"Mind and Cosmos" from Thomas Nagel

[Gary Bohn]

Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well enough to critique it?

I know Wilkins can Australian crawl through it, but does Nagel even register on John's radar?

I have a physician stalking me on Twitter who seems to think Nagel has decimated all of evolution and shown macro cannot come from the accumulation of micro.

I have no intent of spending money on reconstituted bullshit if that's what Nagel has produced.

[Ernest Major]

Sober's review seems to be the best of the ones I found

http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/remarkable-facts

From what I can infer of Nagel's book from the reviews, he didn't even
try to show that macro cannot result from the accumulation of micro, so
perhaps you should ask the physician to explicate Nagel's reasoning.

--
alias Ernest Major

[RSNorman]

It looks like that conclusion is an extension of Nagel's
anti-reductionism. A "goal" of evolution is to produce the diversity
of life (Nagel advocates a teleological approach) whereas the
reductionistic details lie in the microevolutionary process. Deny
reductionism and microevolution doesn't explain macroevolution.

[Burkhard]

I think a pretty fair analysis is here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/01/29/169896128/is-there-a-place-for-the-mind-in-physics-part-i

I'd probably agree with most of it, apart from the cliche of bringing a
knife to a gun fight. Contrary to that mindlessly repeated phrase, it
is utterly sensible to bring a knife to a gunfight, hence bayonets. And
have these guys never watched the Magnificent Seven? But I digress.

Executive summary: It isn't all THAT bad, just not very good either -
intellectually underpowered, sloppyly reasoned, and very very lazy.
Essentially, philosopher with little grasp of the current literature
saying: I'm an important philosopher and don't have to know an science
to tell scientists where they go wrong. I also don't understand your
theory, it goes against my layman's intuitions, and since I'm an
important philosopher, it stands to reason that the theory is therefore
wrong. And not only that, alternative theory X must be right (in his
case, some sort of teleology)

This despite
- him not being able to make a good case that the ToE really has gaps
(apart from his repeated" it sounds implausible to me)
- a failure to show how teleology would fill the gap that he identifies:
why would we think a teleological process that uses material stuff such
as neurons is any better to produce mind than an unguided one? His
problem is more with neuroscience than with evolution, and would remain
the same issue even if the ToE were to be abandoned
- utter failure to give any independent reasons why the alternative
might be true
- and indeed utter failure to even try an outline of such an alternative
theory (Philosophy cannot generate such explanations,it can only point
out the gaping lack of them.)

SO as I said, endless repetition of "this sounds implausible to me,
therefore it must be wrong"

But he has its uses - next time Ray claims that all atheist have to
accept the ToE, you can point at Nagel as yet another exception

[Gary Bohn]

Nice breakdown.

Ray on the other hand...

[Robert Camp]

Aww, c'mon...judging by his arguments Ray's breakdown must have been a
doozy.

[J. J. Lodder]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Gary Bohn wrote:
> > Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well
> >enough to critique it?
> >
> > I know Wilkins can Australian crawl through it, but does Nagel even
> >register on John's radar?
> >
> > I have a physician stalking me on Twitter who seems to think Nagel has
> >decimated all of evolution and shown macro cannot come from the
> >accumulation of micro.
> >
> > I have no intent of spending money on reconstituted bullshit if that's
> >what Nagel has produced.
> >
>
> I think a pretty fair analysis is here:
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/01/29/169896128/is-there-a-place-for-the-mi
nd-in-physics-part-i
>
> I'd probably agree with most of it, apart from the cliche of bringing a
> knife to a gun fight. Contrary to that mindlessly repeated phrase, it
> is utterly sensible to bring a knife to a gunfight, hence bayonets. And
> have these guys never watched the Magnificent Seven? But I digress.

To continue with the digression:
in the olden days soldiers who were made to charge
usually weren't issued any ammo.
They just had the shot they had loaded in advance.

If you give them ammo they won't charge,
but will fire their shot and stop to reload.

Once there, and the opposition bayonetted,
others could bring up more ammo,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well
> enough to critique it?

Smart people don't critique,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:54:42 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

A bit overgeneralized, don't you think? Or isn't peer review
a critique?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[John S. Wilkins]

Reviews have not been kind to it. I haven't read it.
--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:56:50 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:54:42 +0100, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder):
>
>>Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well
>>> enough to critique it?
>
>>Smart people don't critique,
>
>A bit overgeneralized, don't you think?

Guess not...

> Or isn't peer review
>a critique?

I guess it isn't.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:56:50 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
> >On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:54:42 +0100, the following appeared in
> >talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >Lodder):
> >
> >>Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well
> >>> enough to critique it?
> >
> >>Smart people don't critique,
> >
> >A bit overgeneralized, don't you think?
>
> Guess not...
>
> > Or isn't peer review
> >a critique?
>
> I guess it isn't.

A peer doesn't critique, hshe reviews.
A peer reviewer who critiques will be very soon
a non-peer, non-reviewer,

Jan

[RSNorman]

This notion, starting from the comment "smart people don't critique",
and continuing about peer review strikes me as total nonsense. Or
possibly a misunderstanding about what "critique" means.

Dictionary definitions runs something like what google reports:
"noun: detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a
literary, philosophical, or political theory."

"verb: evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical
way"

That seems to me to be exactly what smart people should do with a
work, especially a philosophical work like "Mind and Cosmos". What do
you think much of "New York Review of Books" or "London Review of
Books" consists of if not critiques? Then I guess Kant must not be
considered smart for writing "Critique of Pure Reason".

As to scientific papers, here is a course assignment in
"Critiquing scientific papers" based on
"Guidelines for Reviewers" of manuscripts submitted for publication in the
journals of the Ecological Society of America
http://www3.botany.ubc.ca/rieseberglab/plantevol/critique.pdf

Here is a statement about "Using a Scientific Journal Article to Write
a Critical Review" where the critical review is consistently referred
to as a "critique"

http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/get-assistance/writing/specific-types-papers/using-scientific-journal-article-write-critical-review

[Burkhard]

I thought it was simply a somewhat tongue in cheek comment on the
pretentiousness of the word "critique" - I must admit when I'm attending
a talk, and the speaker starts with saying that s/he intends to critique
ABC, as opposed to "discuss/analyse/rebut/tear a new a**hole, my heart
sinks....

[RSNorman]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:50:00 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Perhaps the first comment could have been that. But the second seemed
to indicate otherwise. Outside science the word certainly doesn't
carry the connotation you describe and even within science it is
commonly used. There are numerous guides found on academic sites for
teaching students to critique a scientific paper.

[Roger Shrubber]

I'm curious too. Maybe it's some strange "lost in translation" thing.
Granted, some people are bad at critiquing. Those who are especially
bad respond to what they think should have been written instead of
what was actually written. But that's a problem with individuals,
not with the process per se. Individuals who are bad at criticisms
does not mean the process of criticism is bad.

[Burkhard]

I don't think anyone said that, it is the choice of words, not the
activity. And doing a "critique" of A is not the same as doing a
criticism of A I'd say. The former is intended to be a neutral term as
to the outcome - ravishing praise can also be a critique. And yes,
there is room for a term that is more neutral than criticism, but more
committed maybe than analysis, it just got overused. I'm also having the
mini-theory (though I can't document it, to be fair) that the term
originated in the field of literary theory, traveled on the postmodern
ship to the US and became rampant there (and now is getting imported
back, as it so often happens)

It's just how in my experience this works out in practice. This is not
about the dictionary definition, just accumulated experience - all too
often, when I'm listening to a self-styled "critique", what I get is
either a good old criticism but the presenter is too worried to stick
his/her neck out, and buries it under hedge words, which often (not
always, or necessarily) indicates a weak argument. The better papers, in
my experience, say what they do and use "refutation" or "criticism".

Or the opposite happens, and you get a worthy piece of analysis that
however never progresses beyond a useful FYI - there the authors use the
term to sound more critical than they actually are.

As I said, this is all rather impressionistic and not based on sound
statistical studies, but I know from chats at conference dinners that in
my disciplines at least, other people have noticed this too (and to be
totally honest, I've done it myself. Where I've used the term, the paper
was something I had to do by a deadline and with little interest, so
they are papers with just an acceptable amount of novelty for the
refereed paper section, but could as well have ended up as a mere
"analysis" or "review" piece...)

[RSNorman]

Perhaps one problem is the incorrect notion that a "critique" is only
"criticism". Here is what one source teaching students how to write a
critique says about it" "You are expected to read the article
carefully, analyse it, and evaluate the quality and originality of the
research, as well as its relevance and presentation. Its strengths and
weaknesses are assessed, followed by its overall value. Do not be
confused by the term critique: it does not mean that you only look at
the negative aspects of what the researcher has done. You should
address both the positive and negative aspects."

http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/get-assistance/writing/specific-types-papers/using-scientific-journal-article-write-critical-review

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:41:13 +0100, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:56:50 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>
>> >On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:54:42 +0100, the following appeared in
>> >talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >Lodder):
>> >
>> >>Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well
>> >>> enough to critique it?
>> >
>> >>Smart people don't critique,
>> >
>> >A bit overgeneralized, don't you think?
>>
>> Guess not...
>>
>> > Or isn't peer review
>> >a critique?
>>
>> I guess it isn't.
>
>A peer doesn't critique, hshe reviews.
>A peer reviewer who critiques will be very soon
>a non-peer, non-reviewer,

So to you peer review isn't a critique, as I asked? OK, but
apparently the words in Dutch have somewhat different
meanings from those in English. In English, from the OED:

"critique Line breaks: cri|tique
Pronunciation: /kr?'ti?k/
Definition of critique in English:
noun
A detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially

a literary, philosophical, or political theory."

