This session will be moderated by Greg, who has a PhD in philosophy, specializing in epistemology, theories of knowledge.
It is very difficult, if not impossible, for human beings to base their beliefs on evidence. If we value evidence-based-belief very highly, this can be a difficult idea to live with. If we do not value evidence-based-belief very highly, we will be vulnerable to charlatans, demagogues, and propagandists. How do we cope?
This session will be divided into multiple sections in which the moderator will give a brief presentation before inviting open discussion. No advanced reading is required, but some passages from primary philosophical texts will be introduced as topics of discussion. Recommended reading is listed only for those who want to dive deeper on their own.
Section #1: Overview of Skepticism
Types of skepticism (Academic, Pyrrhonian, Scientific) and other necessary terminology that will give us a foundation for further discussion. Some general arguments for skepticism.
Recommended reading:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement
Section #2: Socrates
Socrates believes that no human being has knowledge of virtue, and can therefore be thought to be a moral skeptic. He nevertheless acts in ways that suggest that he has very strongly held moral beliefs. Is Socrates a skeptic? What can we learn from his philosophical practice?
Recommended reading: Plato, particularly the Meno, but also Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, and Hippias Minor.
Section #3: Montaigne
Michel de Montaigne advocates for Pyrrhonian skepticism on the grounds that it creates room for faith. Is this a contradiction? Is it a model for how to cope with skepticism?
Recommended reading: Michel de Montaigne, Apology for Raymond Sebond
Section #4: Hume
Hume famously argues that scientific beliefs are ultimately unjustified, because they rely on assumptions that cannot be justified either empirically or a priori. In the same text, Hume recommends a form of mitigated skepticism on the grounds that it destroys harmful superstition and metaphysics, in favor of more modest scientific inquiry. Is this a contradiction? Is it a model for how to cope with skepticism?
Recommended reading: David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
| Date: | April 15, 2018 |
|---|---|
| Time: | 01:30-4:45 p.m. |
| Event: | Skepticism in Practice - Seattle SOPHIA Chapter Mtg |
| Sponsor: |
The Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA) 859.257.1849 |
| Venue: |
University Branch - The Seattle Public Library (206) 684-4063 |
| Location: | 5009 Roosevelt Way Northeast Seattle, WA |
| Public: | Public |
If you haven't already, consider joining SOPHIA!
Check out this cool event that the Seattle SOPHIA Chapter organized on “Artificial Intelligence and Doomsday,” posted on MeetUp.com. Here are a few pictures from the gathering:
Photos courtesy of Gene Lin.
It looks like a great group. The event details on their MeetUp.com page reads as follows:
Is AI an existential threat to humanity? This will be a philosophically oriented discussion of the issue (but we will have at least one AI expert in attendance). We will consider the work of the philosopher Nick Bostrom, the philosophical engine behind an idea which has been championed by Elon Musk, and supported by people such as Bill Gates, Steven Hawking, and Stuart Russell.
There is no required reading, but some potentially helpful links are below:
Good summary of the issues from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence
An argument for AI safety, with a good table summarizing the various “myths” around advanced artificial intelligence – for example, the myth that machines cannot have goals, or the myth that potential AI consciousness is a relevant issue.
https://futureoflife.org/background/benefits-risks-of-artificial-intelligence/
Some profiles of a few prominent people involved in the AI safety movement:
Article about Bostrom:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom
Article about Elon Musk’s crusade:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x
If you live in or near Seattle, Washington, consider joining this chapter here and meeting up with them! Their next event is scheduled for May, 2018.
John Lachs of Vanderbilt University
This piece was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1988 and inspired a firestorm of responses. Dr. John Lachs proposed this as a one-sheet document for a conversation that he and Executive Director Weber organized in Oxford, MS, in 2008 on “Ethics at the End of Life.” This one-sheet document was hugely successful for spurring inspired yet civil conversation about values at the end of life, as well as whether there should be freedom in end-of-life decision-making, what sort, and what kinds of policies make sense for end-of-life circumstances. The JAMA withheld the name of the author this piece by request.
Printable PDF.
The document is available on the JAMA Web site as an image file. For a printable, searchable (OCR’d) version, click here, on the Adobe PDF logo on right, or on the image here below:
Printable version
Courtesy of the South Puget Sound SOPHIA Chapter
By Dr. Sergia Hay, Dr. Michael Rings, and Matthew Salzano
First used on March 5, 2018 at Pacific Lutheran University
Topic:
Hay
Questions for conversation:
1) How can we have productive discussions when there is disagreement?
Rings
2) What does it mean to have a “productive” discussion when there is disagreement?
3) Can tools from philosophy help in these discussions?
4) What are the roles of reason and emotion in these discussions?
Salzano
5) Are there strategies to use (or avoid) in these discussions?
6) Are there times when it is advisable not to engage in these discussions?
Additional Resources:
David Bohm, On Dialogue (New York: Routledge Press 2004), http://amzn.to/2FCdb75.
Daniel Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (New York: Norton Publishing, 2014), http://amzn.to/2DeUS2C.
John Dewey, How We Think (New York: Dover Thrift Editions, 1910/2002), http://amzn.to/2Fplxjn.
Jennifer Lackey, The Epistemology of Disagreement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), http://amzn.to/2GarlKy.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (New York: Dover Thrift Editions, 1859/2002), http://amzn.to/2ty2PQY.
“Disagreement,” Philosophy Talk [Radio], Sunday, December 5, 2010, https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/disagreement.
Bryan Frances, “Disagreement,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/.
What: Talk about Euthanasia & a LexSOPHIA Chapter
When: Friday, March 30th from 5 – 6:30 pm
Where: Common Grounds Coffeeshop (back room reserved for us)
At this first meeting of the Lexington SOPHIA Chapter, LexSOPHIA, we’ll be talking about a controversial 1-page piece that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, called “It’s Over Debbie.” It’s about euthanasia and is very useful for getting people talking about some important philosophical ideas about life, death, ethics, medical procedure, the law, and more. It’s really fun to talk about. Don’t worry, there’s no homework!
After an hour or so, we’ll talk about a next meeting and the future of the LexSOPHIA chapter. Join us if you can!
Add the event to your calendar
For those who can’t attend, send us your thoughts about:
a) Whether you’d like to be part of such a chapter;
b) What you’d enjoy talking about;
c) What days and times work for you, if this first meeting didn’t.
Email SOPHIA Executive Director Eric Thomas Weber if you have any thoughts, comments, or questions regarding this event or accessibility needs.
| Date: | March 30, 2018 |
|---|---|
| Time: | 05:00-6:30 p.m. |
| Event: | Talk about Euthanasia & Found LexSOPHIA Chapter! |
| Sponsor: |
The Society of Philosophers in America (SOPHIA) 859.257.1849 |
| Venue: |
Common Grounds Coffee Shop (room reserved for us) 859.233.9761 |
| Location: | 343 E High St Lexington, KY 40507 USA |
| Public: | Public |
| Registration: | Click here to register. |
There's no requirement to join SOPHIA to participate, but if you're interested, you can JOIN HERE!
