Leaderboard

It's worth considering, given the OP question, and that we are in a philosophy thread, that one could have thought experiments (much as ethicists do with the famous Trolley Problem) which are highly unlikely. The question posed is, after all, "is it EVER right?" in any possible sense of "right." I agree with much of @joigus analysis as to why torture is not scientifically supportable (plus one for that) and very likely to always present itself as a barbaric and unimaginative choice where some other bit of finesse might be better. But the scripted thought experiments, like the nuke in London scenario, are meant to make a philosophic incision into the nature of ethical decisions, rather than be a realistic and scientifically documented event in the real world. (hence my earlier point that an actual bomber would have some mechanical contrivance to assure detonation and evade interrogation)(as a couple others posters pointed out). Just as looming trolley accidents, with that special ethical dilemma as framed in that famous conundrum, do not really happen in the real world that way, so too is the case with many a torture thought experiment. In some respects, the Trolley Problem and the London Nuke scenario are both ones that invite the philosopher to consider the merits of Bentham's utilitarianism, and ask what, in theory, promotes the greatest general good for the most people.

All "ifs" and "buts", all irrelevant when time is ticking and all else has failed. The question is, is it ever right to employ torture. We all agree that torture is wrong barbaric and most likely unsuccessful (although unless anyone here is an experienced expert in this then we really don't know). +1 You are quite correct and all excellent points. But the question isn't about efficiency, experimental evidence... The question is, is it ever right to torture someone? We could easily change the argument to - is it ever right to kill someone? The moral implications and justifications are the same. I answered yes, not because I condone torture, but because in extreme circumstances when all else has failed, when there is no hope left and you are faced with imminent failure, then any chance even the slightest of chances it may work then I believe its worth a shot. We can go back and forth and argue the moral aspects, the efficiencies and the science behind using such a barbaric and immoral tactic... But when all said and done, the only time I would answer no to the question is if I knew with 100% certainty that torture would not work. "If", (and I hate using that word but hey oh) torture was proven by science & data to have a 99.9% failure rate, even then is it not worth a shot when there is nothing left to do or lose? I believe, if faced with the choice, anyone who is about to lose a loved one and is desperate would not mull over the moral, or efficiency implications.

Peterkin and Swansont have brought up the argument of uncertainty. Exchemist has brought up the argument of efficiency. Prometheus has brought up (and insisted on, to no apparent effect) the argument of experimental evidence to support such alleged efficiency, so in some sense strongly complements Exchemist’s argument. Those are all arguments I was thinking about myself before I started reading the comments. It’s taken me some time to start catching up. I’m not finished catching up yet. Weighing the dubiousness of an extreme procedure against the urgency or compulsory character of an extreme case doesn't seem to meet the standards of a rational setup to discuss the ethical basis for a course of action. It more looks like trying to motivate loopholes for an inexcusable, unjustifiable procedure. This last point has been dealt with by Phi for All. I can only add some aspects to why I agree with the previous opinions. The least I can say is that torture(* Definition), as a system to extract information from an individual, strikes me as an extremely unimaginative, unscientific way to deal with this hypothetical problem. Main arguments that resonate with my thinking: Uncertainty 1) Are you sure this person did it? 100 % sure? Then: Are you sure they didn’t do it out of coertion? 100 % sure?…, etc. I can go on forever to argue about how the “method” could be at least disproportionate based on uncertainty. Uncertainty, I hate to break the news to some of you respected and respectable members, is universal. It's always there in some degree. Efficiency 2) Would torture lead to information that's accurate enough, sure enough? Doesn’t seem like it would work. And not because it’s not been tried. History is rife with cases of false confessions under torture that lead nowhere useful to ascertain the facts. Evidence 3) Where is the experimental evidence that shows that torturing a person will lead to obtaining useful information? Irrespective of the psychological profile of the tortured person? (Taken from history, of course, because we would find many an ethical problem with actually conducting the experiments.) Alternatives: Why not more imaginative strategies based in game theory (the prisoner’s dilemma comes to mind), use of computing power, biotechnologies, even linguistics, or combination of those? (I know of a kidnapping case in Spain that was solved because the expression “bolo”, used in a particular way, appeared in the background in a telephone conversation, an it narrowed down the possibilities to a cluster of small villages.) It sometimes surprises me how much our imagination is silenced when the visceral comes into play. No, torture is never justified. It's never an intelligent solution. It's been tried to death --literally-- with no significant results to my knowledge. And worst of all, we know its realm is a part of the darkest recesses of the human mind that somehow still lurks there and we'd be much better off without, for good. Summarising: Not very imaginative! Prompted by the emotional, primitive, retributional mind, rather than the rational/empirical. Not experimentally borne out in any way that I know of. What about some science instead? * Definition: The act of causing somebody severe pain in order to punish them or make them say or do something.

