tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post1574457889071737878..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Missing Chapter from "The Complete Philosophy Files" (The Outer Limits)Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62945899282048443942013-04-10T11:18:49.368+00:002013-04-10T11:18:49.368+00:00Dr Law,
I have to agree with Paul that the observe...Dr Law,<br />I have to agree with Paul that the observed effects of a mirror are more simply and more accurately explained by physics and specifically optics. The way the question is posed and answered in your example relates more to human (mis?)perception than the physical nature of reflection. <br />You also present this as a philosophical problem and solution. However, the process you illustrate to formulate the solution appears scientific as it is based on observation, empirical testing, hypothesis generation and repetition of these elements. You propose this as an armchair exercise or a thought experiment, but it is dependent on actual observation and experimentation. <br /><br />Picking up on the questions you addressed to Paul. In my opinion, philosophy is most effective in codifying and interpreting human thought, constrained as it is by language. The question and answer you propose don't address the physical nature of the universe, but rather our perception of it. Thus philosophy, in the questions it raises and the solutions it proposes, is essentially a study of human thought processes and human nature (our need to understand/define our place in the universe).<br />I would propose that science (though the two are inextricably linked) has and will have more success in determining the physical nature of the universe. <br /> Richard Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19366261213576688862013-04-08T07:26:54.627+00:002013-04-08T07:26:54.627+00:00Legitimate ones i mean. What is yr opinion of phil...Legitimate ones i mean. What is yr opinion of philosophy?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-59515768055660143052013-04-08T07:25:07.187+00:002013-04-08T07:25:07.187+00:00Incidently Paul do you thonk there are any philoso...Incidently Paul do you thonk there are any philosophical questions?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31509854982321597862013-04-08T07:23:22.278+00:002013-04-08T07:23:22.278+00:00Paul the point you make with lightnulbs is actuall...Paul the point you make with lightnulbs is actually made in the chapter using a clock face. It does mot explain the asymmetry. That is explained by assumed axis of rotation.<br /><br />Knowing what happens otically does not explain the leftright topbottom asymmetry, which is explained as in the chpt.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86486726762748179732013-04-08T05:41:11.569+00:002013-04-08T05:41:11.569+00:00Imagine a camera facing a mirror. To the left of ...Imagine a camera facing a mirror. To the left of the camera is a red light bulb. To the right of the camera is a green light bulb. Take a picture. In the picture the red light will be on the left and the green light will be on the right. Nothing is flipped. Don't imagine a person standing behind the mirror looking back at you - that just muddies the waters. That "person" only looks like a turned-around version of you because humans are more or less left/right symmetrical.<br /><br />In order to see an object, a ray of light has to go from the object to your eye. This is a concept that is missing here. When that ray hits a mirror it bounces off according to "angle of incidence equals angle of reflection." Otherwise it travels in a straight line. That explains everything about plane mirrors. The branch of physics that deals with this is known as "optics."<br /><br />An object's mirror image cannot be superimposed on the object by any rotation or movement. You can't describe mirror image symmetry as a combination of translations and rotations. Example: your left hand and your right hand. <br /><br />I'm a great admirer of Richard Dawkins but this isn't his field. Ask an optical physicist.<br />I'm one but there are lots of others.<br /><br />PaulPaulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56460618644067727562013-04-05T00:00:56.133+00:002013-04-05T00:00:56.133+00:00Great - thanks for the book advice. I'll get o...Great - thanks for the book advice. I'll get ordering.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466320424445351791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6786184589817658822013-04-04T18:56:11.914+00:002013-04-04T18:56:11.914+00:00Maybe we're arguing about terminology (a philo...Maybe we're arguing about terminology (a philosophical argument?). It's not that I reject the explanation; I reject the question "Why do mirrors reverse left and right, but not top and bottom?", though not the question "...why [do] people describe mirrors as reversing left right but not top bottom?".<br /><br><br />I reject the first question because mirrors don't do that (per my explanation). The correct physical model provides simpler explanations of what you see. For the second question, the reason people jump to the wrong physical model may be related to the [approximate] bilateral symmetry of humans and possibly to "hard wiring" of facial recognition (I am not a cognitive psychologist) or related to unexamined philosophical assumptions (I am not a philosopher [obviously]).<br /><br><br />I guess I'm trying to understand why you believe this optical illusion has more philosophical significance than the "line length" or "rotating snake" illusions. The latter even affecting <a href="www.youtube.com/watch?v=muUg4GZ7c_E" rel="nofollow">cats</a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03638059691645940108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7706263073745909152013-04-04T17:15:49.130+00:002013-04-04T17:15:49.130+00:00In short you reject the expl given in the chpt but...In short you reject the expl given in the chpt but now give the explanation given in the chapter when you say "The mirror didn't reverse "AMBULANCE", you did when you held the paper facing away from you"!Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77298533971235622242013-04-04T17:13:32.656+00:002013-04-04T17:13:32.656+00:00Front back does not explain why we say left right ...Front back does not explain why we say left right rather than top bottom. That the reversal is produced by the observers choice of axis of rotation is precisely the explanation offered in the chpt. Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-41231794445473677512013-04-04T13:45:40.349+00:002013-04-04T13:45:40.349+00:00Mirrors reverse neither "left and right"...Mirrors reverse neither "left and right" nor "top and bottom"; "front and back" explains everything. <br>For your print example, suppose the paper the writing is on is transparent (an overhead projector transparency if you're as old as I am). Then the writing as seen in the mirror is exactly what you see through the paper. The mirror didn't reverse "AMBULANCE", you did when you held the paper facing away from you. <br>I suppose the misattribution of agency can be a philosophical problem, though [evolutionary] psychologists might disagree.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03638059691645940108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50614142675479406012013-04-04T07:04:02.378+00:002013-04-04T07:04:02.378+00:00Hicsara i would try my really really big questions...Hicsara i would try my really really big questions about life the universe and everything. Nothing too disturbing in there. The philosophy files has been read by a 7 year old but is harder.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3799594439359161572013-04-04T06:56:40.843+00:002013-04-04T06:56:40.843+00:00Paul - which bit of what you say above explains wh...Paul - which bit of what you say above explains why people describe mirrors as reversing left right but not top bottom?<br /><br />Ditto neil.<br /><br />Yes mirrors reverse front back and yes the way light is reflected is clear but neither of these observations, as they stand, explain the asymmetry. <br /><br />To suppose they do is to miss the point.<br /><br />Nb richard dawkins rightly endorsed the explanation given in this chpt in our recent video discussion btw.<br />Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31490572939357487742013-04-04T04:40:59.042+00:002013-04-04T04:40:59.042+00:00Mr. Law,
You couldn't possibly be more wrong h...Mr. Law,<br />You couldn't possibly be more wrong here. A few minutes on Wikipedia (look up mirror or mirror image) will inform you that the properties of a mirror are completely explained by the simple principle that "angle of incidence equals angle of reflection." Light rays bouncing off a mirror MUST obey this principle. No children are required to stand on their heads - no storms or Aunties are needed either. The concept is taught in any basic physics class and there's nothing more to it. Reflection of light, the fundamental physical principle at work here, has been understood for centuries. All of your statements about "axis of rotation" only obscure the correct understanding, since nothing is being rotated (the image in the mirror only seems to be rotated because of the approximate symmetry of the human body - a one-armed man would notice immediately that his mirror image is not a rotated version of himself). What is happening is reflection, not rotation. Your "fact" that science cannot explain how mirrors work is false and utterly ridiculous. I suggest before offering your bogus views about science you either learn some, or at least talk to someone who already has. Consider yourself lucky that this embarrassing chapter did not make it into the book.<br /><br />A Physics Ph.D. from CaliforniaPaulhttp://www.fernside.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-41482929701596795912013-04-03T23:12:27.919+00:002013-04-03T23:12:27.919+00:00Dear Dr Law
I am looking for a philosophy book for...Dear Dr Law<br />I am looking for a philosophy book for my 7 year old daughter and would be really grateful if you would recommend something. I haven't been able to find info about what age your childrens books are suitable for. My daughter is a great reader, so being able to read the text isn't an issue. Emotionally though she is still 7 :-)<br />Thanks and kind regards<br />SaraAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466320424445351791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-27585579364814575422013-04-03T15:11:30.511+00:002013-04-03T15:11:30.511+00:00I think the discussion misses the point. Let some...I think the discussion misses the point. Let someone walk around the glass without turning at all, so that they seem to be facing the same direction as before. Now compare this with the mirror image and you can see that what the mirror does is reverse <i>front and back</i>.<br><br />This also explains the [missed] point in the discussion that when they were on their sides their "left and right" directions, in an absolute sense, were what they were calling "up and down" before.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03638059691645940108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2446834940436512112013-03-28T14:34:12.453+00:002013-03-28T14:34:12.453+00:00Hi!
This isn't really a comment about this blo...Hi!<br />This isn't really a comment about this blogpost, but I didn't know where else to go with this.<br />I'm just reading your book "believing bullshit", which I genuinely enjoy. But here's the thing: You should fire your editor (or at least give him/her a good old spanking ^^). <br />I only speak English as a second language, but I still found about 4 mistakes in the first 170 pages. I do know that the occasional typo will slip through, but there should limits to this. Especially when you reference a book that has the word "intellectual" in its title, you should take care not to misspell, simply to avoid the irony. (I'm talking about "Intellectual Impostures" of course)<br /><br />Other than that: Nice read, I'll finish it this evening.<br /><br />Best wishes from Germany.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com