If peer review doesn't include a "detailed analysis and
assessment" of the paper under review I'd argue that the
reviewer is shirking his/her job.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:26:54 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

Thanks to all who followed up. That is essentially how I
think of "critique" and why I suspect, as noted elsethread
by myself and Roger, that the problem may be one of
translation.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
news:04r0galb8o33c2e90...@4ax.com:

You're overlooking the fact that the original poster used 'critique' as a
verb, and all of J.J. Lodder's responses have used it the same way. It
seems fairly clear that Lodder finds the verb 'critique' objectionable,
not the noun. The question of whether a peer review can be considered a
critique is irrelevant. I doubt whether most people participating in a
peer review would say they're critiquing the paper in question: it sounds
pretentious.
--
S.O.P.

[Roger Shrubber]

Not wanting to sound pretentious, but I find nothing wrong with
the word critique to describe peer review, as either noun or verb.
I don't have a problem with criticize either. While some definitions
of criticize emphasize negative comments, others don't. In fact I've
seen definitions of criticize that list critique.

Perhaps I have a tin ear respective to some obvious connotations.
In fact I probably do, but thought that was part of being a scientist,
specifically the part that embraces a rather rough and tumble battle
of ideas. I'm distressingly serious about this. There are those who
get quite shocked at hearing blunt appraisals of ideas if there is
something negative within those appraisals. They seem shocked that
somebody has said something negative, as if saying something negative
about an idea is a bad thing: a thing to be avoided. I guess it's
a cultural thing and some of us lack culture.

In my experience, this is a common point of culture shock between
scientists and non-scientists. I'll rewrite an actual experience
for dramatic effect. A friendly and enthusiastic professional
development expert is meeting with a team of scientists to help
enable them to communicate more effectively. These are the things
that human resources organizes so that they feel like they are
doing something useful.

They do some play acting involving a conflict and then the
communications professional steps in. They have a long list of
words they highlight from the skit. They are (shock) _negative_
words. Apparently, you are not supposed to use negative words
like less, lower, damage, error or mistake. You get some interesting
looks from a group of scientists when they are told this.
I could try to write something funny hear about how tortured
it is to communicate some things if you avoid these "negative"
words, but I'm not feeling inspired that way.

Interestingly, we were somehow able to effectively communicate
to our communication facilitator that, among each other, scientists
don't freak out when they hear "negative" terms. It's about
efficiency in getting to the point. Or maybe there is some
tint of Asperger syndrome in many scientists.

Go ahead and criticize that.

[RSNorman]

I gave definitions for both the verb and the noun form. The product
of critiquing is a critique -- there is no essential difference except
how you describe the product and how it is produced.

The most important idea is that the original poster asked for someone
to critique Thonas Nagel's book "Mind and Cosmos." A critique is
exactly what is required and not a peer review. And, just as
important, the book is more a philosophical piece and not at all a
scientific research paper. Critiquing such a work is a very
respectable task in fields outside of science. And writing scientific
critiques is also done even if that word is avoided.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:erGdnZqDtO0bAJ3I...@giganews.com:

Are you an academic? I think Lodder is. Hard to imagine why else he'd be
such a grump. Anyway, I think it's an academic thing.

> I don't have a problem with criticize either. While some definitions
> of criticize emphasize negative comments, others don't. In fact I've
> seen definitions of criticize that list critique.
>
> Perhaps I have a tin ear respective to some obvious connotations.
> In fact I probably do, but thought that was part of being a scientist,
> specifically the part that embraces a rather rough and tumble battle
> of ideas.

Well, yes. Haven't you noticed how blunt Lodder's opinions are? Rough
and tumble ain't the half of it. I'm sure he couldn't care less about
any negative connotations 'critique' or 'criticize' might possess.

> I'm distressingly serious about this.

Just repeat to yourself 'It's just a life, I should really just
relax...'

> There are those who get quite shocked at hearing blunt appraisals of
> ideas if there is something negative within those appraisals.

You're not thinking either Lodder or Burkhard is that sort of person,
are you?

> They seem shocked that somebody has said something negative, as if
> saying something negative about an idea is a bad thing: a thing to be
> avoided. I guess it's a cultural thing and some of us lack culture.

I think it's more that some of us don't give a shit.

> In my experience, this is a common point of culture shock between
> scientists and non-scientists. I'll rewrite an actual experience
> for dramatic effect. A friendly and enthusiastic professional
> development expert is meeting with a team of scientists to help
> enable them to communicate more effectively. These are the things
> that human resources organizes so that they feel like they are
> doing something useful.

My skin started crawling the second I read 'friendly and enthusiastic
professional development expert'. Gah!

> They do some play acting involving a conflict and then the
> communications professional steps in. They have a long list of
> words they highlight from the skit. They are (shock) _negative_
> words. Apparently, you are not supposed to use negative words
> like less, lower, damage, error or mistake.

That sounds like the kind of advice you'd get from a friendly and
enthusiastic professional development expert, all right.

> You get some interesting looks from a group of scientists when they
> are told this.

I can imagine.

> I could try to write something funny hear about how tortured
> it is to communicate some things if you avoid these "negative"
> words, but I'm not feeling inspired that way.

Don't worry, I won't think the inverse of more of you.

> Interestingly, we were somehow able to effectively communicate
> to our communication facilitator that, among each other, scientists
> don't freak out when they hear "negative" terms. It's about
> efficiency in getting to the point. Or maybe there is some
> tint of Asperger syndrome in many scientists.
>
> Go ahead and criticize that.

Okay. It's 'Asperger's syndrome', and I don't think you should be
flippant about it, but that's only because my nephew has been diagnosed
with it. I have the unpleasant suspicion that I personally suffer from
PDD-NOS, but I've never actually been diagnosed.
--
S.O.P.

[Roger Shrubber]

Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:erGdnZqDtO0bAJ3I...@giganews.com:
>
>> Sneaky O. Possum wrote:


>>>>> A peer doesn't critique, hshe reviews. A peer reviewer who
>>>>> critiques will be very soon a non-peer, non-reviewer,

....

>>> You're overlooking the fact that the original poster used 'critique'
>>> as a verb, and all of J.J. Lodder's responses have used it the same
>>> way. It seems fairly clear that Lodder finds the verb 'critique'
>>> objectionable, not the noun. The question of whether a peer review
>>> can be considered a critique is irrelevant. I doubt whether most
>>> people participating in a peer review would say they're critiquing
>>> the paper in question: it sounds pretentious.

>> Not wanting to sound pretentious, but I find nothing wrong with
>> the word critique to describe peer review, as either noun or verb.

> Are you an academic? I think Lodder is. Hard to imagine why else he'd be
> such a grump. Anyway, I think it's an academic thing.

Sortof a hybrid, however, it isn't only academics who do peer
review. It turns out that journal editors send things out to
people who publish, and people they know, and people who are
suggested, and basically anyone who they can possibly get to
respond with a review. Some actually consider it a vocational
responsibility once you've been anointed with the appropriate
alcohol and a few stray letters.

>> I don't have a problem with criticize either. While some definitions
>> of criticize emphasize negative comments, others don't. In fact I've
>> seen definitions of criticize that list critique.

>> Perhaps I have a tin ear respective to some obvious connotations.
>> In fact I probably do, but thought that was part of being a scientist,
>> specifically the part that embraces a rather rough and tumble battle
>> of ideas.

> Well, yes. Haven't you noticed how blunt Lodder's opinions are? Rough
> and tumble ain't the half of it. I'm sure he couldn't care less about
> any negative connotations 'critique' or 'criticize' might possess.

Oddly enough, there's a potential disjoint there.

>> I'm distressingly serious about this.
>
> Just repeat to yourself 'It's just a life, I should really just
> relax...'

s/relax/drink

>> There are those who get quite shocked at hearing blunt appraisals of
>> ideas if there is something negative within those appraisals.
>
> You're not thinking either Lodder or Burkhard is that sort of person,
> are you?

Not really, and that's why this thread intrigues me. There's some
extra baggage to this word 'critique' that escapes me, even after
I've seen allusions to post-modernist associations. It may be that
I need to shed some of my own baggage.

>> They seem shocked that somebody has said something negative, as if
>> saying something negative about an idea is a bad thing: a thing to be
>> avoided. I guess it's a cultural thing and some of us lack culture.

> I think it's more that some of us don't give a shit.

