Nope. I can leave out "systematic." A lot of investigation have a lot of suck-it-and-see tomfoolery. AND humans are far from being UNsystematic. From chipping conoidal stones to winking at someone in hope. Saying science must be systematic is superfluous.

I disagree. The thing that gives science it's power, makes it science, is that it's systematic when most human thought isn't. Science is stuff we've come know based on the results of applying the scientific method. It's also more - It's stuff we know, how we know it, and how certain we are about it.

Would it make sense to change "methodology" to "formal methodology" in the definition?

That's the secret - don't read the crap. If you can't tell what's good and what's crap, it's your fault, not the craps.
— T Clark

Would you say that to a kid? — Denovo Meme

Sure, which isn't to say I wouldn't offer my opinions on what I thought was worthwhile and what wasn't. But I'd tell her that, when push comes to shove, she is responsible. She has to sit in the room by herself watching reality roll around on the floor.

Quite the opposite, I believe that wolves do the most fundamental kind of line-drawing:
"Part of my pack" / "NOT part of my pack" — WerMaat

Maybe we mean different things when we say "drawing lines." For me, they are drawn using words and symbols. It's a mental practice. We create things when we draw the lines. Like you, I don't know what wolves think, but in my imagination at least, their world doesn't have things in it.

DNA is just a chemical compound. It's our imaginary lines that clump it all together. — TogetherTurtle

What I meant is that we draw some of the lines we draw because of the way our brains and minds have evolved. The way they are structured. We are not and never were blank slates. For some things, we don't have any choice where to draw the lines.

Do you still think it's too broad? — TogetherTurtle

I think it is appropriately too broad.

In my dotage — Denovo Meme

That's where I live too.

"Science is the things we found out and how we found them out." — Denovo Meme

Except that's not what science is. You can't leave out "systematic," it's what makes it science instead of "stuff I know." It's what makes the scientific method philosophy.

So, dudes, what is going on on this site? Is there a crisis? — Denovo Meme

No crisis. I think of it this way. I read a lot - a little philosophy, science, science fiction, other odds and ends. I used to love movies and TV. A lot of those things are crap too, but if I started now and read 12 hours a day for the rest of my life, I could never read 1% of the worthwhile, high quality, moving books in English that have been written. I couldn't even start to keep up with what is written every day.

That's the secret - don't read the crap. If you can't tell what's good and what's crap, it's your fault, not the craps.

I have never studied philosophy. I read occasional popular articles that purport to be philosophical. However, after a life of engineering and science gave me a sledge hammer and Occums Razor, I realised that philosophy, as some people use it, has no tools. It has lotsa sports equipment for people to play GOTCHA. And when the fans have left and the lights are turned off, the homeless are still lying under the bridge. — Denovo Meme

I also am an engineer. And, sure, a lot of philosophy is crap. Most? Probably. All I can say is, if you can't find something of value in it, try something else. I don't really have that choice. My engineering career has all been about epistemology. Trying to understand the nature of our world is what I do, whether I want to or not. That's why I find the Kafka quote so funny and powerful - we don't need philosophers or this forum. We can do it all ourselves, alone in a room.

I don't read a lot of philosophy either, but I have found things in my reading and here on the forum that have helped me clarify my thinking. That's an exhilarating thing.

There has to be lines, but there are a lot of places we can choose to draw them. I think I was going for "If we don't want one to exist or it doesn't benefit us, we shouldn't have it". — TogetherTurtle

There you go, you've summarized all of philosophy in two sentences. We can shut down the forum now. @Baden - you can turn off the lights now.

Is a place really restricted from us if we didn't want to go there in the first place? — TogetherTurtle

Yeah, well, how do we know.

It probably just wasn't clear, but I was trying to say that a biologist would say that. Wolves might draw lines, but I couldn't tell you, I'm not a wolf. — TogetherTurtle

Well, I was sort of joking, but then the idea of genetic lines appealed to me, as you can see later in my post.

Really? I wasn't really sure how well this would be received. Regardless, I've been thinking about it for a long time now. — TogetherTurtle

When I first read your post, it seemed too broad. As I said earlier, it basically covers everything people ever wrote or spoke or thought. All of human mental output. It's all just drawing lines.

