No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
I am greatly obliged to Mr. Williams and the editor for the republication of numerous passages from my recent book. I especially appreciate Mr. Williams' contribution of a magnificent answer to those of my critics who contend that my book is largely devoted to belaboring a straw man because our generation no longer holds any of the views I attack. Even though my views are both misquoted and out of context in his presentation, I must say that they never looked better to me than in the light of his criticism. On the other hand, it would certainly never have occurred to me to reply to an effusion of this sort except for the editors' request for comment. If I failed in my little book to make clear my position, as I obviously did in the case of Mr. Williams, I see small prospect of doing so in the few paragraphs here at my disposal. Since the essays to which he objects originally appeared in a popular magazine which, I believe, is known for the rigor of its editorship, at least so far as clarity is concerned, Mr. Williams' inability to understand them are the more disturbing. I will give only a few examples.
Editorial Note: The editor asked Mr. Williams to insert page references and assure the accuracy of quotes, after receiving Mr. Lundberg's reply. Not having had opportunity to check Mr. Williams' corrections, Mr. Lundberg preferred to have his reply remain unchanged, so that his references to quotations may not always be apropos. Mr. Williams' paper was otherwise unchanged. The Philosophy of Science intends to preserve its policy of open discussion of critical problems, even in the eventuality that the discussion may seem inadequate to many experts in the field.
1 In no ease does the critic give the pages where the material he purports to quote may be found. Every one of his quotations which I have been able to check on are inaccurate. I do not think this is intentional—merely another example of the carelessness which characterizes other aspects of his paper.