Nagel Mildly Questions Orthodoxy, Causes Leiter to Shit a Water Buffalo

By -
Just because you've spent half a century as one of the greatest philosophers in the world doesn't mean Brian Leiter won't trash you should you deviate from his religious dogmas!

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy9:44 AM

    I'm glad he kept putting "[sic]" into the name of that institute, lest he mislead readers into believing they had actually discovered anything. I mean, there could be high school students reading. High school students!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy9:46 AM

    Also, I am ashamed to admit that you tricked me, Gene. I was all ginned up, ready to be mad because you were linking to an overenthusiastic theist, and then when I realized what the deal was, I was like, "Oh yeah, Gene was so right!"

    Don't tell Robin Hanson. :(

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah12:12 AM

    Does Robin Hanson contend that you are easy to trick?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more