tallis

I think Tallis is thinking at the level of the words and the analogies.

Lewis, from whom I stole that observation.) Tallis is expecting the physicists to talk in the same way (using the same tools of communication) that philosophers do, and they don't, so Tallis misses the point.

This is basically the argument that Raymond Tallis[1] makes in his books.

“Tallis indulges in refutation by caricature,” says Dennett, a professor of philosophy and co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

Tallis has constructed a critique of something he clearly isn't willing to understand: his example of a straight line connecting two points on the earth's surface through means of a tunnel is simply the invention of an extra dimension, a simple concept that even a superficially educated but curious layperson (like me) would recognize.

As Raymond Tallis wrote "For many years, Lacan, Derrida, Kristeva et al got away with murder, confident that their readers would have only the slightest acquaintance with the areas of knowledge they expropriated to prop up their ideas and their reputation for scholarship, indeed for omniscience."

“Tallis indulges in refutation by caricature,” says Dennett, a professor of philosophy and co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

As Raymond Tallis wrote "For many years, Lacan, Derrida, Kristeva et al got away with murder, confident that their readers would have only the slightest acquaintance with the areas of knowledge they expropriated to prop up their ideas and their reputation for scholarship, indeed for omniscience."

This is basically the argument that Raymond Tallis[1] makes in his books.

Tallis has constructed a critique of something he clearly isn't willing to understand: his example of a straight line connecting two points on the earth's surface through means of a tunnel is simply the invention of an extra dimension, a simple concept that even a superficially educated but curious layperson (like me) would recognize.