Grayling on Fuller 9 Sep 2008 I am presently reading Fuller’s Dissent over Descent, but here’s A. C. Grayling’s review in advance of mine. The money quote: The demerits of ID theory itself – so woeful as to be funny: in this world of ours, with so much failed experiment of life, so much repetition and haphazard variety of endeavour to meet the challenge of passing on genes, to claim the existence and activity of a supernatural designer would be a sort of blasphemy on the latter, if it existed – are well enough known not to require the wasted effort of iteration; nor does the overwhelming security of evolutionary theory in biology require defence. In the interests of our forests, therefore, I stop here, save to bemoan the fact that Fuller has produced not merely an irresponsible but a bad book, whose one saving grace is that, by default, it drives another nail in the ID coffin. I think Grayling is an optimist, but then, he’s British. Book Creationism and Intelligent Design Evolution
Biology Thermodynamics, and the origin of replicators 14 Mar 2010 Over at Discover, Sean Carroll has a nice post on thermodynamics, free energy and the origins of life. It’s a good intro, but in the course of it he remarks: Obviously there is a lot missing to this story, and much of it is an absence of complete understanding on… Read More
Evolution Traditions in academe 18 Dec 2007 PZ Murghl has challenged me to explain why there are theology departments in universities. Of course, most universities lack theology departments, and some, like the Princeton Theological Seminary, have been hived off their home institution. Back when I actually did theology, at Ridley College at the University of Melbourne, the… Read More
Evolution Evolution quotes: Quetelet on populations 12 Jan 201212 Jan 2012 Populations arise imperceptibly; it is only when they have reached a certain degree of development that we begin to think of their existence. This increase is more or less rapid, and it proceeds either from an excess of births over deaths, or from immigrations, or both. In general, it is… Read More
That’s the other thing about the British. They don’t all think that a sentence has to be five words or less.
That’s the other thing about the British. They don’t all think that a sentence has to be five words or less.
We should start a collection to buy AC Grayling some more full stops (I’ve saved those from his name in a pot) so he can write shorter sentences. But I don’t think he’s recommending that we rush out and buy Steve Fuller-Schitt’s opus, is he?
We should start a collection to buy AC Grayling some more full stops (I’ve saved those from his name in a pot) so he can write shorter sentences. But I don’t think he’s recommending that we rush out and buy Steve Fuller-Schitt’s opus, is he?
If you think Grayling is bad you should read traditional academic German. Back in the middle of the 1980s one of my regular tasks at the university was to make the one hundred or whatever copies of the typescript of my professor’s Monday lecture. He would invariably start writing this at 6 o’clock on the Monday morning and I would usually receive it to make the copies at 8 o’clock for the lecture at 9. Once on the first day of the new academic year my colleagues and I noticed that the first sentence of the typescript seemed to be rather long and took a closer look. In fact the first sentence was one and a half A4 pages long!
“Indeed! For at the end of these nearly 300 pages of wasted forest he tells us what science needs in order to justify its continuation (oh dear, poor science, eh?)…” For some reason, I don’t think he liked it.
John, what’s your professional opinion (or non-professional opinion) of Grayling as a philosopher. I quite like reading his articles but have not read any of of his technical stuff. He quite likes to lambast relgion in that dry English manner. Which is probably why I like reading him. Anyway, thoughts?
I liked the style of writing in the article. Some writing can be terminally confusing even in short sentences but the good writer can make sense even at length. I think a lot of it depends on an ephemeral lyricism that approaches art. Why does art make sense? Beauty is symmetry. Balance is confidence and confidence is its own reward.
I liked the style of writing in the article. Some writing can be terminally confusing even in short sentences but the good writer can make sense even at length. I think a lot of it depends on an ephemeral lyricism that approaches art. Why does art make sense? Beauty is symmetry. Balance is confidence and confidence is its own reward.
John wrote That’s the other thing about the British. They don’t all think that a sentence has to be five words or less. I’m reminded of something E.B. White (I think) wrote, to the effect that ‘she dove into the ocean of her sentence, finally emerging triumphant on the other side with the verb in her teeth.’ Possibly from The Once and Future King, though that neuron seems to be on holiday at the moment.
John Wilkins @#2 That’s the other thing about the British. They don’t all think that a sentence has to be five words or less. …Unless. We’vebeen. Watching. Too much. Star Trek!
John Wilkins @#2 That’s the other thing about the British. They don’t all think that a sentence has to be five words or less. …Unless. We’vebeen. Watching. Too much. Star Trek!
….In fact the first sentence was one and a half A4 pages long! To make the obligatory German joke: “….and all 43 verbs were at the very end!” 😉 More usefully (or at least, not intentionally joking), I have to question the paragraph beginning: “And what has atheism done for science?….” (there was a thread at Pharyngula ‘tother day on this). Grayling seems to be overstating the case a bit: while growing intellectual freedom depended on the diminution of Church power, I don’t think it was explicit atheism or atheists that did most of that, historically. This only works if one adopts a simplistic schema in which any move away from strict orthodoxy is to be deemed a move towards atheism — and I seem to recall John having an argument on t.o a few years back, against a rather obtuse poster who was quite insistent on viewing the history in exactly that manner (something about “Galileo being as atheist as he could”).
….In fact the first sentence was one and a half A4 pages long! To make the obligatory German joke: “….and all 43 verbs were at the very end!” 😉 More usefully (or at least, not intentionally joking), I have to question the paragraph beginning: “And what has atheism done for science?….” (there was a thread at Pharyngula ‘tother day on this). Grayling seems to be overstating the case a bit: while growing intellectual freedom depended on the diminution of Church power, I don’t think it was explicit atheism or atheists that did most of that, historically. This only works if one adopts a simplistic schema in which any move away from strict orthodoxy is to be deemed a move towards atheism — and I seem to recall John having an argument on t.o a few years back, against a rather obtuse poster who was quite insistent on viewing the history in exactly that manner (something about “Galileo being as atheist as he could”).