Wednesday, October 27, 2010

IHTS

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?

2 comments:

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

    ReplyDelete

Zeno for the computer age

If you wish to better understand Zeno's worry about the continuum, you could do worse than to consider loops in software. Case 1: You...