S asserts that not-p. S is paid. Therefore S is paid to assert that not-p. The likelihood of the truth of not-p varies inversely with what one is paid to assert it. If one’s been exposed to the evidence available to her for p, and yet she asserts that not-p nonetheless, she asserts what … Continue reading THE CRITICAL THINKING PROFESSOR’S DILEMMA
shilling
OH BUT THAT’S DIFFERENT
As a philosopher of mind Kant was beyond brilliant. As an ethicist he was an idiot. Kant asks us to consider two scenarios: I steal your wallet, you steal mine. If I think the one is okay, I have to think the other is too. Why? “Well, because they’re the same.” No they’re not. In … Continue reading OH BUT THAT’S DIFFERENT
In Defense of Shilling
WHY MY COLLEAGUES ARE IDIOTS - Rant # 163 – IN DEFENSE OF SHILLING For the 312th time – yes, I decided to start counting - I have no interest whatsoever in weighing in on the global warming debate. Nor, for that matter, in the debate that seems to have replaced that debate, namely the … Continue reading In Defense of Shilling
