The authors of this hoax have engaged in precisely the kind of disingenuous scholarship that they claim to be exposing. That this is hypocritical is not the main problem, however. It is the fact that *even more disingenuous scholarship is getting published*. Polluting the journals doesn’t make them better. Adding even more pollution doesn’t make them better either. Getting rid of the pollution does.
Aristotle’s argument in Physics II 8 can be summarized as follows: 1. Dogs typically develop teeth good for biting and chewing. 2. A typical result is not a coincidence. 3. So it’s not a coincidence that dogs develop teeth good for biting and chewing. 4. If the development is not coincidental, it must be “for something”. 5. So the dog’s development is “for something”. (that is, it is goal-directed) What do you think of this argument? Has Aristotle convinced you that … Naturalism vs Teleologyread more
Last night, I watched a debate between a journalist, a sociologist, and a scientist over whether or not philosophy is “dead” (as Stephen Hawking put it). Lewis Wolpert completely wiped the floor with the non-philosophers pitted against him. And sadly, he was also mostly correct. Philosophy has not done itself proud of late, and the fact that this panel didn’t actually include any philosophers to stand in its defense, is evidence that it is struggling, if not dead. Wolpert is absolutely … Philosophy: An Obituaryread more