Philosophy

Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees

Russell's teapot , sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot , is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion . Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God . Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

A Devil's Chaplain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Devil%27s_Chaplain

A Devil's Chaplain , subtitled Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love is a 2003 book of selected essays and other writings by Richard Dawkins . Published five years after his previous book Unweaving the Rainbow , it contains 32 essays covering subjects including pseudoscience , genetic determinism , memetics , terrorism , religion and creationism . A section of the book is devoted to Dawkins' late adversary Stephen Jay Gould . The book's title is a reference to a quotation of Charles Darwin , made in reference to Darwin's lack of belief in how "a perfect world" was designed by God : "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!"

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to discourage reliance on teleological arguments for God's existence. [ 1 ] [ edit ] Origins of the term The term goes back to Henry Drummond , a 19th century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology." [ 2 ] [ 3 ]

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

The intentional stance is a term coined by philosopher Daniel Dennett for the level of abstraction in which we view the behavior of a thing in terms of mental properties . It is part of a theory of mental content proposed by Dennett, which provides the underpinnings of his later works on free will , consciousness , folk psychology , and evolution . "Here is how it works: first you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance

Intentional stance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting number paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The interesting number paradox is a semi-humorous paradox that arises from attempting to classify natural numbers as "interesting" or "dull". The paradox states that all natural numbers are interesting. The "proof" is by contradiction : if there were uninteresting numbers, there would be a smallest uninteresting number – but the smallest uninteresting number is itself interesting because it is the smallest uninteresting number, producing a contradiction. Claim: There is no such thing as an uninteresting natural number .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox

Vierdimensionalität wird vernachlässigt: Zunächst sind alle gefundenen uninteressant (Zustand I), dann wird es die erste (und weitere anderen) nicht mehr (Zustand II). Die zweite wird aber nicht dadurch interessant, weil Zustand I neben Zustand II exisitiert und man die erste Zahl als veränderte in der Zeit erfährt, die zweite Zahl also ihren Charakter beibehält (Zustand IIIa). Dies ist ein Weg, das Paradoxon abzuschließen. Allerdings kann auch bei der Wahrnehmung ein streng definitorischer Ansatz verfolgt werden: Jetzt ist eben die zweite Zahl die erste, das Set hat sich geändert (vierdim.). Dadurch könnte die zweite Zahl als "neue erste" Zahl interessant werden, als die erste nach dem Wechsel. Das "Interesse" ebbt aber wohl schon bei der dritten ab, weil dann jede neue durch den Veränderungsalgorithmus bereits vorher bekannt ist und dadurch nur der Algorithmus interessant war. Ab einem gewissen Zeitpunkt nach x "Wechseln" bleibt die nächste, neue erste Zahl trotzdem uninteressant. by blablablaaa Jan 5