What is philosophy? 16 Dec 2008 Below the fold is a video produced by the Australasian Association of Philosophy back in the 1990s. The talking head is, I think, Graeme Graham Priest. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IG1IAzSC0U&hl=en&fs=1] Uncategorized
Evolution God and evolution 4: The problem of Purpose B 19 Apr 201323 Jun 2018 Providence and plans The problem for theists is that most theisms assume that God has a plan. This is sometimes called providence: God provides for goals he has, for the benefit of the organisms, and in particular for humans, and for the achievement of his purposes. As soon as Darwin… Read More
Uncategorized Blogging the history of science 11 Aug 20084 Oct 2017 A chance link to my blog has led me through an ego search to find Will Thomas’ most excellent Ether Wave Propaganda blog. Will is a historian of science post-doc, I think, and he has an engaging style. Coincidentally, John Lynch lists various links to history of science, including a… Read More
Uncategorized The narratives of science journalism 14 Sep 2008 It occurs to me that I don’t have a good list of these, so I invite you all to list and name your favourite science journalism narratives. You know, the sorts of things that journalists must squeeze every science story into, no matter what the actual content. Journalists in general… Read More
But that would lead to a para-consistency! Oh, wait… Have you tried this on him? I’d love to see how he gets around it.
At least Graham Priest will have a hard time arguing why “Graeme Priest” is not the correct spelling … oh, it is surely wrong, but according to Priest that doesn’t exclude the possibility that it’s right as well. Trouble like this is, in fact, the main problem for dialetheism (at least Priest’s system) – even if there were dialetheia, you want to be able to at least formulate the claim that some sentence ‘s’ isn’t among them, yet there are no resources for doing exactly that (and what does that expressive limitation do to his argument against a Tarski-style solution to the semantic paradoxes? Just asking).
At least Graham Priest will have a hard time arguing why “Graeme Priest” is not the correct spelling … oh, it is surely wrong, but according to Priest that doesn’t exclude the possibility that it’s right as well. Trouble like this is, in fact, the main problem for dialetheism (at least Priest’s system) – even if there were dialetheia, you want to be able to at least formulate the claim that some sentence ‘s’ isn’t among them, yet there are no resources for doing exactly that (and what does that expressive limitation do to his argument against a Tarski-style solution to the semantic paradoxes? Just asking).