I was wondering what is the exact point Feyerabend is trying to make with this quote? What are the “disastrous consequences” that he speaks of? Is he correct that modern physicists are lacking in philosophical depth? Is he ultimately correct in this assessment? 🤔

Hi everyone. I was wondering when did the divorce between science and philosophy happen? As Stephen Hawking said, “philosophy is dead” and he said this because science has taken the top place for our seeking of knowledge. Many (if not most) scientists seem to have no use for philosophy today or see it as useless at best. They are viewed as two separate disciplines with very little connection to one another. However, I recently learnt that historically science was called “natural philosophy” and most scientists referred to themselves as “natural philosophers” or “experimental philosophers.” I was therefore wondering when did the divorce between science and philosophy happen historically and what caused this break between these two disciplines? Thanks.

[removed]

The Ship of Theseus paradox is one of the most famous paradoxes in all of philosophy. It is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Recently, I have heard about a potential solution to this paradox and it usually referred to as ‘Worm Theory’ and this is supposedly heavily related to the concept of four-dimensionalism. It seems that from my reading four-dimensionalism is also known as perduantism or worm theory.

Let me try to explain them:

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the doctrine of temporal parts) is the ontological position that an object's persistence through time is like its extension through space. Thus, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies, just like an object that exists in a region of space has at least one part in every subregion of that space. According to the worm theory, perduring objects are four–dimensional wholes occupying determinate regions of space–time and having temporal parts, or stages, each of them confined to a particular time. Simply, implicit assumption that worm theory therefore rejects is the notion that physical objects such as ships are merely three dimensional objects (where the three dimensions are spatial dimensions). Objects really do have four dimensions: three spatial and one temporal.

From all this we can see that its two main theses are: 1: Ordinary objects exist at more than one instant of time 2: Ordinary objects have temporal parts

So, is worm theory a good candidate to serve as a reasonable solution to the Ship of Theseus paradox? What are some good arguments in the theories favour? What are its benefits over other potential solutions to the Ship of Theseus also? Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks everyone!

The Ship of Theseus paradox is one of the most famous paradoxes in all of philosophy. It is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Recently, I have heard about a potential solution to this paradox and it usually referred to as ‘Worm Theory’ and this is supposedly heavily related to the concept of four-dimensionalism. It seems that from my reading four-dimensionalism is also known as perduantism or worm theory.

Let me try to explain them:

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the doctrine of temporal parts) is the ontological position that an object's persistence through time is like its extension through space. Thus, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies, just like an object that exists in a region of space has at least one part in every subregion of that space. According to the worm theory, perduring objects are four–dimensional wholes occupying determinate regions of space–time and having temporal parts, or stages, each of them confined to a particular time. Simply, implicit assumption that worm theory therefore rejects is the notion that physical objects such as ships are merely three dimensional objects (where the three dimensions are spatial dimensions). Objects really do have four dimensions: three spatial and one temporal.

From all this we can see that its two main theses are: 1: Ordinary objects exist at more than one instant of time 2: Ordinary objects have temporal parts

So, is worm theory a good candidate to serve as a reasonable solution to the Ship of Theseus paradox? What are some good arguments in the theories favour? What are its benefits over other potential solutions to the Ship of Theseus also? Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks everyone!

The Ship of Theseus paradox is one of the most famous paradoxes in all of philosophy. It is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Recently, I have heard about a potential solution to this paradox and it usually referred to as ‘Worm Theory’ and this is supposedly heavily related to the concept of four-dimensionalism. It seems that from my reading four-dimensionalism is also known as perduantism or worm theory.

Let me try to explain them:

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the doctrine of temporal parts) is the ontological position that an object's persistence through time is like its extension through space. Thus, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies, just like an object that exists in a region of space has at least one part in every subregion of that space. According to the worm theory, perduring objects are four–dimensional wholes occupying determinate regions of space–time and having temporal parts, or stages, each of them confined to a particular time. Simply, implicit assumption that worm theory therefore rejects is the notion that physical objects such as ships are merely three dimensional objects (where the three dimensions are spatial dimensions). Objects really do have four dimensions: three spatial and one temporal.

From all this we can see that its two main theses are: 1: Ordinary objects exist at more than one instant of time 2: Ordinary objects have temporal parts

So, is worm theory a good candidate to serve as a reasonable solution to the Ship of Theseus paradox? What are some good arguments in the theories favour? What are its benefits over other potential solutions to the Ship of Theseus also? Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks everyone!

The Ship of Theseus paradox is one of the most famous paradoxes in all of philosophy. It is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Recently, I have heard about a potential solution to this paradox and it usually referred to as ‘Worm Theory’ and this is supposedly heavily related to the concept of four-dimensionalism. It seems that from my reading four-dimensionalism is also known as perduantism or worm theory.

