vixen99

Thank you for a very welcome short review!

For someone with zero philosophical training, can anyone convince me that indeed the writings of the folk described are not "charged with meretricious obscurity, italicized neologisms and occasional quasi-mathematical formulae and a travesty of scientific inquiry". I accept that the huge amount of time and energy devoted to it as noted in the review will of course inevitably have generated some interesting writing and avenues of thought.

In my naivety I am open to argument but don't such potential arguments have to use statements with pretty much fixed meaning - a concept denied by the French theorists? Seems to me that Roger Scruton was on track in writing of “a boiling tide of nonsense” that would “eliminate the possibility of rational argument” and “annihilate meaning.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinkers_of_the_New_Left and Fools and as a follow-up in 2015, 'Fools, Frauds and Firebrands', available in the eu.archive.

https://dn760005.eu.archive.org/0/items/scruton-roger-fools-...

This is tangential encouraged by your point and other forays here. But one does wonder what arguments politicians (the power lies with them) understand when they make their pronouncements. The UK has for instance, prior to the new administration, totally and vociferously supported net zero. From the point of view (a fact for many but not for all informed authorities) that climate change is caused by CO2 and we are headed for a disaster - Net Zero is a logical step to trying to save humanity and the whole ecosystem. Now (November) I read that the UK powers that be, appear to have put it aside in actions at least. Countdown to Net Zero doesn't matter any more; open the oil fields, get rid of subsidies for photovoltaic and wind - and other measures. My point is not a political jibe but a stance I suspect to apply in other areas. Is climate change going to be a catastrophe or not? They should make up their minds.

Maybe they do but if you make allegations like this why not support them with evidence? That would put to rest any possible suggestion by folk who see ulterior motives in everything, that maybe you object to the Telegraph in general. No reason to suppose you do but that's how it is.

If you can why not test that probability? You might get a surprise.

I assume you know what you are talking about but some other experts would perhaps say that Russia is a place where power is highly concentrated but wealthy elites - including oligarchs - depend critically on the Kremlin. They run Russia to the extent they go along with the Kremlin. Sure, political dissent faces substantial repression but the population is diverse and should not be reduced to stereotypes.Not everyone can be described as poor, indoctrinated and hopeless, by any means.

Clearly you need to send an urgent correction to the Australian Government Agency: https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-co.... This is their download link for the report for 2026 published August 26. https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-08/AIMS_LTM...

What is your reaction to credentialed physical scientists who accept that climate changes and that human greenhouse-gas emissions have an effect, but reject or dispute important parts of the mainstream assessment? They do have a Ph.D. and one of them has a Nobel Prize in Physics so it's difficult to ignore them. This is not to take a position but to point out that they can hardly be idiots; if you think they are, this needs to be made plain.

On what basis do you think that's a good idea? This is a genuine question not a snide comment. I'm interested in your conception as to why it works for you. You're unlikely to respond here but maybe you or someone else will add a helpful link. I will admit that the idea does not 'compute' for me taking into account the nature of human beings - but I'm open to argument.

For a recent informative update from the Australian Long-term (coral) Monitoring Program see https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-co.... The graphs show that Northern Barrier Reef and the Central Barrier Reef coverage have record high coral cover while the Southern Barrier Reef, "hard coral cover was relatively stable although decreased slightly to 26.4% (22.9–30.2% CIs) from 26.9% (23.0–30.9% CIs) in 2025. This represents a relative decline of 2.0% of 2025 levels, which is within the margin of error, and regional coral cover remains below the long-term average of 29.3% (27.5–31.3% CIs).". The sea surface temperatures remained 0.7–1.2°C above average across the Great Barrier Reef. The Australian Environment Foundation finds that ~80% of Australians think that the reefs are at a record low. Apparently, CO2 in 1985 was about 345.9 ppm. In 2026 it's was about 432 ppm - I haven't checked the actual Mauna Loa site.

A fantasy on my part of course but wouldn't it be instructive for folk to have to present their arguments as why they decide to downvote a comment?

'Why would any of us bother thinking hard, when there is no financial incentive to doing so ?'.

Do you really think so? What a depressing view and simply, for many people I'll bet, totally wrong. But that's just my view. I'm working hard on something at the moment and, sure there's a financial incentive but it's the thought of a successful resolution of the project that is the deeper incentive.

I do wish you'd define terms.

You're on HN, don't you know!

It's certainly now well intent into making sure it'll never rise again.

lose

Not so far off target!

Exactly. Isn't this the most obvious thing to do?

The German Genius is an 850 page marathon (excluding notes) by Peter Watson who's not an academic but an ex NYT/Sunday Times journalist and it shows. It's a brilliantly readable unputdownable (in my view) account of how, in a reviewers words, a ton of Germans from the 17th to the early 20th century 'have done more than anything else to create the modern West'. It also offers a fascinating account of how the later appalling developments in the early 1900s onward came about so disastrously. If you only browse the book in a bookshop, read the three pages of comments from reviewers! Last word to Peter Watson 'The United States and Great Britain may speak English but more than they know, they think German'.

Thank you !!

Maybe it's and taking into consideration unforeseen calls upon their cash. Sounds reasonable to me.

Sounds like a model devised by politicians as well not to mention any examples.

Let's judge them by their actions and then we'll decide.

'There are zero examples of any intelligent species which is vastly more capable than another species, yet surrenders control ... to the less capable species'.

True with genuine species. But we should take note of the plentiful counter examples within human societies. How about politicians and our method of choosing those people to whom we delegate the most critical decisions regarding our and the Earth's future? We select politicians mostly either by rote or via their persuasive rhetoric, their general personality & likeability and probably least of all by their intellectual capability or indeed general capability in too many cases. That is not to say intellectuals are necessarily any better at the job. There are numerous other examples in human organizations as we know, sometimes to our cost. Truth is that we cannot even agree on how, as a species together with the other life forms on Earth, we can all 'flourish' though there are lots of great examples working in local environments.

If think you have a substantive point to make why not spell it out rather than indulging in empty rhetorical flourish. Who's the anti-intellectual?

What a great idea recording & collating these remarkable instances. It tells us so much about actual and, who knows, potential human capabilities. Rather exciting!

> Leavis represents plenty of what is worst about them

As in 'Leavis promptly informed his audience that Snow "is as intellectually undistinguished as it is possible to be’, an ‘intellectual nullity", and ‘portentously ignorant’. This must be an example of what Wikipedia reports from one critic 'the passionate advocate degenerated into the hectoring bigot.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._R._Leavis

From a comment further up: 'If you don't know, the unfortunate way the EU is structured, the Parliament cannot initiate legislation. They can only vote on whatever the Commission puts in front of them.'.

Why not give an example instead of expecting me to believe your assertion. You may be right or wrong; I have no idea.

I wish this was available for young folk in Romania: As it happens: macOS: 2.70% of desktop operating-system usage in Romania; OS X: 2.55%; Combined Apple desktop share: approximately 5.25%; Windows: 90.65%; Linux: 4.02% or so AI tells me.

What are you, a mind-reader? Skip the politics - it isn't about that. Merely that statements about 'everyone' are crap. If using 'everyone' is a figure of speech then time to junk it in this kind of context.