IHTS

By -
Oh boy. I'm five pages into Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini's What Darwin Got Wrong and they have already introduced five entirely gratuitous acronyms, so that I'm reading sentences like (and here I exaggerate a little, but very little, for effect), "If we are correct that in ET, NS is separable from GS and, in its reliance on S-R, analogous to OT, then our case is made."

Why, oh why, do analytical philosophers write like this?

Comments

  1. Thomas L. Knapp11:52 AM

    Oh, RTFM or STFU.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wabulon11:11 PM

    Or, as the sublime Dan Savage frequently advises, DTMFA (Dump The MotherFucker Already).

    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