Fair enough; I suppose my sample is skewed towards people more familiar with physics and its history.

But I don’t know of any serious objections to the resolutions of the dilemma (eg the via negativa of eg Montero and Wilson).

But Collins’ point about not understanding the “mind” is on target.

Meh. Could have at least mentioned the label “Hempel’s Dilemma” even if he didn’t want to mention that most of us think it’s not really a problem.

www.jstor.org/stable/41340...

Subatomic particles (electrons for example) share all their intrinsic properties with every other particle of the same type. They are therefore indistinguishable (by Leibniz’s criterion), but they are clearly not identical. Mostly true for atoms and molecules too.

Mt. Ranier large rainbow version?

3. In 1672, English Puritan missionary John Eliot published a bilingual logic textbook written in English and Massachusett.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Yes. Also, find it’s hard to offer succinct advice about the appropriate level of trust/skepticism about science b/c it’s an Aristotelian mean, and it depends on the particular (pseudo-)science.

At the moment, the biggest danger is denialism. But in other circumstances gullibility would be.

Hmm.

1. Recognize the value of scientific research (both for the intrinsic good of gaining knowledge and for unforeseen instrumental goods).

2. Recognize the importance of expertise. When you don’t understand, try to learn (or just defer to expert consensus), don’t argue.

3. . . .

I guess if you wanted a justification one likely motivation is that notes may include citations, and we expect those to follow. (I have never seen a note in a bibliography.)

Bibliography at the end (unless there’s an index), b/c that’s where it belongs.

That means notes come earlier.

Bluesky norms: add alt text to images for prior who can’t see the image, but can read.

You can turn on a reminder to do so in settings.