>> In my experience, this is a common point of culture shock between
>> scientists and non-scientists. I'll rewrite an actual experience
>> for dramatic effect. A friendly and enthusiastic professional
>> development expert is meeting with a team of scientists to help
>> enable them to communicate more effectively. These are the things
>> that human resources organizes so that they feel like they are
>> doing something useful.

> My skin started crawling the second I read 'friendly and enthusiastic
> professional development expert'. Gah!

>> They do some play acting involving a conflict and then the
>> communications professional steps in. They have a long list of
>> words they highlight from the skit. They are (shock) _negative_
>> words. Apparently, you are not supposed to use negative words
>> like less, lower, damage, error or mistake.

> That sounds like the kind of advice you'd get from a friendly and
> enthusiastic professional development expert, all right.

>> You get some interesting looks from a group of scientists when they
>> are told this.

> I can imagine.

>> I could try to write something funny here about how tortured

>> it is to communicate some things if you avoid these "negative"
>> words, but I'm not feeling inspired that way.

> Don't worry, I won't think the inverse of more of you.

>> Interestingly, we were somehow able to effectively communicate
>> to our communication facilitator that, among each other, scientists
>> don't freak out when they hear "negative" terms. It's about
>> efficiency in getting to the point. Or maybe there is some
>> tint of Asperger syndrome in many scientists.
>>
>> Go ahead and criticize that.

> Okay. It's 'Asperger's syndrome',

Actually, either is correct.

> and I don't think you should be
> flippant about it, but that's only because my nephew has been diagnosed
> with it. I have the unpleasant suspicion that I personally suffer from
> PDD-NOS, but I've never actually been diagnosed.

You have certain afflictions. Most of us do.
And I don't just have friends who are black, I have a brother who
has all the hallmarks of Asperger syndrome. But I happen to think
it's a continuum of sorts. Perceiving social clues; being sensitive
to the social clues we perceive; being motivated by social interactions:
we all vary. And those particular aspects likely fracture and mingle.
Undoubtedly, some of use face more challenges than others. Some
of us only get by with a little help from our friends.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:16:34 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:

Fair enough. Same source:

"verb (critiques, critiquing, critiqued)
[with object]
Evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical
way: the authors critique the methods and practices used in
the research".

....which is, among other things, what the reviewer of a
scientific paper is supposed to do.

> The question of whether a peer review can be considered a
>critique is irrelevant.

Apparently not to Jan; that's the source of the discussion.
Again, I suspect it's a translation issue, including
connotations peculiar to the two languages, and Jan thinks
it's synonymous with "criticize". But Jan hasn't seen fit to
follow up so we can't be sure.

> I doubt whether most people participating in a
>peer review would say they're critiquing the paper in question: it sounds
>pretentious.

So? That has nothing to do with its accuracy.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in

news:e7g3ga5rcattr59es...@4ax.com:

The issue is what someone who uses the word as a verb sounds like when he
or she uses it. Burkhard thinks a person using the verb sounds
pretentious and vague, which is not a good combo. I suspect Lodder has
the same opinion, but he's too snotty to spell it out for hoi polloi.

>> The question of whether a peer review can be considered a
>>critique is irrelevant.
>
> Apparently not to Jan; that's the source of the discussion.

I don't believe it is, no. I think you and Jan are talking at cross-
purposes. Saying 'smart people don't critique, they review' is a bit like
saying 'real men don't eat quiche Lorraine, they eat ham and eggs.'
Objection to the term doesn't imply objection to the content.

> Again, I suspect it's a translation issue, including
> connotations peculiar to the two languages, and Jan thinks
> it's synonymous with "criticize". But Jan hasn't seen fit to
> follow up so we can't be sure.

I very much doubt that Jan is having translation issues. His English is
excellent: if I didn't know it wasn't his first language, I wouldn't be
able to tell. And when has Jan ever shown an aversion to criticism? Thin-
skinned, he ain't.

>> I doubt whether most people participating in a
>>peer review would say they're critiquing the paper in question: it
>>sounds pretentious.
>
> So? That has nothing to do with its accuracy.

And its accuracy has nothing to do with the effect it has on someone who
hears it. Haven't you ever noticed the way some people shudder when they
hear a word that other people find inoffensive? I've read that the word
'moist' makes some people's skin crawl. 'Critique' doesn't bother me, but
there are other words that make me flinch for reasons unrelated to their
meaning.
--
S.O.P.

[RSNorman]

I have made this point several times, now, but nobody seems interested
-- the original query was to find a critique of a rather philosophical
work, not a technical scientific paper. Critiquing (as a verb) and
writing critiques (as a noun) is quite a common practice outside
science. Doing very similar things within science although not
ordinarily using those words is also not at all unusual.

In response, people provided web citations of a variety of blogs and
"reviews" of the original book which were, in reality, actual
critiques. Reviews in such literary digests as "New York Review of
Books" and "London Review of Books" are ordinarily critiques even
though the title is "review."

[Roger Shrubber]

>> hear word that other people find inoffensive? I've read that the word

>> 'moist' makes some people's skin crawl. 'Critique' doesn't bother me, but
>> there are other words that make me flinch for reasons unrelated to their
>> meaning.
>
> I have made this point several times, now, but nobody seems interested
> -- the original query was to find a critique of a rather philosophical
> work, not a technical scientific paper. Critiquing (as a verb) and
> writing critiques (as a noun) is quite a common practice outside
> science. Doing very similar things within science although not
> ordinarily using those words is also not at all unusual.
>
> In response, people provided web citations of a variety of blogs and
> "reviews" of the original book which were, in reality, actual
> critiques. Reviews in such literary digests as "New York Review of
> Books" and "London Review of Books" are ordinarily critiques even
> though the title is "review."

I've seen your responses, and while I don't share your very specific
notion of what a "critique" is and is not, it didn't seem worthy
of pursuing a holy war. I thought I'd do more listening to see how
many others shared the same highly specific notions of when and where
to use the word. Burkhard seemed to share your sensibilities.

I understand what is being claimed. I have trouble grasping why
people would care enough to bother with such a distinction, other
than the tried and true, fights between academics are so brutal
because the stakes are so low.

[J. J. Lodder]

And with it your opinion of the speaker,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Sneaky O. Possum <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:

Scientific discourse can be quite blunt.
'Aber das ist Falsch!! Sogar ganz falsch!!'
One of the unwritten rules though
is that you can't be purely negative.
When saying something is wrong you have to say also
how it can be improved, or how else it can be done,
or what is the right way of doing it.

Making a habit of purely negative criticism
is a fast track to a non-career in science,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Off-line newsreading is unknown to you?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:41:13 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:56:50 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:54:42 +0100, the following appeared in
> >> >talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> >Lodder):
> >> >
> >> >>Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well
> >> >>> enough to critique it?
> >> >
> >> >>Smart people don't critique,
> >> >
> >> >A bit overgeneralized, don't you think?
> >>
> >> Guess not...
> >>
> >> > Or isn't peer review
> >> >a critique?
> >>
> >> I guess it isn't.
> >
> >A peer doesn't critique, hshe reviews.
> >A peer reviewer who critiques will be very soon
> >a non-peer, non-reviewer,
>
> So to you peer review isn't a critique, as I asked?

Of course not, a reviewer reviews.
On basis of the review he gives advice.
To journal editors, on what to accept,
and to authors on how to modify their papers
to make them acceptable to the editor,
or on finding a more suitable journal.
A reviewer who merely 'critiques'
will soon be out of more material to review.
(if the editor has any sense)

> OK, but
> apparently the words in Dutch have somewhat different
> meanings from those in English.

What has Dutch got to do with it?

> In English, from the OED:
>
> "critique Line breaks: cri|tique
> Pronunciation: /kr?'ti?k/
> Definition of critique in English:
> noun
> A detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially
> a literary, philosophical, or political theory."

What has English got to do with it?
The subject of discussion is a pretentious and silly
(mostly American) neologism:
to modern usage of 'to critique'.

> If peer review doesn't include a "detailed analysis and
> assessment" of the paper under review I'd argue that the
> reviewer is shirking his/her job.

Not applicable, see above.
'To critique' usually means merely to find fault with,
on subjects you have little understanding or expertise of.
(usually by parrotting prefabbed arguments copied from others)
The critical analysis is all too often merely pretense.

When the pupils are told they should be 'critiquing' something,
the theory of evolutioon for example, or climate change,
be prepared for loads of the usual denialist garbage,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

IM(H of course)O the verb 'to critique' is skunked,
for the purpose of serious scientific discussion.

In other words, use of 'to critique' is best avoided,
(especially so by aspiring postdocs)

Jan

[Roger Shrubber]

nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

big snip

> One of the unwritten rules though
> is that you can't be purely negative.
> When saying something is wrong you have to say also
> how it can be improved, or how else it can be done,
> or what is the right way of doing it.
>
> Making a habit of purely negative criticism
> is a fast track to a non-career in science,

I don't know that it's a rule. It's a maturation.
It can be fairly easy to find flaws in ideas.
Scientists are trained to do exactly that. The
trick is to see ways past the flaws, to construct
a rescue or at least find an alternative solution.

