<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
<title>Phys.org: Phys.Org news tagged with: philosophers</title>
<link>http://phys.org/</link>
<language>en-us</language> 
<description>Phys.org internet news portal provides the latest news on science including: Physics, Nanotechnology, Life Sciences, Space Science, Earth Science, Environment, Health and Medicine.</description>

 <item>
     <title>The enemy of my friend: Altruistic punishment in humans called into question</title>
   	 <description>(Phys.org) —That Homo sapiens exhibits both cooperative and competitive behavior is a topic that continues to be the subject of ongoing discussion. In terms of cooperation, altruism (a selfless type of prosocial behavior in which an organism acts to benefit another at a cost to itself), has received significant attention from evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, economists, psychologists, philosophers, social scientists, game theorists, and computer scientists. In particular, altruistic punishment – in which individuals who, at no apparent benefit (or even at a cost) to themselves, punish someone who has treated another unfairly – has been demonstrated in a range of studies. Recently, however, scientists at the University of Miami posited that the evidence for these results is possibly affected by experimental artifacts, and is therefore questionable. To address their hypothesis, the researchers designed and performed an experiment without such artifacts, finding that while victims punished offenders, witnesses did not – and moreover reacted with envy for ill-gotten gains rather than moralistic anger. In addition, a second experiment showed that previous evidence was due to what is known as affective forecasting error (inaccurate estimations of reactions to hypothetical situations). The scientists concluded that evidence supporting human altruistic punishment has been overstated.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news286186391.html</link>
	 <category>Other Sciences</category>
	 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:13:40 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news286186391</guid>
	 
</item>
<item>
     <title>Ignorance may be bliss for consumers, economist says</title>
   	 <description>Would having more information about the value of a product—say, a new camera—help potential buyers? Not necessarily, according to a Cornell economist.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news279880016.html</link>
	 <category>Other Sciences</category>
	 <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:50:01 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news279880016</guid>
	 
</item>
<item>
     <title>When fairness prevails: Research shows how uncertainty affects behavior</title>
   	 <description>Philosophers and scientists have long puzzled over the origins of fairness. Work by a group of Harvard researchers offers some clues, with the discovery that uncertainty is critical in the concept's development.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news278841368.html</link>
	 <category>Other Sciences</category>
	 <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:20:01 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news278841368</guid>
	 <media:thumbnail url="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/tmb/2013/whenfairness.jpg" width="90" height="90" />
</item>
<item>
     <title>Cambridge to study technology's risk to humans</title>
   	 <description>Could computers become cleverer than humans and take over the world? Or is that just the stuff of science fiction? Philosophers and scientists at Britain's Cambridge University think the question deserves serious study. A proposed Center for the Study of Existential Risk will bring together experts to consider the ways in which super intelligent technology, including artificial intelligence, could &quot;threaten our own existence,&quot; the institution said Sunday.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news273084683.html</link>
	 <category>Technology</category>
	 <pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:51:38 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news273084683</guid>
	 
</item>
<item>
     <title>Want the shortest path to the good life? Try cynicism</title>
   	 <description>(Phys.org)—Research by a University of Cincinnati classics professor sheds new light on the philosophy of the ancient Cynics. They actually held values they viewed as a shortcut to happiness.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news270122492.html</link>
	 <category>Other Sciences</category>
	 <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:01:56 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news270122492</guid>
	 <media:thumbnail url="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/tmb/2012/wanttheshort.jpg" width="90" height="90" />
</item>
<item>
     <title>Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space</title>
   	 <description>(Phys.org) -- Philosophers have debated the nature of time long before Einstein and modern physics. But in the 106 years since Einstein, the prevailing view in physics has been that time serves as the fourth dimension of space, an arena represented mathematically as 4D Minkowski spacetime. However, some scientists, including Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, argue that time exists completely independent from space. In a new study, Sorli and Fiscaletti have shown that two phenomena of special relativity - time dilation and length contraction - can be better described within the framework of a 3D space with time as the quantity used to measure change (i.e., photon motion) in this space.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news253634066.html</link>
	 <category>Physics</category>
	 <pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:55:18 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news253634066</guid>
	 <media:thumbnail url="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/tmb/2012/timealternat.jpg" width="90" height="90" />
</item>
<item>
     <title>Cooperation vs. Competition: Greed is good -- but only a moderate amount</title>
   	 <description>(PhysOrg.com) -- Relationships between cooperation, competition, and society have long been pondered by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, philosophers, and mathematicians. While (as might be expected) a range of conclusions have been reached, one factor that appears to be essential in achieving and maintaining an equitable distribution of human well-being is social cohesion &amp;#150; that is, a societal infrastructure characterized by high levels of cooperation and a large number of social ties between members of the population. At the same time, however, individual self-interest appears to be inversely related to &amp;#150; and indeed often leads to a breakdown of &amp;#150; social cohesion. As researchers in Switzerland have recently found, however, a moderate level of greed can actually establish a framework in which cooperation and agglomeration (grouping) flourish and societal cohesion prevails.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news230450954.html</link>
	 <category>Other Sciences</category>
	 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:10:04 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news230450954</guid>
	 <media:thumbnail url="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/tmb/2011/roca_fig01.jpg" width="90" height="90" />
</item>
<item>
     <title>Experimental philosophy opens new avenues into old questions</title>
   	 <description>Philosophers have argued for centuries, millennia actually, about whether our lives are guided by our own free will or are predetermined as the result of a continuous chain of events over which we have no control.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news219601663.html</link>
	 <category>Other Sciences</category>
	 <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:28:19 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news219601663</guid>
	 
</item>
<item>
     <title>How reasonable it is to deceive yourself?</title>
   	 <description>Anyone who simply denies the facts is most certainly behaving unreasonably - aren't they? Bochum's philosophers Prof. Dr. Albert Newen and Christoph Michel expound that in some cases it may be useful to deceive yourself. The self-deception can be an important motivating factor and not entirely lacking reason. The reason may be locally restricted, however basic strategies of rational evaluation processes remain intact. The researchers have published their work in the international specialist journal Consciousness &amp; Cognition.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news204887752.html</link>
	 <category>Medicine &amp; Health</category>
	 <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:16:06 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news204887752</guid>
	 
</item>
<item>
     <title>Professor examines the complex evolution of human morality</title>
   	 <description>(PhysOrg.com) -- Although the question of what makes humans different from other animals doesn't have a single obvious answer, one seemingly conspicuous human trait is morality. Darwin, in his book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, singled out &quot;the moral sense or conscience&quot; as by far the most important difference between humans and other animals. Darwin&amp;#146;s argument was, of course, strongly based on the concepts of biological evolution and natural selection. Now, upon further investigating the origins of morality, Francisco Ayala, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Irvine, has proposed a Darwin-inspired explanation of how human morality might have evolved.</description>
     <link>http://phys.org/news193472479.html</link>
	 <category>Biology</category>
	 <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 09:00:04 EST</pubDate>
	 <guid isPermaLink="false">news193472479</guid>
	 
</item>


</channel>
</rss>