I am a mere student in mathematics and physics and by no mean a specialist, however I am fascinated by the quantum gravity problem, so I've read a lot of documentation about it. I have learned the basic concepts of general relativity and quantum field theory and spent a lot of time trying to understand the intricate relationship between energy, mass, gravity and spacetime. Recently I have come up with a very simple idea that could explain what is the true nature of gravity and spacetime. What led me to this idea is one of the characteristics of the higgs field, its homogeneity. However, being a humble newbie, I realize my idea is almost certainly wrong. On the other hand, quantum gravity theories have been stuck for a while, so maybe all ideas are worth listening ? Please let me know if you want to hear my idea and if you do, I will post it below. Thank you.

I think that statement makes no sense. I also think that, for a teacher, you are not very good at spelling. 😁

I realize that all of this has been covered, by several different posters, in lucid terms. I would just like to summarize before leaving the thread: I think we're answering different questions. The fundamental one is: Is your principle of right and wrong constant or situational? Whether your adherence to either principle is constant or situational is the secondary question. Any consideration of consequences proceeding from each application of each principle is tertiary. My principle is constant - which means my classification of good and bad is not really open to debate. My adherence to the principle is situational (if's, but's, maybe's, arguments and excuses). Sometimes I do wrong, for some reason I consider worth doing wrong for. My problem with the sliding morality is that its advocates appear to demand preemptive amnesty; insist that a compelling motive flips bad to good. This attitude suggests to me a quite steep slippery slide both for individuals and for societies. No, they're not.

Hey, you know, just saying, but we can help with excess funding...

Well, I’m also sometimes an idiot who multitasks too much, so there’s that. Don’t mind me. I’ll show myself out 😂

The problem isn’t the mathematics, but the basic premise - namely that you assume the existence of the notion of ‘gravitational potential’, as a generally applicable concept. If such a potential exists, then the following boundary conditions must apply: 1. The spacetime is asymptotically flat 2. It is spherically symmetric 3. It is stationary 4. It is static And vice versa - if any of these conditions do not hold, you cannot meaningfully define a gravitationally potential in a self-consistent way. This is basically to say that the work done to get from one point in a gravitational field to another must not depend on which path you take through spacetime, or else the difference between these points can’t be consistently described by a single number. You are right in one respect - if, and only if, you are in a spacetime that admits a consistent definition of gravitational potential, then you can describe gravitational light deflection as a refraction-like process, analogous to some variation of Snell’s Law. An example would be any system that can approximately be described as Schwarzschild. The issue is that it doesn’t generalise; violate any of the above conditions, and it will no longer work. A rotating body is the simplest example. So what I am saying is not that you are categorically wrong; it’s just that your formalism works only for a small subset of gravitational scenarios. It is not a general description of gravitational degrees of freedom. But for some special cases, I grant you that such an approach may come in handy. Two more examples to illustrate the point; each of these violates one or more of the above conditions: 1. In free space far from other sources, emit two parallel rays of light in the same direction - despite the energy-momentum they carry, they remain parallel and don’t gravitationally deviate. Now repeat the experiment, but emit the same parallel rays in opposite directions - they now gravitationally converge! (This is an example of a pp-wave spacetime) 2. Consider two intersecting beams of light at right angles, but in the same plane (a gravitational wave detector). Now expose this setup to a gravitational wave front - as the wave passes, the relative lengths of the beams will contract and expand relative to one another, even though their distance to the source (which is very far away!) is identical. Furthermore, comparing two or more such setups at different orientations in space (ie at different points on Earth) reveals the nature of these waves to be quadrupole, with two polarisation states at 45 degree angles - which necessarily implies that the field must couple to a rank-2 tensor. This is why gravity needs at least a rank-2 tensor description. I could give more examples where the gravitational potential approach doesn’t work, but I think you can see my point - ‘gravitational potential’ can only be meaningfully defined under certain conditions, it is not a general concept.

The question isn’t IMO whether info can be extracted via torture, but whether other methods are more effective. To that end: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-amp0000064.pdf

The problem with my argument seems to be not in the uncertainty of the prisoner's guilt, which was dealt-with in an "it's in the script" assertion, nor the uncertainty of the efficacy of torture, which was dealt-with by "we have to try anyway", and not even my uncertainty regarding my own capability and response to a circumstance I have not experienced. The main objection seems to be to my refusal to agree that a shade of grey turns white if you put it next to black. It may look white, but it isn't.

