Comments on: Reviews http://www.thebigquestions.com/2009/12/10/reviews/ The Big Questions | Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:50:39 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: burger flipper http://www.thebigquestions.com/2009/12/10/reviews/comment-page-1/#comment-1132 burger flipper Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:56:47 +0000 http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=1416#comment-1132 Getting a copy for Xmas. Surprised that none of the L.A. libraries have picked this one up. And while your argument against libraries in Fair Play is exactly the reason it's a good library book to me, this one definitely sounds like a keeper. Getting a copy for Xmas. Surprised that none of the L.A. libraries have picked this one up.
And while your argument against libraries in Fair Play is exactly the reason it’s a good library book to me, this one definitely sounds like a keeper.

]]> By: Drew http://www.thebigquestions.com/2009/12/10/reviews/comment-page-1/#comment-1086 Drew Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:00:46 +0000 http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=1416#comment-1086 It always irks me when someone is willing to call something "sophistry" without feeling the need to actually present a real counter-argument. I'm still waiting to get the book for Christmas, but I assume that the headache argument is along the lines of pointing out that there's something deeply inconsistent with refusing to pay 1$ to prevent a 1-in-a-billion chance of death, paying 1$ to cure a headache, but not paying a life to cure a billion headaches. Maybe there is a good answer to that seemingly inconsistency, but it DEMANDS a good answer, not a flip refutation that boils down into merely a restatement of one of the prongs of the original inconsistency (i.e. the presumed idea that no one would kill anyone for any price whatsoever) It always irks me when someone is willing to call something “sophistry” without feeling the need to actually present a real counter-argument. I’m still waiting to get the book for Christmas, but I assume that the headache argument is along the lines of pointing out that there’s something deeply inconsistent with refusing to pay 1$ to prevent a 1-in-a-billion chance of death, paying 1$ to cure a headache, but not paying a life to cure a billion headaches.

Maybe there is a good answer to that seemingly inconsistency, but it DEMANDS a good answer, not a flip refutation that boils down into merely a restatement of one of the prongs of the original inconsistency (i.e. the presumed idea that no one would kill anyone for any price whatsoever)

]]>