specialists

[Paul Mackin]

On Fri, 5 Jan 1996, Andrew Dinn wrote: (concerning hg's problematic
Hawking quote)

> Hawking's comments regarding philosophy betray not, as
> intended, a sympathy with the ancients who created a now decadent
> tradition but rather the buffoonish and blinkered ignorance all too
> prevalent among scientists who glibly transform their mathematical
> concepts into metaphysical conceits (in particular, regarding the
> supp
lied quote, if Hawking had payed more attention to the abuse of
> language in his execrable pseudo-history he might have removed many of
> the confusions which enabled him to bamboozle his way to the top of
> the best-seller list).

A possible quibble about emphasis:

"Confusions" and "abuse of language" might explain the "problematic" 
lines in the conclusion to _A Brief History of Time_. Or, would a 
last minute phone call from the publisher have been the culprit?  The 
thought of trying to peddle one more popular science book without a real
zinger of an ending could have been too daunting.

The real clincher comes in the succeeding (and final) paragraph--where
the celebrated mind-of-God possibility is raised. 

Or, read the dust cover, upon which God the prime mover in the creation
of it all makes an appearance. I say "makes an appearance" because it is
not exactly clear whether the Almighty has a predicate attached to himself.
He's just sort of an idea hanging there. A trotting out of Saint Anselm's
ontological argument perhaps. You're right about abuse--abuse of syntax. 
Suppose you can't blame the physicist for the dust cover--probably never
saw it.

I don't like to be so cynical, and I am not trying to sound
irreligious (wasn't raised that way), but the crassness of book publishing
today is not a pleasant sight to behold.

Welcome back Andrew.

				P.