Personally I think people first have to be trained
to be able to do the tear down and not be shy about
it. And they have to learn to take it. Then they
need to learn to rescue themselves and ideas in general.
YMMV

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 6:49:45 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 3/4/15 11:16 AM, Gary Bohn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 9:19:49 AM UTC-6, Burkhard wrote:

> >> Gary Bohn wrote:
> >>> Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well enough to critique it?
> >>>

> >>> I know Wilkins can Australian crawl through it, but does Nagel even register on John's radar?
> >>>
> >>> I have a physician stalking me on Twitter who seems to think Nagel has decimated all of evolution and shown macro cannot come from the accumulation of micro.
> >>>
> >>> I have no intent of spending money on reconstituted bullshit if that's what Nagel has produced.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think a pretty fair analysis is here:
> >> http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/01/29/169896128/is-there-a-place-for-the-mind-in-physics-part-i
> >>
> >> I'd probably agree with most of it, apart from the cliche of bringing a
> >> knife to a gun fight. Contrary to that mindlessly repeated phrase, it
> >> is utterly sensible to bring a knife to a gunfight, hence bayonets. And
> >> have these guys never watched the Magnificent Seven? But I digress.
> >>
> >> Executive summary: It isn't all THAT bad, just not very good either -
> >> intellectually underpowered, sloppyly reasoned, and very very lazy.
> >> Essentially, philosopher with little grasp of the current literature
> >> saying: I'm an important philosopher and don't have to know an science
> >> to tell scientists where they go wrong. I also don't understand your
> >> theory, it goes against my layman's intuitions, and since I'm an
> >> important philosopher, it stands to reason that the theory is therefore
> >> wrong. And not only that, alternative theory X must be right (in his
> >> case, some sort of teleology)
> >>
> >> This despite
> >> - him not being able to make a good case that the ToE really has gaps
> >> (apart from his repeated" it sounds implausible to me)
> >> - a failure to show how teleology would fill the gap that he identifies:
> >> why would we think a teleological process that uses material stuff such
> >> as neurons is any better to produce mind than an unguided one? His
> >> problem is more with neuroscience than with evolution, and would remain
> >> the same issue even if the ToE were to be abandoned
> >> - utter failure to give any independent reasons why the alternative
> >> might be true
> >> - and indeed utter failure to even try an outline of such an alternative
> >> theory (Philosophy cannot generate such explanations,it can only point
> >> out the gaping lack of them.)
> >>
> >> SO as I said, endless repetition of "this sounds implausible to me,
> >> therefore it must be wrong"
> >>
> >> But he has its uses - next time Ray claims that all atheist have to
> >> accept the ToE, you can point at Nagel as yet another exception
> >
> > Nice breakdown.
> >
> > Ray on the other hand...
>
> Aww, c'mon...judging by his arguments Ray's breakdown must have been a
> doozy.

What choices does the Atheist have other than evolution (species originating new species)?

Of course my question is rhetorical. Evolution is a one horse "race."

Ray

[RSNorman]

It is strange that you think that the verb "to critique" is mostly an
American neologism when the Oxford dictionary has no problem with the
verb form and it seems to date back to the 18th century. And the
connotation of the verb form is somewhat harsher than that of the noun
form but it does NOT mean simply to find fault with.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Since you don't offer an alternative, Ray that would "appear" to be true.

gregwrld

[Burkhard]

Lots, atheism is after all much older than the ToE. "We don't know yet"
would be one obvious options. Saltationism another. Or Lamarckism.

[J. J. Lodder]

For a modern American usage of 'critiquing' see for example
<http://www.cdapress.com/columns/my_turn/article_fc16b018-7488-5246-bae8
-7e57742d2757.html>

Just a random google grab,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> big snip
> > One of the unwritten rules though
> > is that you can't be purely negative.
> > When saying something is wrong you have to say also
> > how it can be improved, or how else it can be done,
> > or what is the right way of doing it.
> >
> > Making a habit of purely negative criticism
> > is a fast track to a non-career in science,
>
> I don't know that it's a rule. It's a maturation.
> It can be fairly easy to find flaws in ideas.

Indeed, too easy,
in particular if you have but little understanding
of what it is all about.

> Scientists are trained to do exactly that. The
> trick is to see ways past the flaws, to construct
> a rescue or at least find an alternative solution.

Yes, but scientists also are trained
(or should be trained) in ignoring those flaws,
unless they can see a way of doing something about it.
Doing science is first of all the art of the possible.

> Personally I think people first have to be trained
> to be able to do the tear down and not be shy about
> it. And they have to learn to take it. Then they
> need to learn to rescue themselves and ideas in general.

I take it you are not a Popperian.

> YMMV

Certainly. Just 'critiquing' won't get you many,

Jan

--
"You don't take a fortress by pointing to a loose stone in the walls"
(forgotten who)

[Sneaky O. Possum]

RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:ug34gahiqt2gvpqrn...@4ax.com:

You're being a bit disingenuous, aren't you? If you saw the first
definition, I don't know how you could have avoided seeing the second,
viz.: 'b. More generally, to judge critically, to make a critical
assessment of or comment on (an action, person, etc.), not necessarily
in writing. Chiefly U.S.' The first citation for that meaning is from
1969.
--
S.O.P.

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:09:36 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Hardly random. Why not choose, instead, an evolutionary biologist's
perspective:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/558.html

Or the classic Gould and Lewontin paper on spandrels:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/205/1161/581.full.pdf

[J. J. Lodder]

As also pointed out by others
it is the verb 'to citique, critiquing' that was the subject,
not 'a critique',

Jan

[Roger Shrubber]

No.

>> YMMV
>
> Certainly. Just 'critiquing' won't get you many,

You apparently have a definition of that word that
contradicts my understanding of that word and dictionary
definitions of that word. From another reply you are
reacting to some usages you've seen. Fine, the word
gets abused. That won't make me abandon it. It's still
a perfectly good word.

And it's funny that you generalize to say that "Americans"
have redefined the word in a manner that suggests we
got together and decided to usurp its prior meaning.

[RSNorman]

What you find disingenuous I find quite literal. I looked at the
"Oxford Dictionaries" site for American English and found (and this is
the complete text)

verb (critiques, critiquing, critiqued)

Evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way:
"the authors critique the methods and practices used in the research"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/critique

My own copy of the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (1955 edition) says
Critique 1. An essay or article in criticism of a literary (or more
rarely, an artistic) work; a review. 2. The action or art of
criticizing; criticism 1815.

Criticism, in turn, has as its first definition
1. The action of criticizing, or passing (esp. unfavourable)
judgement upon the qualities of anything; fault-finding.

That is the objectionable usage. However the second definition is
more pertinent to the current discussion.
2. The art of estimating the qualities and character of literary or
artistic work 1674.

The work in question was definitely a literary one.

Even your second definition uses the term "critical assessment" or
"judging critically". The Oxford Universal has at the first
definition of "critic" the negative form. However it states as the
second definition "One skilled in literary or artistic criticism; a
professional reviewer; also one skilled in textual or biblical
criticism."

The term "critique", critical, critic, criticism etc. can have very
negative connotations but in many scholarly areas it does not
necessarily unless you impose that connotation on it.

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:54:17 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

If you insist on the notion that a critique is not the act resulting
from critiquing, then so be it. You use your words as you see fit. I
merely insist on pointing out that a very valid use of the verb "to
critique" involves producing a thorough and considered academic review
or analysis of a work or a subject. It need not be limited to finding
fault.

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:54:17 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

You might consider using google scholar to investigate 'critiquing'.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:vu6dnRx5gcRdk57I...@giganews.com:

If you like it, use it. The goodness or badness of a word is a purely
subjective judgment: Jan's opinion of it is not less valid than yours.

> And it's funny that you generalize to say that "Americans"
> have redefined the word in a manner that suggests we
> got together and decided to usurp its prior meaning.

Jan's got the O.E.D. to back him up on that. As I noted in a response to
RSNorman, it gives the second definition of the verb 'critique' as 'More

generally, to judge critically, to make a critical assessment of or
comment on (an action, person, etc.), not necessarily in writing.
Chiefly U.S.'

The earliest citation for that meaning is from 1969.
--
S.O.P.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:26:42 +0000 (UTC), the following

Why suspect when he made his point clear? From the above:

[Jan]

"A peer doesn't critique, hshe reviews. A peer reviewer who
critiques will be very soon a non-peer, non-reviewer,"

Make it fairly clear that he considers "critique" not only
incorrect, but something which would lead to the reviewer
losing his/her position...

>>> The question of whether a peer review can be considered a
>>>critique is irrelevant.

>> Apparently not to Jan; that's the source of the discussion.

>I don't believe it is, no. I think you and Jan are talking at cross-
>purposes. Saying 'smart people don't critique, they review' is a bit like
>saying 'real men don't eat quiche Lorraine, they eat ham and eggs.'
>Objection to the term doesn't imply objection to the content.

