Posts

Showing posts from February, 2022

Science Says (reprise)

 It is, for me, in the nature of blogging, that one writes somewhat off the cuff. Therefore, I don't expect or intend to make definitive statements here. However, looking back on a previous post, ' Science Says . . . ', I think I need to revisit it. On the whole, I am satisfied with what I wrote there, as far as it went. What I do think needs some correction is that I addressed the argument of the article I was criticising as if it was advocating what is known as 'eliminative materialism': the philosophical view that consciousness does not exist. I think the language of the article is itself confused enough to give this impression in places, but the writers of the article seem to be professing epiphenomenalism: the idea that consciousness is nothing over and above a side-effect of the physical workings of the brain.  There is a great deal to criticise in the article, and I certainly can't do it all in one sitting, but perhaps I will begin revisiting my critici

Infamously

Image
 I am indebted to Justin Isis for sending me photographs of sample pages from Kingsley Amis's The King's English , two of which I hope I can inset below. Together they should provide us with one entry from Amis's book.   The entry in question is on the words 'infamous' and 'infamy'.  These photographs were sent on the 30th of January 2022. It is the 4th of February 2022 as I write this. It just so happened that earlier today, I came across an example of the usage of which Amis complains. The book in which it appears is A Priori by Edwin Mares, a work on epistemology. The sentence is as follows: "As we saw in [Section] 3.6, Descartes also, infamously, holds that we have an innate idea of God, which he uses to prove that his ideas about the world are accurate." In case it is hard to read in the inset pictures, here is what Amis writes: "Both adjective and noun ['infamous' and 'infamy'] used to be terms of extreme moral disappro