Who knows where these came from, but I’m sure that they are not endorsed by the parties mentioned.
Earman. Start with plain vanilla Minkowski spacetime (in which obviously not p), and delete a point. Multiply the metric by a conformal mapping in a compact region around the deleted point, so that the length of every geodesic diverges as it approaches that point. Then, p.
Gotthelf. All we can learn from whoever really wrote Aristotle’s Parts of Animals is p. Therefore, p.
Grunbaum. Many theistically inclined philosophers have quite wrongly confused themselves into thinking that not p. Therefore, p.
Lennox. For years, scholars used to think that not p. But when you actually look at what Darwin wrote in the manuscripts, it’s pretty clear that p. Therefore, p.
Machamer. (Loudly): It’s time to start breaking down the old dichotomies! Once we do that, p won’t sound so strange! Therefore, p.
Machery. Surveys show that while 60% of American students say not p, only 40% of Chinese students say not p. Therefore, p.
McGuire. It’s tempting to follow enlightenment scholars in thinking that for Newton, not p. On the contrary. For Newton, it was very much the case that p. Therefore, p.
Mitchell. While not p might be suggested on a top-down analysis, p clearly emerges on an integrative pluralist account. Therefore, p.
Norton. As you can see in this little animated GIF, p. Therefore, p.
Palmieri. Historians have argued about whether or not p is really true. However, recreation of the experiment suggests that p. Therefore, p.
Schaffner. Some suggest that not p. But there are certainly distinct theories that have the same formal structure, but for which p is true nonetheless. Therefore, p.
Levine & Mcintyre. Back in the good old days, it used to be that not p. But then the graduate students bought a scanner. Therefore, p.
Soul Physics is authored by Bryan W. Roberts. Thanks for subscribing.
Want more Soul Physics? Try the Soul Physics Tweet.
- When is the Prime Age of Discovery in Physics?
- PHIL-∞: An Infinite Seminar?