Lao Tzu wrote (depending on the translation):

The Tao that can be named can never be the eternal tao.
The Name that is used here to designate is not a eternal name.
The Tao that is unnameable is the Source of the Heaven and the Earth.
The name, once introduced, becomes the Mother of the Ten Thousand Things.

Lines are what is used to create the Ten Thousand Things. If I had a band, I would call it the Ten Thousand Things. Or maybe an antique store.

Well written and well thought through. I only have a few thoughts right now:

It must be the same with all other invisible boundary lines. Do we want them to exist? — TogetherTurtle

I'm not sure we have any choice. It's what we do. You can argue where the lines should go, but humans are line-drawing animals.

What if we made a world with only boundaries that protect us and none that restrict us? — TogetherTurtle

All lines restrict us.

if you asked if a wolf was the same species as the rest of its pack, they would immediately say "of course!". — TogetherTurtle

Generally speaking, I don't think wolves do much line-drawing. Or maybe the lines are more likely to be genetic with them.

Instead of holding on so desperately to categories that aren't useful, why don't we just make new categories? And when those categories and rendered invalid by new information, we again make new, more accurate categories. — TogetherTurtle

Well, we do sometimes, often. Eventually always, although I guess some of our lines are genetic also.

I certainly expect present day neuroscience to continue to provide us with more precise detailed descriptions/explanations of the myriad complex ways in which the human brain processes subjective sensations into perceived phenomenal objects and perceived phenomenal states-of-affairs; but no matter how successful neuroscience may be, and continues to be, in this regard, it will, I think, still not be able to describe/explain where the subjective sensations come from (their originating source) before they undergo neuro-cognitive processing. — charles ferraro

This is what's called "the hard problem of consciousness." It is discussed here often. I checked, there are currently three or four active threads where it is being discussed. No reason we can't do it here too.

Science has fundamental laws and principles by which we obtain a 0.05 answer. What is the philosophical equivalent? — Denovo Meme

Let's talk about science for a minute. What is it? (from various places on the web).

• The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
• The pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
• Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Let's pull out a couple of words I think are important - "systematic" and "methodology." What is the system, the methodology, by which science operates? Well, we call it the scientific method and it involves, as the definitions indicate, observation and experimentation along with a bunch of other stuff. The scientific method is not science, it's how we pursue knowledge and understanding, i.e. epistemology, i.e. philosophy.

When I read or discuss a bit of philosophy I become frustrated with the way people quote a philosopher as if the philosopher has the answer. An equally questionable refuting quote is tossed back. There is never a shred of data, worldly evidence of universality, or even revolutionary insight. Is philosophy a professors version of drunken ranting in a bar? Science has fundamental laws and principles by which we obtain a 0.05 answer. What is the philosophical equivalent? — Denovo Meme

This is a good thread. In the past, I've shared your frustration with people who are quick to drop philosopher's names as if that answers any question. It's true, a lot of it is showing off, but over the years I've been on the forum, I've gained a lot of respect for people who can use the work of other philosophers as signposts to lead them to the truth. The metaphor I've used in the past is that of a tool box. It's fun and impressive to watch smart, thoughtful people approach a problem, open up their box of philosophy tools, and set to work. Pull out a little Kant, turn this. Take out some Schopenhauer and plug it in there.

But - for better or worse, it's not the way I do things, although I do have a few favorite sources. Here's a quote I've found very helpful. I use it all the time. It's from Kafka:

You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait. Do not even wait, be quiet still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.

Here's some plagiarism from a previous post of mine:

This summarizes my understanding of the proper goals and methods of philosophy. When I read this, I have this image of me sitting in an empty room, maybe 10 feet wide by 25 feet long. It looks like a school corridor – concrete block walls painted yellow, white ceiling, gray linoleum floor, ceiling lighting. No windows, no furniture, one grey metal door at the end. I’ll add a chair, I don’t want to have to sit on the floor. There, alone, I have everything I need to figure out the nature of reality and the meaning of existence. The ultimate lazy person’s philosophy. No need to read or study, just watch. Don’t even watch.

This is a great post. I have posted similar thoughts many times, but I don't think I've done it as well as you have.