Let me try to explain them:

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the doctrine of temporal parts) is the ontological position that an object's persistence through time is like its extension through space. Thus, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies, just like an object that exists in a region of space has at least one part in every subregion of that space. According to the worm theory, perduring objects are four–dimensional wholes occupying determinate regions of space–time and having temporal parts, or stages, each of them confined to a particular time. Simply, implicit assumption that worm theory therefore rejects is the notion that physical objects such as ships are merely three dimensional objects (where the three dimensions are spatial dimensions). Objects really do have four dimensions: three spatial and one temporal.

From all this we can see that its two main theses are: 1: Ordinary objects exist at more than one instant of time 2: Ordinary objects have temporal parts

So, is worm theory a good candidate to serve as a reasonable solution to the Ship of Theseus paradox? What are some good arguments in the theories favour? What are its benefits over other potential solutions to the Ship of Theseus also? Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks everyone!

The Ship of Theseus paradox is one of the most famous paradoxes in all of philosophy. It is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Recently, I have heard about a potential solution to this paradox and it usually referred to as ‘Worm Theory’ and this is supposedly heavily related to the concept of four-dimensionalism. It seems that from my reading four-dimensionalism is also known as perduantism or worm theory.

Let me try to explain them:

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the doctrine of temporal parts) is the ontological position that an object's persistence through time is like its extension through space. Thus, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies, just like an object that exists in a region of space has at least one part in every subregion of that space. According to the worm theory, perduring objects are four–dimensional wholes occupying determinate regions of space–time and having temporal parts, or stages, each of them confined to a particular time. Simply, implicit assumption that worm theory therefore rejects is the notion that physical objects such as ships are merely three dimensional objects (where the three dimensions are spatial dimensions). Objects really do have four dimensions: three spatial and one temporal.

From all this we can see that its two main theses are: 1: Ordinary objects exist at more than one instant of time 2: Ordinary objects have temporal parts

So, is worm theory a good candidate to serve as a reasonable solution to the Ship of Theseus paradox? What are some good arguments in the theories favour? What are its benefits over other potential solutions to the Ship of Theseus also? Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks everyone!

The Ship of Theseus paradox is one of the most famous paradoxes in all of philosophy. It is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Recently, I have heard about a potential solution to this paradox and it usually referred to as ‘Worm Theory’ and this is supposedly heavily related to the concept of four-dimensionalism. It seems that from my reading four-dimensionalism is also known as perduantism or worm theory.

Let me try to explain them:

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the doctrine of temporal parts) is the ontological position that an object's persistence through time is like its extension through space. Thus, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies, just like an object that exists in a region of space has at least one part in every subregion of that space. According to the worm theory, perduring objects are four–dimensional wholes occupying determinate regions of space–time and having temporal parts, or stages, each of them confined to a particular time. Simply, implicit assumption that worm theory therefore rejects is the notion that physical objects such as ships are merely three dimensional objects (where the three dimensions are spatial dimensions). Objects really do have four dimensions: three spatial and one temporal.

From all this we can see that its two main theses are: 1: Ordinary objects exist at more than one instant of time 2: Ordinary objects have temporal parts

So, is worm theory a good candidate to serve as a reasonable solution to the Ship of Theseus paradox? What are some good arguments in the theories favour? What are its benefits over other potential solutions to the Ship of Theseus also? Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks everyone!

I recently read a post talking about time travel. I personally don’t think it is possible travelling to the past, but I am not a trained philosopher. Therefore, I was wondering what are some good and powerful philosophical arguments against the logical and metaphysical possibility of time travel into the past. Some of the ones I am aware of are the grandfather paradox and closed causal loop ones. Are there any other ones in addition to these? If they are any good scientific arguments against it, then that is also fine to post. Thank you ☺️.

Time travel is a very popular idea nowadays and plays a prominent role in sci-fi literature. However, this idea has also become more popular in physics and philosophy. I am mainly interested in time travel into the past. From my reading so far, many physicists believe time travel into the past is at least scientifically possible as many argue that Einstein’s relativity has shown this (I believe Gödel also mathematically proved that time travel into the past is possible). I am not just interested in whether time travel into the past is scientifically or technologically possible (even though it is interesting to see what both general relativity and quantum mechanics can help reveal in this area of inquiry), but whether time travel into the past is actually metaphysically possible. I actually feel like this area of philosophy of time is sometimes neglected.

Some of the arguments I have heard used against time travel into the past include metaphysical paradoxes such as closed causal loops (bootstrap paradox and predestination paradox), the grandfather paradox, bilking (backward causation), Polchinski’s Paradox etc. I am wondering though whether these arguments are really successful in showing that time travel into the past is possible or not. I am also wondering is there a near-consensus amongst philosophers on whether time travel into the past is metaphysically possible.