....which is why I stated that I think it's a
translation/connotation issue.

>> Again, I suspect it's a translation issue, including
>> connotations peculiar to the two languages, and Jan thinks
>> it's synonymous with "criticize". But Jan hasn't seen fit to
>> follow up so we can't be sure.
>
>I very much doubt that Jan is having translation issues. His English is
>excellent: if I didn't know it wasn't his first language, I wouldn't be
>able to tell. And when has Jan ever shown an aversion to criticism? Thin-
>skinned, he ain't.
>
>>> I doubt whether most people participating in a
>>>peer review would say they're critiquing the paper in question: it
>>>sounds pretentious.
>>
>> So? That has nothing to do with its accuracy.
>
>And its accuracy has nothing to do with the effect it has on someone who
>hears it. Haven't you ever noticed the way some people shudder when they
>hear a word that other people find inoffensive? I've read that the word
>'moist' makes some people's skin crawl. 'Critique' doesn't bother me, but
>there are other words that make me flinch for reasons unrelated to their
>meaning.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:13:23 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

Two observations:

Jan will probably not accept that any definition is valid
other than the one he posted.

Everything wrong in the world traces back to the US,
including incorrect definitions in the OED dating from the
18th century.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:22:45 +0100, the following appeared

Translations tend to carry connotations not found in the
language translated to. Since I assume Dutch is your native
language that problem might apply here.

>> In English, from the OED:
>>
>> "critique Line breaks: cri|tique
>> Pronunciation: /kr?'ti?k/
>> Definition of critique in English:
>> noun
>> A detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially
>> a literary, philosophical, or political theory."
>
>What has English got to do with it?

I confess that floored me... "What has English to do with
the meaning in English?" Really?

>The subject of discussion is a pretentious and silly
>(mostly American) neologism:
>to modern usage of 'to critique'.

No, the subject was your assertion that "critique" and
"review" are somehow totally different. They're not.

>> If peer review doesn't include a "detailed analysis and
>> assessment" of the paper under review I'd argue that the
>> reviewer is shirking his/her job.
>
>Not applicable, see above.
>'To critique' usually means merely to find fault with,

And that's where your error crept in; that is not what it
means. Look at the OED definition, Jan. Yes, it's
descriptive rather than prescriptive, but it *is*
descriptive, and AFAICT reflects current usage.

>on subjects you have little understanding or expertise of.
>(usually by parrotting prefabbed arguments copied from others)
>The critical analysis is all too often merely pretense.
>
>When the pupils are told they should be 'critiquing' something,
>the theory of evolutioon for example, or climate change,
>be prepared for loads of the usual denialist garbage,

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:09:36 +0100, the following appeared

For the accepted definition of the term see:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/critique

Note the comment regarding "British and World English".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:22:34 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com>:

You new here? ;-)

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:48:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

The whole "critiquing" thing has gotten well out of hand and perhaps
it is time to kill it. Perhaps we could even discuss "Mind and
Cosmos" by Thomas Nagel? Nah -- getting out of hand is what we love
to do here.

It is clear (at least to me and the citations I have provided) that
"to critique" need not have negative connotations and, in fact, is a
verb that is used in scholarly endeavors. Check out google scholar to
see its use in, for example, medicine.

It is also clear (especially to many others) that "to critique" often
has very negative connotations. It also is a verb not commonly seen
in scientific arenas.

Note the hedge words: "need not have" negative connotations but
"often has" them.

So chacon a son gout. In the meantime let's provide some critiques of
Nagle's book, whether or not they were produced by critiquing.

Now for the really important stuff: can a chick be "newborn"?

[Roger Shrubber]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critique

According to the above, the first know usage as a verb
was 1751, which turns out to be 41 years after it was
used as a noun.

My dog in this fight is a two parter. Criticism in general,
does have one meaning, probably the dominant meaning, that
emphasizes negative feedback. But criticism has a secondary
definition that very explicitly includes negative or
positive feedback, or most likely both together. As a
derived form of the same root, critique, both as noun and
verb, emphasize this second meaning.

Now the result of critiquing something can be wholly
positive, wholly negative or a mix. Anything other than
a mix is suggestive of somebody not understanding how
to do the job well, but that's a separate issue.

So while I'm rambling, ...
I have reviewed a few papers where there was nothing
good to say about them but that's rare. In one case
I recommended they start over from scratch. Avoid any
word that might possibly be considered as jargon. And
most especially don't use any 'omics terms or words
that have become popular in the last 15 years. Word
salad with arugula isn't better word salad. That rewrite
should enable them to actually say something instead of
hiding behind buzz words. It should help them think
about what they actually did, if they had good reasons
for doing it, and if they actually learned anything
worth communicating to others. Sounds harsh but it
really was that bad. It's hard to imagine how the
effort ever made it past the co-authors but I've got
some notion of how that works as well. And if I'm
right, such a robust rejection might be what's required
for somebody's co-authors to effectively help.

On the flip side, I recall one review where it was
basically an accept as is with just a few typos to
mention. I also added that I was at first confused
by a certain statement but then realized that I had
misread an earlier statement that was actually quite clear
as it was. The confusion was all my fault.

Not so surprisingly, they rewrote it slightly
to make things even clearer. People do listen closely
when you praise them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:15:20 +0000 (UTC), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:

Funny, but the online OED doesn't show that; in fact, the
definition given for US English matches the one for British
and World English:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/critique

home
US English
critique

Share this entry
critique Syllabification: cri·tique
Pronunciation: /kri'tek/

Definition of critique in English:
noun
A detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially
a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

Example sentences

His reputation rests on his incisive critiques of
literary and political innocence and immaturity.
Insightful, if a bit cagey, critiques of modern
political philosophy.
This second use is very important to bear in mind as we
try to assess the critiques of globalisation that have been
recently aired in different forms.
Get more examples

Synonyms
verb (critiques, critiquing, critiqued)
[with object] Back to top

Evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical
way: the authors critique the methods and practices used in
the research

More example sentences

They spent a half day in small groups, critiquing the
evolving theory and inventory of learning outcomes.
Many authors have evaluated and critiqued news Web sites
and speculated about their future.
They argued, discussed, rendered discourses and
critiqued each other's theories.
Get more examples

Origin

Mid 17th century (as a noun): from French, based on Greek
kritike tekhne 'critical art'.

>The earliest citation for that meaning is from 1969.
--

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in

news:89d6gadalqf3037ft...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:15:20 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:

[snip]

>>Jan's got the O.E.D. to back him up on that. As I noted in a response
>>to RSNorman, it gives the second definition of the verb 'critique' as
>>'More generally, to judge critically, to make a critical assessment of
>>or comment on (an action, person, etc.), not necessarily in writing.
>>Chiefly U.S.'
>
> Funny, but the online OED doesn't show that; in fact, the
> definition given for US English matches the one for British
> and World English:
>
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/critique

The version of the online OED that I have a paid subscription to does in
fact show that.

If you don't want to take my word for it (and why would you?), drop me a
line and I'll send you a screencap.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:n6WdnV7X2puTqp7I...@giganews.com:

Yes. As I said, I quoted the *second* OED definition of the verb
'critique'. The first definition does indeed have a longer pedigree to
go with its different meaning.

> My dog in this fight is a two parter.

I wish I owned one part of that dog.
--
S.O.P.

[Burkhard]

Which one? The one in the window?

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in news:mdve9l$bl3$1...@dont-email.me:

That's not a dog, that's an unbranded calf.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in

news:p1c6ga5naioe6occ3...@4ax.com:

What 'position'? Do you think there are people who peer review for a
living? Peer reviewing isn't a position, it's a courtesy.

And I jumped the gun: Jan did in fact spell out his meaning, just for
you.

'Of course not, a reviewer reviews. On basis of the review he gives

advice. To journal editors, on what to accept, and to authors on how to
modify their papers to make them acceptable to the editor, or on finding
a more suitable journal. A reviewer who merely "critiques" will soon be

out of more material to review. (if the editor has any sense)'

Not that you noticed.

>>>> The question of whether a peer review can be considered a
>>>>critique is irrelevant.
>
>>> Apparently not to Jan; that's the source of the discussion.
>
>>I don't believe it is, no. I think you and Jan are talking at cross-
>>purposes. Saying 'smart people don't critique, they review' is a bit
>>like saying 'real men don't eat quiche Lorraine, they eat ham and
>>eggs.' Objection to the term doesn't imply objection to the content.
>
> ....which is why I stated that I think it's a
> translation/connotation issue.

It isn't.

I'm not usually inclined to cut Jan any slack, but it looks to me like
you and Roger and RS are going out of your respective ways to
misunderstand his comments.
--
S.O.P.

[J. J. Lodder]

Beside the point, for about 'critique, (noun)
not about 'to critique', 'critiqueing'. (verb)

And even for the noun, note the:
'especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory'

If you want to reduce science, in post-modern fashion,
to just another political theory, fine with me.