It's not that the universe brings the world into existence. Words make the universe communicable. The word, "tree" is a word. A tree is not. A tree looks nothing like a string of scribbles, yet a particular string of scribbles for a particular group of humans on Earth invokes the image of a tree in their minds. How did you learn to use the word, "tree"? — Harry Hindu

Lao Tzu wrote:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

And

All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being.

And

The Tao is older than God.

You’re not a small-p pragmatist. If you were, you would call it small-p pragmatism.

I don't call that small p pragmatism — Mark Dennis

That's because you're not one. Those of us who are, do.

I think you are both engaging in the topic of truth without realizing that there is not a single uniform truth definition within philosophy. Pragmatism defines truth very differently than the rest of philosophy.

NKBJ You are talking and describing or at least framing it thusly, as Pure Truth. T Clark you are framing your interpretation as pragmatic truth. — Mark Dennis

I have been called a Pragmatist. I have called myself a small-p pragmatist. What I am is a T Clarkist. I calls em like I sees em. I don't reject other philosophers out of hand, but I don't grant them any authority just because they've been around for 2,500 years. I pick and choose the ones I find helpful. To the extent possible, I express my thoughts and beliefs in everyday language.

Outside of a human universe of discourse non of us have intrinsic value to the universe because we have created value and meaning. To the universe, none of us is a person. None of us is being morally considered by the universe, except by each other. So ethics lies solely in the realm of a human universe of discourse and so it must have a function for humans. — Mark Dennis

I agree with this.

Human Understanding of 'Everything' is based on Collective agreement of what words mean.
If all Humans Disappeared. Everything else would still exist as it always has. But without Human words for Identification, Value and Meaning for the benefit of Humans.
As things stand. Everything exists from the 'standpoint' of its own existence.
For example: A Tree exists without knowing its a Tree. Its only a Tree because Humans collectively agree to identify it as a Tree. Same goes for just about everything Non human.
It is the same for Humans too. Every word a Human Knows. Is the result of Human Collective agreement to the same knowing. — Robee321

There is a sense in which words bring the universe into existence. Before that, there is something unnamed which isn't really anything at all. Trees are not trees until we, or somebody, calls them that. Lao Tzu wrote "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." I guess you could paraphrase - The World that can be spoken is not the eternal World.

Coming to terms with that truth has changed the way I think about reality, truth, and knowledge.

I think the natural 'laws' simply describe the universe. The universe operates without the need for outside help. It just does it. Only if the universe changes can these natural 'laws' change. For the universe is the master, and the 'laws' merely description (of the master, or some aspect thereof). — Pattern-chaser

I agree. Natural or scientific laws are abstract descriptions of how the universe behaves. It doesn't have to, it just does. I looked on the web but couldn't find who's idea it was to start calling scientific principles laws. Maybe they started calling them "laws" as a metaphor because they thought they were established by God.

Riddle me how these two statements are compatible:

This whole issue is one of human value, not truth.
— T Clark

I can't trust them to understand the true value of other people.
— T Clark — NKBJ

Ok, ok. Rewrite. "I can't trust them to understand the value of other people." or "I can't trust them to understand what I consider the true value of other people." !@#$% nitpicking philosophers.

It is self-evident that experience exists, whatever it might mean for something to exist. At this instant in time you are having an experience, the qualia of seeing these words, of a chair pressing against your body, of taking a breath, whatever it may be.

It’s also very apparent that solipsism is unfalsifiable and so you cannot take for granted that other consciousnesses exist. But unfalsifiability can be taken even further: there is no self-evident principle that allows you to infer that anything besides your experience exists. — Kelly Miles

Isn't this "I think, therefore I am?" It is my understanding that Descartes was trying to decide what the absolute minimum undeniable truth is.

logic surely exists — Kelly Miles

I agree with your analysis of Item 1). For those of us who are not idealists, logic is a human invention. The universe doesn't recognize it.

time surely exists. — Kelly Miles

Short-term memory covers about half a minute. From a human perspective, that seems like a good indicator, or at least a stand in, for the present. 30 seconds is enough time to experience something. Everything else can be either longer term memory or imagination and speculation.

