Cafe Philo in New York City next week, Thursday, 5/3/2012: Wisdom and Intelligence - is there a difference, and what is it?

(Please note the new time: 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM!!)

 

Please join Café Philo New York City next week, on Thursday, May 3, 2012 to discuss the topic "Wisdom and Intelligence - is there a difference, and what is it?" Please use Meetup to register (for free), but walk-ins are also permitted.

 

The topics suggested for the upcoming meeting and their votes (out of 10 attendees):

1. Stigma. (6)
2. Obsession. (4)
3. Joy. (0)
4. Anger. (5)
5. What makes an ideal couple? (5)
6. What have you examined lately? (2)
7. What is the most powerful art form and why? (5)
8. Would dueling be beneficial to democratic society? (3)
9. Should you always be genuine? (5)
10. Wisdom and Intelligence - is there a difference, and what is it? (7) *
11. What are we to do with the fact value distinction? (2)
12. Does determinism entail predestination? (1)
13. Superstition. (1)
14. What does society owe its members? (3)
15. Is philosophy a kind of writing? (6)
16. Nature vs. nurture? (6)

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending as a participant.

 

As usual, the meeting will be held from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Afghan Restaurant at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

 

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

 

There are also usually some attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Pub for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

 

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

 

-- Jack Krupansky

 

Was George Zimmerman "depraved" when he shot Trayvon Martin?

I wasn't terribly surprised that the prosecutor decided to prosecute George Zimmerman for shooting Trayvon Martin, but the second-degree murder charge was an eye-opener. None of the "evidence" presented in the media to-date seemed to support that charge. Manslaughter or negligence maybe, but was George really "depraved"? It doesn't seem so.

 

I see that there are several possibilities to explain the charge:

1. There is some secret evidence that the prosecutor has uncovered that has not yet come to light in the media. Hey, it is possible... but unlikely, especially since it would have to strongly contradict evidence already presented in the media.
2. It was a "bone" thrown to the "enraged" African-American community. Even if the charge doesn't stick and George is acquitted, at least the family/community will have "had their day in court", which may be all they may really be after. In other words, George will ultimately walk, but the family/community can claim "justice was served" (sort of.)
3. This is just the start, to get our attention, and the prosecution may eventually add a separate manslaughter charge (and possibly other charges) so that a jury could fall back to manslaughter or even assault or negligence if they find that the second-degree murder charge doesn't stick.
4. This is just... "Florida Justice", as usual. Despite it's label and reputation as "The Sunshine State", much of the state is rather backwards, redneck, and rather Wild West in its "justice" system. In other words, the prosecution team will benefit from the high-profile prosecution of a greater charge, even if the case goes against them. It could be Casey Anthony all over again.

But, even if George does get off the hook with the criminal charge(s), he and the gated-community homeowner's association could well be targeted with one or more civil suits (ala OJ.)

 

As far as the "Stand Your Ground" law, I don't think George needs to invoke it. He is claiming self defense and that it was in the heat of a purported physical assault by Martin that he pulled the gun, so as long as the evidence doesn't contradict that claim, he will be able to claim that he had no opportunity to "retreat" after Martin (allegedly) initiated the (alleged) assault.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City next week, Thursday, 4/19/2012: What is more powerful, analysis or intuition?

(Please note the new time: 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM!!)

 

Please join Café Philo New York City next week, on Thursday, April 19, 2012 to discuss the topic "What is more powerful, analysis or intuition?" Please use Meetup to register (for free), but walk-ins are also permitted.

 

The suggested topics for the upcoming meeting and their votes (out of 10 attendees):

1. Does determinism entail predestination? (1)
2. Should we have dueling in a Democratic society? (2)
3. Is common sense well distributed around the world? (6)
4. What is more powerful, analysis or intuition? (7, 6) *
5. Is there a sixth sense? (4)
6. Is democracy possible in America today? (7, 3)
7. Do we need leaders? (5)
8. What do we owe each other in a Democratic society? (4)
9. Should we control our impulses? (5)
10. Should we have Stand Your Ground laws? (6)

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending as a participant.

 

As usual, the meeting will be held from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Afghan Restaurant at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

 

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

 

There are also usually some attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Pub for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

 

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

 

-- Jack Krupansky

 

Mike Wallace and 60 Minutes

I used to love watching Mike Wallace on Biography when I was a kid. And he definitely raised the bar with his many early years with 60 Minutes. But, alas, later in its life 60 Minutes began to exemplify the steady decline in the quality of journalism in America. These days, I would not watch 60 minutes for any reason. It is now basically the epitome of "trash journalism." Wallace had a talent for picking his targets carefully and crafting his questions just as carefully. He was always laser-focused and dead-on. Both the questions and the answer had great value. These days, none of that is the case. Maybe 60 Minutes is actually the cause of its own diminished stature in that maybe most people in power know enough to stay away for fear that something, anything that might be even remotely embarrassing might pop up in an interview and that even the phrasing of questions or a moment of hesitation will be misread. Mike Wallace knew how to do it right, but those who have followed him simply don't have a clue. Yes, Mike's results were frequently sensational, but mostly because of the quality of his work, but these days the goal seems to be sensationalism at any cost and with as little attention as possibly to the quality of the work other than an obsession with slickness and edginess that hides and distorts the truth more than uncovers it.

 

In any case, here's to the good old days, the days of Mike Wallace in Biography and his early years in 60 Minutes.

-- Jack Krupansky

Some new evidence for my personal conjecture on planet formation

The standard theory is that planets formed out of the accretion disk around their sun. I don't buy it. My conjecture is that virtually all planets and even most larger moons are the cores of dead stars after their outer layers have blown off and they have been captured by newer, younger stars as galaxies have collided and passed through each other. Now there may be a little evidence to support my conjecture.

 

A few years ago I was reading up on stellar evolution and how uranium and other heavy elements are created. One of the facts I uncovered is that fusion in a star normally leads up to the production of elements only as heavy as iron and nickel and after that stage the fusion process consumes more energy than it produces, so normal solar fusion cannot produce heavier elements such as gold, lead, or uranium. Only much larger stars which end up as supernovas can produce the energy and pressures needed to form the metals heavier than iron and nickel as they explode in their death and produce such enormous temperatures and pressures that even the heaviest of metals can be produced.

 

After thinking about that for awhile I realized that the core of the earth is predominantly iron and nickel, the same as one would find at the end of life of a moderate sized star. I also realized that our own gas-giant planets are composed predominantly of the lighter elements that one would just so happen to find in the cores of smaller stars at the end of their lives (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and silicon, but not iron and nickel.)

 

So, I formed my conjecture that the planets are really the cores of "dead" stars that have merely been captured by their "sun" as galaxies collide and pass through each other rather than "accreted" from the same disk as the sun.

 

In fact, I further conjectured that the smaller, more rocky and more metallic planets originated as the cores of larger stars after they had near-supernova deaths that blew off their gaseous outer layers, leaving a collapsed core primarily of iron and nickel plus, gold, lead, uranium and other heavy metals that were produced in a supernova-like process that wasn't quite strong enough to blow the atoms far enough apart to prevent re-collapse to an earth-like core.

 

So, that was my conjecture, but of course I could not prove it.

 

Now, I read that scientists have discovered earth-like planets orbiting very old, metal-poor stars that couldn't have had all these heavy metals in the star's accretion disk before there had been supernovas.

 

So, maybe my conjecture still has some potential.

-- Jack Krupansky