Don't complain to me though about what it will do
for your standing among scientists, you know,
the real kind, who prefer to do the real thing,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Well known in Dutch:

Spleen [1]

Ik zit mij voor het vensterglas
onnoemlijk te vervelen.
Ik wou dat ik twee hondjes was,
dan kon ik samen spelen.

(Michiel van der Plas, ascribed to Godfried Bomans, in joke)

A free translation of:

ich möchte alles, was ich fühl, nicht fühlen
und ganz allein sein ... Nein, nicht ganz allein:
ich möchte gern zwei kleine Hunde sein
und miteinander spielen.

Friedrich Torberg (1938)

Jan

[1] Lit. translation

Spleen
I'm sitting 'fore the window glass
being bored beyond mention.
I wish I were two doggies,
then I could play together.

[J. J. Lodder]

Critique came first, critiquing (modern American sense)
only two hundred years later,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Eh? Huh? Reviewers don't have a position.
They get asked for a review on an article by article basis.
Any editor worth his salt will judge reviewers
by their reviews.
A reviewer who produces worthless reviews
(merely critiquing for example)
will not get asked for more.

> >>> The question of whether a peer review can be considered a
> >>>critique is irrelevant.
>
> >> Apparently not to Jan; that's the source of the discussion.
>
> >I don't believe it is, no. I think you and Jan are talking at cross-
> >purposes. Saying 'smart people don't critique, they review' is a bit like
> >saying 'real men don't eat quiche Lorraine, they eat ham and eggs.'
> >Objection to the term doesn't imply objection to the content.
>
> ....which is why I stated that I think it's a
> translation/connotation issue.

It's an American usage, with American connotations,

Jan

[s...@broadinstitute.org]

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:59:46 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well
> > enough to critique it?
>
> Smart people don't critique,

Smart people also don't assume their idiolect is shared universally.

[jillery]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:38:12 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Yes, the one with the waggly tail.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Burkhard]

Could be your lucky day then - I think this dog is for sale!

[William Morse]

I'm siding with Richard on this one. Both the terms "critical
assessment" and "judging critically" contain terms that modify the
"critic" root to indicate that the intent is not to find fault but to
evaluate unemotionally. Now I understand that connotations are more
personal than denotations, but for me the connotations of "critique" are
very different than the connotations of "criticize", and a "critique"
would be fairly synonymous with a "peer review".

[J. J. Lodder]

Well, yes, but there is little difference of opinion here
concerning 'a critique' and 'to criticize'.

The differences arise when 'a critique' is verbed to 'critiqueing'
and 'to critique',

Jan

[jillery]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 23:21:33 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

That's great. I once took a goldfish for a walk, but it didn't last
very long; a disappointing experience for all involved, I think.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:26:31 +0000 (UTC), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
>news:89d6gadalqf3037ft...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:15:20 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
>> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>[snip]
>>>Jan's got the O.E.D. to back him up on that. As I noted in a response
>>>to RSNorman, it gives the second definition of the verb 'critique' as
>>>'More generally, to judge critically, to make a critical assessment of
>>>or comment on (an action, person, etc.), not necessarily in writing.
>>>Chiefly U.S.'
>>
>> Funny, but the online OED doesn't show that; in fact, the
>> definition given for US English matches the one for British
>> and World English:
>>
>> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/critique
>
>The version of the online OED that I have a paid subscription to does in
>fact show that.
>
>If you don't want to take my word for it (and why would you?), drop me a
>line and I'll send you a screencap.

Just post it here, as I did.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:45:02 +0000 (UTC), the following

Why not ask Jan what he meant, since the statement was his?

>And I jumped the gun: Jan did in fact spell out his meaning, just for
>you.
>
>'Of course not, a reviewer reviews. On basis of the review he gives
>advice. To journal editors, on what to accept, and to authors on how to
>modify their papers to make them acceptable to the editor, or on finding
>a more suitable journal. A reviewer who merely "critiques" will soon be
>out of more material to review. (if the editor has any sense)'
>
>Not that you noticed.

Oh, I noticed. And I took the time to look at the OED and
showed he was mistaken, since "review" is given as a synonym
for "critique".

Not that you noticed.

>>>>> The question of whether a peer review can be considered a
>>>>>critique is irrelevant.
>>
>>>> Apparently not to Jan; that's the source of the discussion.
>>
>>>I don't believe it is, no. I think you and Jan are talking at cross-
>>>purposes. Saying 'smart people don't critique, they review' is a bit
>>>like saying 'real men don't eat quiche Lorraine, they eat ham and
>>>eggs.' Objection to the term doesn't imply objection to the content.
>>
>> ....which is why I stated that I think it's a
>> translation/connotation issue.
>
>It isn't.
>
>I'm not usually inclined to cut Jan any slack, but it looks to me like
>you and Roger and RS are going out of your respective ways to
>misunderstand his comments.

His comments indicate he thinks "critique" cannot have the
meaning "review", since he emphatically stated "A peer

reviewer who critiques will be very soon a non-peer,

non-reviewer". Care to explain how that can be
"misunderstood"?

[erik simpson]

It's rarely profitable to argue with a Dutchman, even (especially?) if the
subject is the English language.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 21:21:55 +0100, the following appeared

And yet the OED says the British and "American" definitions
are the same, and both say "critique" means "review"...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 21:21:56 +0100, the following appeared

Uh, Jan? The page I cited also gives the verb definition.

>And even for the noun, note the:
>'especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory'

Yes, please do note the "especially". Does "especially" mean
"exclusively" in JanWorld?

>If you want to reduce science, in post-modern fashion,
>to just another political theory, fine with me.

Wow, *another* jaw-dropper. Are you under the impression
that this has anything to do with science per se, rather
than being about the meaning of a common term? Or have
"review" and "critique" suddenly become technical and/or
scientific terms?

>Don't complain to me though about what it will do
>for your standing among scientists, you know,
>the real kind, who prefer to do the real thing

Yeah, Jan, sure. You could have been a lawyer: "When neither
the law nor the evidence supports you, pound the table". And
I might add "and shout irrelevancies".

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:17:32 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

You seem somehow to have failed to notice that I cited the definitions
for the verb form.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in

news:p9t8ga18fdqeu3vd1...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:26:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
>>news:89d6gadalqf3037ft...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:15:20 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
>>> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>>[snip]
>>>>Jan's got the O.E.D. to back him up on that. As I noted in a
>>>>response to RSNorman, it gives the second definition of the verb
>>>>'critique' as 'More generally, to judge critically, to make a
>>>>critical assessment of or comment on (an action, person, etc.), not
>>>>necessarily in writing. Chiefly U.S.'
>>>
>>> Funny, but the online OED doesn't show that; in fact, the
>>> definition given for US English matches the one for British
>>> and World English:
>>>
>>> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/critiqu
>>> e
>>
>>The version of the online OED that I have a paid subscription to does
>>in fact show that.
>>
>>If you don't want to take my word for it (and why would you?), drop me
>>a line and I'll send you a screencap.
>
> Just post it here, as I did.

I *did* post it here. See that definition above? 'More generally, to

judge critically, to make a critical assessment of or comment on (an

action, person, etc.), not necessarily in writing. Chiefly U.S.'? That's
a direct quotation from the OED.

Thing is, what you quoted wasn't the OED. The URL for the OED is
http://www.oed.com. You quoted from an online dictionary of English
provided by the Oxford University Press, so your confusion is
understandable, although the lack of historical usage citations, which
are a fairly well-known feature of the OED, might have tipped you off.

The first definition for the verb form of 'critique' in the actual OED
is 'a. To write a critique upon; to review, criticize. (In quot. 1751
prob. stressed 'critique: cf. critic v.)'.
--
S.O.P.

[J. J. Lodder]

You made it painfully obvious in a previous posting (see above)
that you haven't the faintest idea of how the peer review proces
actually works.

Quoting dictionary definitions is no substitute for understanding,

Jan

[RSNorman]

OK, lets look at that negative notion of the definition which you cite

"As I noted in a response to RSNorman, it gives the second definition
of the verb 'critique' as 'More generally, to judge critically, to
make a critical assessment of or comment on (an action, person, etc.),
not necessarily in writing. Chiefly U.S.' "

This hinges critically on the definition of "critically". So here is
one definition of "critical", the adjectival form:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/critically
crit·i·cal (krit'i-k?l)
adj.
1. Judging severely and finding fault: a writer who is very critical
of the government's foreign policy.
2.
a. Relating to or characterized by criticism; reflecting careful
analysis and judgment: a critical appreciation of the filmmaker's
work.
b. Of, relating to, or characteristic of critics: a play that received
great critical acclaim.
c. Including scholarly commentary and interpretation: a critical
edition of Poe's stories.

Particularly note definition 2a: "reflecting careful analysis and
judgment" and 2c: "including scholarly commentary and interpretation".

Once again, criticism can be severe fault finding. But in an academic
or scholarly context it relates to careful analysis and judgment.