Whether it's dangerous has no bearing on whether it's true.
But I also deny that it's dangerous, because I deny that it could devalue humans. When we recognized the personhood of black people, it did not devalue white people. — NKBJ

This whole issue is one of human value, not truth. It is only true that all humans are persons in the sense we are talking about because we have decided that it is. We've agreed that it is.

As for the danger of the idea - I like spiders, but I've killed them when they were someplace I didn't want them to be with little thought or concern. I can't do that with people, but if spiders and people are somehow equal in this regard, it makes it easier to treat people badly.

That's just silly. We don't need to be at the apex of some silly hierarchy in order to be valued and valuable. — NKBJ

Well, there is a hierarchy, one we've established. It's not silly to say that human life is more valuable than animal's lives to other humans. People who call their dogs or cats their children make me angry. It shows I can't trust them to understand the true value of other people.

[It] is perfectly possible to prove a negative
— Filipe

No, it isn't. — Pattern-chaser

I used this quote from Stephen Jay Gould recently in a different thread. Thanks for the chance to use it again:

“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’”

Given that definition, it is perfectly possible to show that a negative statement is a fact, i.e. is proven.

“To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being can make on those who can recognize such claims. A morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged. It is often thought that because only humans can recognize moral claims, it is only humans who are morally considerable. However, when we ask why we think humans are the only types of beings that can be morally wronged, we begin to see that the class of beings able to recognize moral claims and the class of beings who can suffer moral wrongs are not co-extensive.” — Mark Dennis

I liked your idea that a person is someone worthy of moral consideration. Now I'm thinking it doesn't really work. Dogs are not persons, but they are worthy of moral consideration. I have a bond with and a responsibility to other people that is greater than that I have for animals.

Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world? Like a giant anthill swarming with unimportant individuals that will soon fade into nothingness. — DanielPhil

Saying individual people matter is a statement of human value. We are social animals and we like to hang around with each other. In general, I think there is a consensus among us humans that it is true. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement. There are some who don't agree.

I like people. They matter to me. I like meeting them, talking to them, and learning about them. I want to know what they know. I want to talk about philosophy with a non-English speaking Belgian using my 50 year old high school French. I want to tell jokes to a non-English speaking German using my 45 year old college German. I want to learn about the differences and similarities in culture between people who live in Tuscaloosa and Boston. I want to talk to Congolese about what their country is like and why people from Africa like to call people they don't know "dear" and "sweetheart."

If something that isn’t on the time-space continuum can’t be valuable then why would philosophers ever think thought experiments, fictional literature, movies, TV and art ever be worth discussing through any form of value theory? — Mark Dennis

If you really think that fictional characters are persons, i.e. as you said, are worthy of moral consideration, then I think you mean something completely different than I and the other posters on this thread do when you say "personhood." I would say the same thing about @NKBJ's idea that spider's might be persons also. Both trivialize our humanity.

'Animals' is a very large category. It ranges from mollusks to the great apes. I think great apes, dolphins, and dogs (for example) are persons. I think clams mostly likely are not persons. And I'm uncertain about insects and the like, though I have read some interesting articles about the cognitive abilities of spiders, which pushes me toward a strong maybe. — NKBJ

This seems like a very dangerous idea to me. Saying humans are to be valued in the same manner as spiders may increase the respect paid to animals, but it will devalue the respect due to people.

Anywho: what is the "legitimate, non-religious, non-moralistic" case you're referring to? (Assuming you're not referring to Mark's theory.) — NKBJ

The fertilized egg, at the moment of fertilization, has all the material needed to create a fully functioning human being. To me, it's not unreasonable to say that it has some moral standing. I guess that's the same as saying it has some intrinsic value, although I hate the intrinsic vs. extrinsic distinction. Ending it should not be a matter of casual indifference. Using abortion as just another method of birth control, no matter when in the term, devalues human life.

People are hurt when an abortion is performed. I'm sure it's not always true, but it often is. There's a pretty good chance that the potential mother and father will look back sometime in the future, maybe when they finally do have children, and wonder what they have done.

Ok, at the time of conception, we agree that the fetus is not a person. Do we also agree that five minutes before birth, it is? Whatever value life has, it's bullshit to talk about it as having extrinsic value. Whatever value it has is universal, I guess that means intrinsic. It has unalienable rights.