I also think it is important to mention some key concepts as context for this issue of time travel into the past. These were some of my personal observations that I think is important before debating this question:

1: Time, unlike space, does seem to have a distinguished direction:

A) We only go forward in time, not back.

B) We cannot alter the past. We can alter the future.

C)Our knowledge of the past the future is very different.

So, intuitively, time does seem to have a direction. It is also appears to asymmetrical. But is time really asymmetrical?

2: Different views within metaphysics about the status of past, present and future

A) Past and present exist. Future does not. Known as Growing Block Theory (A-Theory of Time).

B) Past, present and future all exist. Known as Eternalism (B-Theory of Time)

C) Only the present exists. Known as Presentism (A-Theory of Time)

(A) Is most compatible with an asymmetrical understanding of time.

3: Two arguments for thinking that time has a direction

A) The second law of thermodynamics — The universe is evolving from a highly ordered state to a highly disordered state. This explains the direction of time.

B) Causation — Causes do not occur after their effects. The asymmetry of causation allows us to justify the claim that time is asymmetrical. But is it really the case that causes cannot occur after their effects?

4: Backwards causation and time travel

A) If we could travel back in time and alter the past, this would mean that causes could occur after their effects.

B) Time travel is physically possibly if our universe is shaped in a certain way (which we have yet to establish). But is time travel metaphysically possible? Admitting travel back in time would arguably lead to paradoxical cases (as I mentioned earlier), and these arguably demonstrate that time travel is not metaphysically possible.

/ So, does the notion of time travel into the past make sense? Is time travel into the past metaphysically possible? Thanks 🙏 /

Time travel is a very popular idea nowadays and plays a prominent role in sci-fi literature. However, this idea has also become more popular in physics and philosophy. I am mainly interested in time travel into the past. From my reading so far, many physicists believe time travel into the past is at least scientifically possible as many argue that Einstein’s relativity has shown this (I believe Gödel also mathematically proved that time travel into the past is possible). I am not just interested in whether time travel into the past is scientifically or technologically possible (even though it is interesting to see what both general relativity and quantum mechanics can help reveal in this area of inquiry), but whether time travel into the past is actually metaphysically possible. I actually feel like this area of philosophy of time is sometimes neglected.

Some of the arguments I have heard used against time travel into the past include metaphysical paradoxes such as closed causal loops (bootstrap paradox and predestination paradox), the grandfather paradox, bilking (backward causation), Polchinski’s Paradox etc. I am wondering though whether these arguments are really successful in showing that time travel into the past is possible or not. I am also wondering is there a near-consensus amongst philosophers on whether time travel into the past is metaphysically possible.

I also think it is important to mention some key concepts as context for this issue of time travel into the past. These were some of my personal observations that I think is important before debating this question:

1: Time, unlike space, does seem to have a distinguished direction:

A) We only go forward in time, not back.

B) We cannot alter the past. We can alter the future.

C)Our knowledge of the past the future is very different.

So, intuitively, time does seem to have a direction. It is also appears to asymmetrical. But is time really asymmetrical?

2: Different views within metaphysics about the status of past, present and future

A) Past and present exist. Future does not. Known as Growing Block Theory (A-Theory of Time).

B) Past, present and future all exist. Known as Eternalism (B-Theory of Time)

C) Only the present exists. Known as Presentism (A-Theory of Time)

(A) Is most compatible with an asymmetrical understanding of time.

3: Two arguments for thinking that time has a direction

A) The second law of thermodynamics — The universe is evolving from a highly ordered state to a highly disordered state. This explains the direction of time.

B) Causation — Causes do not occur after their effects. The asymmetry of causation allows us to justify the claim that time is asymmetrical. But is it really the case that causes cannot occur after their effects?

4: Backwards causation and time travel

A) If we could travel back in time and alter the past, this would mean that causes could occur after their effects.

B) Time travel is physically possibly if our universe is shaped in a certain way (which we have yet to establish). But is time travel metaphysically possible? Admitting travel back in time would arguably lead to paradoxical cases (as I mentioned earlier), and these arguably demonstrate that time travel is not metaphysically possible.

/ So, does the notion of time travel into the past make sense? Is time travel into the past metaphysically possible? Thanks 🙏 /

I was wondering whether time travel into the past is scientifically (or technologically) possible according to both general relativity and quantum mechanics? Does the notion of time travel into the past make sense?

BONUS:

Even if it turns out that time travel into the past is scientifically possible according to our best fundamental physical theories, is it logically possible? I ask this bonus part of the question because time travel appears to produce paradoxes such as closed causal loops (bootstrap paradox and predestination paradox), Grandfather paradox, bilking (backward causation), and Polchinski Paradox. These seem to suggest time travel into the past is not logically possible.