Thank you for your reply !! To your first question these were all purchased in an online auction and essentially came with what you see with two platforms (one white one with smoked plexiglass) and three glass pieces which like you said appear to be silvered kind of what those coffee thermoses look like and yes they are doubled walled with aluminum Pyrex cast flange fasteners and brass bottom plates to fasten down with and a rubber gasket !! The dimensions are as follows : Tall double walled with small nipple glass is 28" H x 5" L x 5" W : Tall double walled large nipple glass is 30" H x 5"L x 5:W and the round sphere is roughly 7" in Diameter with one extension at 5 1/2" L with two open nipples and one extension at 4" L with one open nipple Also i do not know if they were part of a set or not but am assuming they are !!! I have enclosed some other pictures with the best lighting i can give you at the moment as i hope they will assist you in determining your opinion as what these could have been used for as several opinions would be greatly appreciated for future reference and information !! Also the other big question i have is do these items have any money value or are they just considered junk and common and not worth pursuing for for those reasons or more of a good item but just to the right person ? Any info would be greatly appreciated as you seem to have common knowledge of these items as i'm in the dark myself and have the slightest clue other than what info is given to me !!! Anyways look forward to hearing your input and have a good one !!! James T.

Does the military only attack if they know they will win? Do you only apply for a job if you know you will be selected? Nothing is 100% in this world. Quit trying to set impossible goals. I remember that time my son slipped on the river bank into the water, and I had to decide whether or not jumping in to save him would, without a doubt, be successful. After all, I didn't want to waste my time...

Well, then this boson has to be massless in order to propagate with the speed of light as required by GR. And it was Richard Feynman I think that showed that such boson has to be spin-2 particle, based on GR again.

Too many other variables to consider. Go see a doctor. Until then, keep in mind that this is the internet so it's definitely cancer and your penis is going to fall off within 3 weeks. Better act now.

X-post with CharonY's edit Second edit just point out that that the Lancet study did not achieve a statistically significant result, primarily due to the fact they only observed 12 breakthrough transmission events. Even then, as CharonY points out - it demonstrates a 34% reduction in transmission. Also back to a more central point - if your concern is the prospect of acute myocarditis; acute myocarditis is observed in 0.146% COVID-19 cases in >16 year olds, and 0.0071% of vaccinated >16 year olds. COVID infection therefore has a 20 fold increase in the risk of acute myocarditis than BNT162b2 vaccine. So if the claim is that the long term effects of S protein induced myocarditis are unknown, you have a very succinct mathematical risk analysis between the risk of acquiring natural immunity vs vaccine immunity. If the claim is that administration of the BNT162b2 vaccine may cause acute myocarditis months/years after the fact, you should be able to demonstrate mechanism given the constant exposure to microbial mRNA that all humans experience.

Your interpretation of the data is disingenuous, and conclusion incorrect which appears to expose your intention to mislead. I can accuse you of the latter because you are a biology expert, and should therefore be aware of the following major errors in your conclusion - which you did not draw attention to: The 0.146% figure you quote is only for hospitalised patients with Covid not all cases of covid! Naturally excluding the vast majority of people who test positive (or have covid) without needing to be hospitalised means that the true risk of myocarditis in the population who get infected would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the 0.146% figure you disingenuously claim is the figure that represents the overall risk of myocarditis from catching covid. Underlying medical conditions and alternative etiologies for myocarditis (e.g., autoimmune disease) were not ascertained or excluded. The spurious vaccinated figure of 0.0071% not only seems to be a miscalculation on your part (please provide your workings) but this figure is taken from VAERS, which as you know, is a passive reporting system - meaning the data is greatly inaccurate. It is claimed that only 1-10% of vaccine injury cases are reported, in other words your conclusion is gross under-calculation of the actual threat. It's extremely concerning that someone of your alleged medical expertise has ignored these major limitations, failed to point them out and presented misleading data to generate what is essentially a glaringly obvious false conclusion. I recommend you consider your own confirmation bias. I just find it very odd on a science forum that very few appear to be open-minded, choosing instead to defend the status quo as if the majority are always correct, that's not objective critical thinking, it's defending dogma. It's also strange that you are mentioning conspiracy theories when all I've been doing is questioning the science - scientists and politicians do get things wrong you know, there doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It seems like you are implying that the official narrative is always correct - meaning politicians and scientists never get things wrong. Besides the word conspiracy is synonymous with corruption - are you saying conspiracies don't exist? Because if you are this implies that corruption doesn't exist. This type of thinking echo's that of a closed-mind.