If you prefer the Oxford dictionary (not the OED, I don't have access
to that paid site) the American English definition reads

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/critical

1. Expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgments:
2. Expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a
work of literature, music, or art

That second definition breaks down further into
2.1 Of a published literary or musical text) incorporating a detailed
and scholarly analysis and commentary:
2.2 Involving the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in
order to form a judgement:

That 2.2 definition underlies the significance of training students in
critical thinking which most definitely is NOT training them to find
fault in everything!

Your citation of the American neologism fails to produce the negative
connotations you seem to find but rather, unsing the academic and
scholarly usage, suggests that to critique a subject is to do a
careful analysis, objective and to both the merits and faults.

[RSNorman]

I do accept your evaluation that a peer review of a scientific paper
is not a critique because to critique the work requires a much more
thorough analysis and discussion of all aspects of the paper. The
peer review should simply be a response to the editor as to whether
the paper should be published. If so, it also indicates whether it
needs revisions both as to the scientific work, analysis and
interpretation and to the wording of the paper. If not, it outlines
the significant shortcomings of the work. To critique a work properly
requires far more attention and effort.

So I would simply put it as: a perr review is the result of an
abbreviated and special purpose critiquing.

[J. J. Lodder]

OK, you are in propaganda mode once again.

I won't reply in kind,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Right. A review is an advice to the editor,
and perhaps, by way of the editor, also to the author(s),
if the editor decides to pass it on.

> If so, it also indicates whether it
> needs revisions both as to the scientific work, analysis and
> interpretation and to the wording of the paper. If not, it outlines
> the significant shortcomings of the work. To critique a work properly
> requires far more attention and effort.
>
> So I would simply put it as: a perr review is the result of an
> abbreviated and special purpose critiquing.

You can, if you insist, but that is hineininterpretieren.

In your usage a peer who replies to the editor with the review:
'This is a great paper, a landmark achievement, accept as submitted'
is really 'critiquing' the paper.

I'll leave your curious usages to you,

Jan

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 22:17:20 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Once more, though I don't know why I bother, to "critique" does NOT
mean to criticize. A literary critique may well be a rave review and
the person writing the critique does it by critiquing.

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 19:00:29 -0800 (PST), Gary Bohn

<gary...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well enough to critique it?
>

>I know Wilkins can Australian crawl through it, but does Nagel even register on John's radar?
>
>I have a physician stalking me on Twitter who seems to think Nagel has decimated all of evolution and shown macro cannot come from the accumulation of micro.
>
>I have no intent of spending money on reconstituted bullshit if that's what Nagel has produced.

In the off chance that anybody is still interested in the actual topic
of this thread, I just found a blog on it by Sean Carroll.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/22/mind-and-cosmos/

Carroll actually admits Nagel has a bit of a point to make. More
important, though, Carroll gives links to six different reviews of the
book.

So if you want info about the work without having to actually read the
thing, here it is.

[J. J. Lodder]

I don't know why I bother either,
but a review, as in 'peer review' is not a critique.
It is a professional opininion on the suitability
of an article for a scientific journal.
It may be based on a critique,
but it need not be.

Even for theatre plays the two things are different.
A critique is not the same as an advice about going to see it,

Jan

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 09:40:11 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Before going off on the tangent of peer review of scientific papers,
your main comment was "Smart people don't critique".

[Sneaky O. Possum]

RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rbpagatsug5qrqsud...@4ax.com:

>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:56:50 -0700, the following
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:54:42 +0100, the following
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder):
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >>Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> understood it well enough to critique it?
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >>Smart people don't critique,
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >A bit overgeneralized, don't you think?
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Guess not...
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > Or isn't peer review a critique?
>

> Before going off on the tangent of peer review of scientific papers,
> your main comment was "Smart people don't critique".

It's an impressive effort, RS, but the molehill hasn't changed a bit.

According to you, peer reviewers can't critique a paper: 'to critique

the work requires a much more thorough analysis and discussion of all

aspects of the paper'. (Presumably you meant all relevant aspects.)

An analysis and discussion of a book that claimed to be thorough and hit
all relevant aspects could hardly be shorter than the book itself.
Nagel's book has only about 125 pages of relevant content, but I don't
think Gary was expecting anyone to provide a 'critique' that was even
half that length, and I doubt that a smart person would try to post that
sort of 'critique'.

Thus I infer that Gary wasn't going by your description of 'critique'
any more than Jan or Bob Casanova, who introduced the 'peer review'
tangent, was.

For that matter, you weren't going by your description when you wrote
'Reviews in such literary digests as "New York Review of Books" and
"London Review of Books" are ordinarily critiques even though the title
is "review."' In the latest issue of the LRB, Christopher Tayler reviews
'Letters of Samuel Beckett: 1957-65', which is 771 pages long. Do you
imagine that Tayler thoroughly analyzed the book and discussed all
aspects of it in the space allotted to him?

It seems quite clear to me that your concept of 'critique' is at least
as idiosyncratic as Gary's, Jan's, Bob's, Roger Shrubber's, or mine.
--
S.O.P.

[RSNorman]

If you write 100 lines of crap it doesn't require 100 lines to
demonstrate why. Similarly for 100 lines of pure genius. Your notion
of a "proper" critique is like Lewis Carroll's notion in Sylvie and
Bruno of a map drawn to a scale 1 mile = 1 mile. Somehow maps drawn
to a more reasonable scale still managed to describe the territory
sufficiently well.

You ably demonstrate that it is possible to create a caricature of
whatever topic you choose. Still you fail to prove that an
idiosyncratic concept is necessarily wrong.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:00:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:26:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
>> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
>> >news:89d6gadalqf3037ft...@4ax.com:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:15:20 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
>> >> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>> >[snip]
>> >>>Jan's got the O.E.D. to back him up on that. As I noted in a response
>> >>>to RSNorman, it gives the second definition of the verb 'critique' as
>> >>>'More generally, to judge critically, to make a critical assessment of
>> >>>or comment on (an action, person, etc.), not necessarily in writing.
>> >>>Chiefly U.S.'
>> >>
>> >> Funny, but the online OED doesn't show that; in fact, the
>> >> definition given for US English matches the one for British
>> >> and World English:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/critique
>> >
>> >The version of the online OED that I have a paid subscription to does in
>> >fact show that.
>> >
>> >If you don't want to take my word for it (and why would you?), drop me a
>> >line and I'll send you a screencap.
>>
>> Just post it here, as I did.

>It's rarely profitable to argue with a Dutchman, even (especially?) if the
>subject is the English language.

Point (assuming you're referring to Jan). But hope springs
eternal...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:44:07 +0000 (UTC), the following

OK, but what I meant was a cut/paste of the complete
definition from the page, not a quote of part of it.

>Thing is, what you quoted wasn't the OED. The URL for the OED is
>http://www.oed.com. You quoted from an online dictionary of English
>provided by the Oxford University Press, so your confusion is
>understandable, although the lack of historical usage citations, which
>are a fairly well-known feature of the OED, might have tipped you off.

....or not. And mea culpa for the assumption that "Oxford
Dictionaries" is the online version of the OED.

I checked the referenced URL, but since I really can't
afford $300/year (or even $30/month for a "one-shot) I'll
just have to take your word for what it says since you
apparently have a problem with posting a cut/paste of the
definition.

>The first definition for the verb form of 'critique' in the actual OED
>is 'a. To write a critique upon; to review, criticize. (In quot. 1751
>prob. stressed 'critique: cf. critic v.)'.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 22:17:19 +0100, the following appeared

[Crickets...]

>> >And even for the noun, note the:
>> >'especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory'
>>
>> Yes, please do note the "especially". Does "especially" mean
>> "exclusively" in JanWorld?

[Crickets...]

>> >If you want to reduce science, in post-modern fashion,
>> >to just another political theory, fine with me.
>>
>> Wow, *another* jaw-dropper. Are you under the impression
>> that this has anything to do with science per se, rather
>> than being about the meaning of a common term? Or have
>> "review" and "critique" suddenly become technical and/or
>> scientific terms?

[Crickets...]

>> >Don't complain to me though about what it will do
>> >for your standing among scientists, you know,
>> >the real kind, who prefer to do the real thing
>>
>> Yeah, Jan, sure. You could have been a lawyer: "When neither
>> the law nor the evidence supports you, pound the table". And
>> I might add "and shout irrelevancies".
>
>OK, you are in propaganda mode once again.
>
>I won't reply in kind,

That's nice. Or meaningfully.

Brave Sir Jan.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:v2hbgadp2s2hgbas1...@4ax.com:

Are you now including 'demonstrating why you think something is crap'
under the rubric of 'critiquing' it?

> Similarly for 100 lines of pure genius.

Hardly. In my experience people find it much easier to explain why they
think something is bad. Explaining why you think something is good is
sufficiently difficult; explaining why you think it's 'pure genius'
requires actual thought.

And of course all you'll have done in any case is support your
subjective evaluation of the work: you'll have demonstrated nothing
beyond that.

> Your notion of a "proper" critique is like Lewis Carroll's notion in
> Sylvie and Bruno of a map drawn to a scale 1 mile = 1 mile.