I assume most people to whom it may not be clear are making those claims on the grounds of what some deity allegedly said or on the basis of ensoulment. Once you have that talk in the mix, the conversation is over--you no longer have enough common ground to stand on. — NKBJ

I don't think that's fair. I am not a member of any religion and don't have any beliefs in a specific God, but I don't think saying personhood begins at conception is ridiculous. I don't agree, but there is a legitimate non-religious, non-moralistic case to be made.

to what extent do these mental oddities relate to philosophy? — Grre

I have been diagnosed with Type 2 Bipolar Disorder. That's less intense and debilitating than Type 1, which is what used to be called "manic depressive disease." It certainly has had a significant negative impact on my life, particularly with anxiety. At the same time, I don't think it has any impact on where I fit on the spectrum of humanity. I'm not out in space somewhere. I'm on a continuum with most everyone else, just a little further out on the tail of the distribution in some characteristics. I am very high energy. I can be very irritable, although drugs helped. As I said - anxiety. Drugs have helped with that too. I'm not often depressed. I'm sometimes impulsive, but mostly in relatively benign ways.

On the good side, I'm smart, verbal, and funny. Again, I fit on the spectrum with all the rest of us. I'm not a genius. I'm a competent engineer, but I've worked with quite a few whom I think are better, or at least more rounded professionally.

In line with that, philosophically I focus on responsibility. There is nothing in my makeup that makes me any less responsible for my behavior than other more "normal" people. To me, that's the key to dignity and self-respect. People have a right to expect me to behave within the limits of acceptable behavior, although I've pushed those limits sometimes. On the other hand, I have a right to expect others to cut me some slack. Cut everyone some slack. I've been lucky in that regard.

I recognize that not everyone with a mental disorder fits in with the mainstream as much as I do. I don't mean this as a reference to you. I don't know you. At the extremes I think it's obvious that people do have diminished capacity and should not be held responsible for their actions as much as I am. That's a dangerous thing to do. I feel like a human, a person. I try to act like one and expect to be treated like one.

Sensory issues in particular, are perhaps our first solid evidence on how relatively similar people can so radically experience the so-called 'objective' world differently, thus eroding our clear conceptions of a unified, absolute, and objectively true external reality, we cannot see past our internal realities. — Grre

Also social issues. I'm not a believer in objective reality. Everything there is and everything I know is an inseparable mixture of something on the outside and something on the inside. Right at the interface between those is society. Much of what we call reality is socially constructed. For those of us who have some differences socially, accepting societies views on reality can be a challenge. That's not right, it's not a challenge, it's a choice. I feel like I have the freedom not to see things the way everyone else does. That's one of the best things about me. Whatever problems you've had, I hope you have that same experience of freedom, at least sometimes.

Or even on an evolutionary scale? For example, my friend posed a working theory that many of these abnormalities such as ASD are considered "issues" in the first place because they impede some kind of social function, such as ASD impedes empathy understanding, ToM, and expression of emotion or feeling-but to that extent that such social abilities are considering lacking in the ASD individual, there is that much more "space" available for the time and energy to be devoted elsewhere, — Grre

I am very skeptical of evolutionary explanations for human behavior.

Most takes on personhood have it that sentience is one of the most important aspects. Definitely fetuses are not sentient at the start--they don't even have brains at the start. It would at least require a particular stage of brain development for sentience to obtain (barring a good reason to believe that mentality, subjective experiences, etc. can obtain in other materials, which we'd need to specify). Are newborn babies sentient? That's more difficult to say. So personhood may not really kick in until sometime between late infancy/toddlerhood/being a young kid. — Terrapin Station

A couple of definitions of "sentience:"

• Feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
• Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.

I don't think you are saying that babies don't feel, perceive, or experience. Or are you? Is "sentience" the right word? Do you mean self-aware or conscious?

And what do you know; at the end of the previous sentence my laptop once again died. Screen went dark and it won’t reboot. So I am using a tablet now, which sucks. That’s twice since May. Perhaps it is time for the old computer to receive its last rites. — Bitter Crank

I think there's a pretty good chance that @Baden banned your computer. You should check with him.

As far as psychology is concerned, the trauma of losing a pregnancy and of losing a child have the same impact on the parents, the difference lies in how we seek support for this. — Mark Dennis

I think you'll find that many (most?) people will disagree with this. It certainly isn't true for me.

