My last two posts have been on the topic of the nature and relations of propositions (“props”) and states of affairs (“sofas”), respectively. I’ve been lingering on the topic for two reasons. One is that I’ve recently become aware of a challenge by Richard Fumerton to my working theory on the topic. Another is that… Read More »

I’m blogging again on this issue of the relation between propositions (“props”) and states of affairs (“sofas”) because I’m not quite sure I’m got a firm handle on things yet. My understanding of these matters is still somewhat shifting and uncertain. So let’s take a fresh look at things from a different angle. Consider a… Read More »

I like blogging because it gives me a medium to “test drive” ideas and arguments. One topic that I’ve been mulling over of late has been the relation between propositions (“props”) and states of affairs (“sofas”). My working theory over the past couple years has looked something like this: Props are assertoric units of meaning… Read More »

Well, my wife and I are back in Vegas after a six-day California road trip. Here are some of the highlights: We started out by driving down to the LA area, where we stayed with an old friend from my New York days who now manages a neuroscience lab at UC Irvine. The next day… Read More »

From K. Vossler, Positivismus und Idealisms in der Sprachwissenschaft (1904). Quoted by Polanyi in Personal Knowledge (p. 102): The true artists of speech remain always conscious of the metaphorical character of language. They go on correcting and supplementing one metaphor by another, allowing their words to contradict each other and attending only to the unity… Read More »

Michael Polanyi’s 1958 book Personal Knowledge gets my vote for most important neglected philosophical masterpiece of the 20th century. It’s a wonderful book by a chemist- turned-philosopher of science that is in many ways far more profound than the much more influential work of Karl Popper. I first read Polanyi’s book about 10 years ago… Read More »

Here’s a nice debate between Daniel Dennett and Richard Swinburne entitled “How Should We Study Religion?” The subtitle implies that Swinburne is a theologian. That’s misleading. He’s a philosopher of religion and a philosopher of science. (HT: Victor Reppert)

As noted in my previous post, there was a lecture at UNLV tonight entitled “Intelligent Design: A Unique View of Globalization and Science” by Dr. Gunther Stent. Here are my reflections on the lecture. The lecture hall was packed–standing room only. Dr. Stent is a recognized expert in molecular genetics, having written an important textbook… Read More »

Tonight at UNLV there’s going to be lecture entitled “Intelligent Design: A Unique View of Globalization and Science” by Gunther Stent, emeritus professor of cell and molecular biology at UC Berkeley. From the abstract blurb that’s going around, I gather that he’s no friend of ID but is willing to concede that evolutionary orthodoxy is… Read More »

Open theism has been much-discussed in philosophy of religion and theology circles since the 1995 publication of Pinnock, et al.’s The Openness of God. But in many ways I find that the view is still poorly understood. Critics frequently fail to appreciate that there are several importantly different versions of open theism. First, we need… Read More »