Philosophy Now Forum

Joel Marks on why the world needs philosophy.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/90/A_is_for_Assumption

Quote: "The assumption is that the relatively small number of the relatively large objects makes it unlikely that we will be hit by one any time soon. But this is fallacious. The reason is that these events occur at totally random intervals."

This reflects your shallow knowledge of the field. It is your own assumption that is fallacious.

While it is true that NEW objects occur at more-or-less random intervals, even those are not truly random, but tend to happen in known cycles. More to the point, however, is that applies only to NEWLY DISCOVERED objects.

The problem with your assumption is that the "detection and deflection" equipment is being designed to detect precisely those kinds of "random" objects IN TIME for them to be deflected. Since they are being DETECTED in advance, their tendency toward randomness is irrelevant; the goal is to spot them far enough away that they can be shoved aside.

But even more to the point: it is only NEW objects that are "random" (and again, not really even then). But every time one is detected, it is tracked. Therefore we now know exactly where TENS OF THOUSANDS of these objects are, and what their trajectories are, and can reliably predict when, if ever, they are coming near again.

"A" is for "assumption", indeed. You are completely wrong about this particular subject. A planet-buster may be coming our way some day, but those are indeed very rare. We would only expect one every several billion years or so.

But the projects you refer to are aimed at things a little bit less daunting.

Do we have anything that can deflect such things?

Arising_uk wrote:Do we have anything that can deflect such things?

Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck?

-Imp

Philosophy Now wrote:Joel Marks on why the world needs philosophy.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/90/A_is_for_Assumption

And Joel 'assumes' that animals, in no way benefit, as pets or otherwise. Assumption is dealt from a podium where limited perspective dwells. It is difficult to speak of such things without falling into this trap, as often differing perspectives are diametrically opposed, such that they are reduced to weighing apples and oranges to find equation, or more appropriately, enough difference between differing terms, to warrant a decision one way or the other, if that's possible, as the solution in this instance, of weighing apples and oranges, shall probably contain assumption, as further consideration eludes.

At what point of the animals benefit, does it warrant their usage, from either their, or our perspective? Can this relationship honestly, not be seen as symbiotic? I see that as long as your pet happily plays with you, without running away, he's feels it's worth it, what with guaranteed balanced food, regular medical checkup's and shots, and protection from the elements and possible predators. If I remember correctly, the story of the dog at least, started with mutual benefit by wolf and man, there was no captive.

Of course this in no way disagrees with Joel, as far as the need of philosophy goes, as a matter of fact it actually strengthens it. It's Just that some of his argument was not very well thought out, as some of it seems to have actually demonstrated his case on assumption, unintentionally.