However, we can clearly see that an ovum is not a person, a fertilized ovum isn't either, but a 8 and 1/2 month old baby is. — NKBJ

I agree that a fertilized ovum is not a person, but many people do not. So, it's clear to you and me, but not to everyone.

As for the worries about differences between Downs people, low IQ people, and highly intelligent people if we rest personhood on cognizance, I think the analogy of a beach is apt. You can't quite say where the ocean ends and land begins, because of the moving tide and so on. But at some distance away from the beach you know, this is land, and it doesn't matter how far you go inland, it doesn't become more land just because it's further away from the ocean. It's all equally land. — NKBJ

I'm not trying to be cute, but for engineering and legal purposes in the US, land is generally said to begin at the mean high water (MHW) elevation, which varies from location to location. I think MHW is established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That's the sort of approach some legislatures are trying to use for the beginning of personhood by restricting abortion after a certain term of pregnancy.

I’m against anti-natalism for one reason, impractical and impossible. While I can see the logic in the anti-Natalist view, there is simply no way for a society to enforce this as a prescriptive methodology without overstepping peoples human rights and it would be near impossible to police. Case and point; Apartheid Africa, where despite being illegal at the time, many mixed race children were still born, for example Trevor Noah. — Mark Dennis

Many anti-natalists, e.g. @schopenhauer1 here on the forum, do not propose legally enforcing their principles.

The greatest experiment in anti-natalism in human history - the one child policy in China - has turned out to be a disaster.

It wasn't as if Europe had a lot of choice. The refugees from the Syrian state disaster just "arrived". Hungary was excoriated (or praised) in the press for putting up a fence, and channeling refugees THROUGH, but not TO Hungary. — Bitter Crank

Germany let in more than 1,000,000. The US wouldn't let in 10,000.

One of the lessons here is: If you don't want near by countries to collapse into shit holes, — Bitter Crank

Well, we sure turned the whole middle east into a shit hole. Now Bolton and Trump want to do it in Iran too.

Here's what I said in my previous post:

I've spent some time thinking about this. To me, epistemology is part of metaphysics. If you look up definitions, it's about 50/50 whether others agree with me. I have always thought of metaphysics as the set of rules we agree on that gives us a common framework for looking at the world. Again, some agree, some disagree.

A paper that I have found very helpful is "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood. And by helpful, I mean he and I agree.

And I do agree that epistemology is the key to everything. The heart of the matter. But I think metaphysics is really the only thing that lets us agree on what makes sense and what doesn't. — T Clark

That's all I said. You seem to have taken great offense at Collingwood's essay. Is was not my intent to start a new discussion about it here.

I'm surprised. Maybe I wasn't paying close attention to what you have written. I thought we were talking about the hard problem of consciousness - the question of where and how our personal experience is generated through our bodies. Where it comes from. I thought you were arguing that emergence couldn't be the answer because it doesn't really exist so no new principles or behaviors can develop between one layer of organization and and the next. So that leaves the hard question unanswered.

Now it seems to me that you are saying that consciousness is somehow applied to us from the outside, which would be vitalism as I understand it. Or are you saying that the physical world develops out of consciousness, since it is fundamental? How does that work?

The Princess Bride made my point better. — Noah Te Stroete

The Princess Bride always makes our points better.

It seems the ad hom charge does stick... — creativesoul

States and citizens had better sort out this very difficult problem, because more and more people are going to wish to be somewhere else as life on the planet becomes more difficult. On the one hand, we feel for the suffering of persons; on the other hand, we want to protect--we should protect--our own interests. — Bitter Crank

The governments of Europe opened their borders to refugees from the Syrian civil war. If my memory is correct, about a million. The migration has had a significant negative impact on the host countries. The amazing, heartening thing to me is that they agreed to let them in. Somebody, probably someone in Germany, probably more than one, deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I can't imagine that will be a feasible solution if what you fear comes to pass.

It is actually hard, convoluted, and rather pricey to get hold of the publication: — alcontali

I found it free for download at archive. org. Just type in "Essay on Metaphysics PDF." It's also available at Amazon - $4.61 kindle. $15 paperback.