You, not I, argued that a peer review is not a critique and used the
word 'properly'. Your exact words:

'I do accept your evaluation that a peer review of a scientific paper

is not a critique because to critique the work requires a much more
thorough analysis and discussion of all aspects of the paper. The
peer review should simply be a response to the editor as to whether

the paper should be published. If so, it also indicates whether it

needs revisions both as to the scientific work, analysis and
interpretation and to the wording of the paper. If not, it outlines
the significant shortcomings of the work. To critique a work properly

requires far more attention and effort.'

What's the difference between outlining the significant shortcomings of
a work and demonstrating why it's crap? If a peer review is not a
critique, how much more thorough would its analysis and discussion need
to be to become one? Can you estimate how much more attention and effort
'far more' attention and effort would be? Inquiring minds want to
know.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

s...@broadinstitute.org wrote in news:eb7897a3-8617-4275-a45d-
9fee0f...@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:59:46 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well
>> > enough to critique it?
>>
>> Smart people don't critique,
>

> Smart people also don't assume their idiolect is shared universally.

Smart people don't care whether their idiolect is shared universally. Smart
people know that anything that can be understood can be misunderstood.
--
S.O.P.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:57:03 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:

Did I?

Oops; yeah, I did. Mea culpa. In my defense, Jan's statement
was absolute, "Smart people don't critique", so with the
understanding that one meaning of "critique" is "review" it
just seemed to follow.

>For that matter, you weren't going by your description when you wrote
>'Reviews in such literary digests as "New York Review of Books" and
>"London Review of Books" are ordinarily critiques even though the title
>is "review."' In the latest issue of the LRB, Christopher Tayler reviews
>'Letters of Samuel Beckett: 1957-65', which is 771 pages long. Do you
>imagine that Tayler thoroughly analyzed the book and discussed all
>aspects of it in the space allotted to him?
>
>It seems quite clear to me that your concept of 'critique' is at least
>as idiosyncratic as Gary's, Jan's, Bob's, Roger Shrubber's, or mine.

Could be. In fact almost certainly is, people being
idiosyncratic by nature.

But it should be noted that one can thoroughly analyze a
paper or book and write a review (or critique) using far
fewer words than are contained in the paper/book. "No
redeeming qualities" would suffice for some, while others
could be "A must-read for those interested in X; clear,
concise and complete".

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:52:40 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"

I do not know what your problem is. Have you never heard of "gray
areas" and "fuzzy boundaries"?

A full-blown critique is ordinarily rather more thorough and covers
more aspects than a peer review which, as I indicated in the quote you
give above, has a particular and limited purpose. You can consider a
book or movie or restaurant review to be, simply, "two stars". However
a truly "proper" review would provide more information about
particulars. If you define "critique" as "a detailed analysis" (as
the Oxford Dictionary does), now you carp at exactly what level of
detail this requires.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El miércoles, 4 de marzo de 2015, 15:19:49 (UTC), Burkhard escribió:

> Gary Bohn wrote:
> > Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well enough to critique it?
> >

> > I know Wilkins can Australian crawl through it, but does Nagel even register on John's radar?
> >
> > I have a physician stalking me on Twitter who seems to think Nagel has decimated all of evolution and shown macro cannot come from the accumulation of micro.
> >
> > I have no intent of spending money on reconstituted bullshit if that's what Nagel has produced.
> >
>

> I think a pretty fair analysis is here:
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/01/29/169896128/is-there-a-place-for-the-mind-in-physics-part-i
>
> I'd probably agree with most of it, apart from the cliche of bringing a
> knife to a gun fight. Contrary to that mindlessly repeated phrase, it
> is utterly sensible to bring a knife to a gunfight, hence bayonets. And
> have these guys never watched the Magnificent Seven? But I digress.
>
> Executive summary: It isn't all THAT bad, just not very good either -
> intellectually underpowered, sloppyly reasoned, and very very lazy.
> Essentially, philosopher with little grasp of the current literature
> saying: I'm an important philosopher and don't have to know an science
> to tell scientists where they go wrong. I also don't understand your
> theory, it goes against my layman's intuitions, and since I'm an
> important philosopher, it stands to reason that the theory is therefore
> wrong. And not only that, alternative theory X must be right (in his
> case, some sort of teleology)
>
> This despite
> - him not being able to make a good case that the ToE really has gaps
> (apart from his repeated" it sounds implausible to me)
> - a failure to show how teleology would fill the gap that he identifies:
> why would we think a teleological process that uses material stuff such
> as neurons is any better to produce mind than an unguided one? His
> problem is more with neuroscience than with evolution, and would remain
> the same issue even if the ToE were to be abandoned
> - utter failure to give any independent reasons why the alternative
> might be true
> - and indeed utter failure to even try an outline of such an alternative
> theory (Philosophy cannot generate such explanations,it can only point
> out the gaping lack of them.)
>
> SO as I said, endless repetition of "this sounds implausible to me,
> therefore it must be wrong"
>
> But he has its uses - next time Ray claims that all atheist have to
> accept the ToE, you can point at Nagel as yet another exception

for what you are commenting, this guy is thinking about a god creator.
If you have a god creator your could be exonerated from thinking. You
do not have any obligation to explain anything, he did it, it is also
you need to say. But by throwing the god creator overboard to the shark
you are condemned to think, and to know and to explain everything.
But not to explain everything and full stop. You must explain any
question as to his own satisfaction. This must have to be impossible,
for he prefers as the idea that "a god creator did everything".
It is god did it, or you must explain the questions he would present
to his total satisfaction.

To a person like this guy, it does not have any sense to say, "we
do not know" or we have only a faint idea of this question. To doubt
is out of question for him, for he had been tamed into have firm
believes, with not any hint or trace of doubts. For to doubt is
an abomination both in the heavens and the earth.

Science with its doubts and uncertainties cannot win over such
a strong phrase as "god did it".

Even some people here, that think of themselves as partisans
of science, cannot stand the words "doubt" or "uncertainty"; or
the words, "I'm not sure. Wait a few decades and we will see if
this you are saying is right."
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El miércoles, 4 de marzo de 2015, 3:04:49 (UTC), Gary Bohn escribió:
> Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well enough to critique it?
>
> I know Wilkins can Australian crawl through it, but does Nagel even register on John's radar?
>
> I have a physician stalking me on Twitter who seems to think Nagel has decimated all of evolution and shown macro cannot come from the accumulation of micro.
>
> I have no intent of spending money on reconstituted bullshit if that's what Nagel has produced.

the title on one of the pages
Is There A Place For The Mind In Physics? Part I
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/01/29/169896128/is-there-a-place-for-the-mind-in-physics-part-i>

This question he presents, I suppose this is his question, presupposes
that "he knows what is a soul". For apart that our only of physics is
rather limited... to ask a place in the physics for the soul implies
he knows positively what is the soul. Then, the proper thing is to ask
him "what is the soul" and how he knows a soul, whatever it is, is a soul.

He can be such a great philosopher he think he is. But I would challenge
anyone that pretends to know what is a soul.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El miércoles, 4 de marzo de 2015, 3:04:49 (UTC), Gary Bohn escribió:
> Ok smart people, who has read Mind and Cosmos and understood it well enough to critique it?
>
> I know Wilkins can Australian crawl through it, but does Nagel even register on John's radar?
>
> I have a physician stalking me on Twitter who seems to think Nagel has decimated all of evolution and shown macro cannot come from the accumulation of micro.
>
> I have no intent of spending money on reconstituted bullshit if that's what Nagel has produced.

About the page tittle "Remarkable Facts"
that says,
Thomas Nagel, a distinguished philosopher at NYU, is well known for his
critique of "materialistic reductionism" as an account of the mind-body
relationship. In his new and far-reaching book Mind and Cosmos, Nagel
extends his attack on materialistic reductionism--which he describes as
the thesis that physics provides a complete explanation of everything--
well beyond the mind-body problem. He argues that evolutionary biology
is fundamentally flawed and that physics also needs to be rethought--that
we need a new way to do science.

Why he can be so complacent with a goal in evolution?

I was vaccinated against the idea of a goal when I was in a catholic
school. They said to the children, "you were put in the earth to
sing the praises of god." I was then 10 years old, and a premature
philosopher, then I wondered what shit is this? How is it that all
an almighty god would need to hear our songs of praise? This need
on the part of god implies a limitation of his divine intelligence
and superpowers. It does not make any sense for an infinite god
to create humans to heard them singing his praises.

With this argument about our goal here in the earth, I was immunized
against any more stupidities about "goals". The only goal I see
reasonable is the quest for food of all living beings. If the
chaplain would had said, "you were put here to work hard and earn
your daily food, as well as to enjoy other pleasures like to have
sex", this would had made sense.
A phrase of the style "you had been here to eat and to copulate,
unless someone would instead eats you, of someone else would
impede you to breed."
That also describes the reality of the planet. But it is not clear
this is a goal. The rule in the planet is "dog eats dog". It can
happen if the hunger is great. Cannibalism is common in cases of
extreme hunger.
Eri