Those who have referenced Gopnik's New Yorker piece on Popper as reliable and worthy of serious examination might also want to commend to the list his latest effort, which they may wish to insist is not scherzo either but instead a reliable account of evolutionary effects that is also worthy of serious examination:- "By this I mean our readiness to think that anything that has the short stature and plump cheeks and rounded body of a human baby must actually be like a human baby. If we did not think babies were hopelessly cute, after all, we would kill them for being so exhausting. And so panda bears and chipmunks, and short men too, have smuggled their way into our affections through the same cognitive door that was meant to open only for the infants. A typical penguin is as full of rage, violence and dignity as a tiger but they resemble our young, and so are pinned as adorable. They are classified as cute, as short men are, too." Why short men make better husbands Why short men make better husbands Short men make better husbands, and make up in wisdom what they lack in stature, says self-confessed small man, Adam Gopnik. View on www.bbc.co.uk Preview by Yahoo For the record, Gopnik is a self-confessed "short man". He means "short" in height rather than in analytical skills. But the confusion is understandable. There is something quite engaging about a punchy prose style that smuggles its way into our affections through the same cognitive door that was meant to open only for the infants. Dnl On Sunday, 5 October 2014, 15:18, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I am not intaking oxygen waiting for the gricean chemical approach On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:32 AM, cblists@xxxxxxxx <cblists@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 03 Oct 2014, at 23:57, Eric <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I'm with Nagel. Materialist physical reductionism is almost certainly >> wrong: wrong as science; wrong as philosophy. It is our current error, a >> hidden religion inside science, especially as it is presented to >> laypeople. > >I'm in your and Nagel's camp - perhaps at the fanatical forefront. (Is that a >mixture of metaphors?) 'Fanatical'- in that I would leave out the 'almost'. > >Physical reductionism is wrong. By that I mean (i.e., would argue), when we >restrict ourselves to accounts of the world in which 'materialist physical >reductionism' is 'the only language game in town' (now that's MORE than just a >mixture of metaphors), we impose an unacceptable (at least in my fanatical >opinion) restriction on our 'form of life'. > >(My - no doubt heretically twisted - Wittgensteinian roots are showing, I >know.) > >In my opinion, the error arises because people forget that 'science' is and >will ever remain 'natural philosophy'; when that is forgotten that your >'hidden religion' arises. > >Chris Bruce, >still celebrating >Enlightenment's birthday, >in Kiel, Germany >-- > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, >digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > > -- palma, etheKwini, KZN palma cell phone is 0762362391 *only when in Europe*: inst. J. Nicod 29 rue d'Ulm f-75005 paris france