@jasonwblakely Well, when I was an undergrad in the 80s, the philosophy section in most bookstores consisted of new age self-help gobbledygook and Deepak Chopra; so, an improvement if you asked me.
Hume NEVER doubts the reality of causal connections; he says so and Kant reiterates that. His doubt is over the justification and source of the IDEA of causation. How could someone (Hume) who explicitly wanted to be the Newton of the mind ever doubt that the world is governed by causation?
@markkaplan20 For this kind of cardiac event, 52 or so seems to be the witching age. Jim Fixx, David Letterman, Bill Clinton, and 2 people I know personally all had major cardiac events at around that age. Someone should look into it.
@histories_arch Without casting doubt on the story, Polaroid Land Cameras, the kind where the photo develops in minutes, were pretty rare on the ground in 1961. How else could they have a photo of Ike with them after having seen them only a brief time before?
@over_mind69 Sorry, but he's not. Rudd's first shot after the return he nicely puts right down the middle. In a real match, that ball goes hard into Fed's backhand and the race is on. Fun to watch but this wasn't ATP speed at all
@washghost1 As anyone who's had major surgery will tell you, we're with the surgeon, 100%. If you're on a slab with an open wound, there's no room for playing nice with feelings. It's literally life or death.
@PAHoyeck P1: If there is no God, [insert false sentence]
P2: [insert true sentence that contradicts the consequent in P1]
C: There is a God
Philosophical theology for cheap!
There are two things that I think virtually every society today has an almost perfect selection process of native talent for: math and foot speed. Every child is confronted with opportunities at each early on and if they demonstrate any talent, they are quickly noticed and further opportunities await. Gould is as wrong on this as he is on many other things: there are no Usain Bolt's out there that haven't been discovered; nor are there Von Nuemann's or Gauss's.
I appreciate the idea, but P has to be a sentence so that the Boolean Truths come out for those sentences with Boolean connectives; on the other hand, for the first one, you need P to be a name for that predication to be analytically true. No sentence is identical to anything.