Today, I've read and written brief critiques of:
1. Cumminskey, 'Reference failure and scientific realism: a response to the meta-induction', British Journal of Philosophy of Science.
2. Niiniluoto, 'Reference invariance and truthlikeness', Philosophy of Science.
3. Kuhn, 'Dubbing and redubbing: the vulnerability of rigid designation', Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science XIV.
My confessions are:
1. Sometimes, I swear to god, I just cannot believe how boring this is. Have mercy.
2. Right now, I am getting a gleefully sadistic kick out of the fact that other people like me are going to get a google hit on this page when they are looking for the articles to read. Ha! Hahaha!
Conclusions:
I really, really need to think about something else soon. I'm am just having major trouble caring about whether or not optical aether theories really advanced us toward modern theories of light. And believe it or not, an integral feature of my life is supposed to be that I care about this. And more amazingly still ... I usually do.
Solutions:
1. get new life
2. retain life, rearrange priorities
3. retain life, retrieve priorities from the dark place in hell where I have apparently stuffed them
I'll get back to you on this.
3 comments:
My god, yer haaaavy. I still don't know yet whether or not I'm intelligent but sometimes I think it's better that way. As for your questions, let me think about that. It'll take some time!
ok I'm back and I agree with solution #2.
Heidi, there's no doubt in my mind you have a giant brain, so thank god you came along to settle the solution. No. 2 it is. Update shortly on priority rearrangement ...
Post a Comment