0
NL888 Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Can all trivially subscribe to?
Does "can all trivially subscribe to" mean "can all easily agree to"?
Context:
Dyson could easily refute the implication of these quotations
from his Templeton acceptance speech, if only he would explain
clearly what evidence he finds to believe in God, in something more
than just the Einsteinian sense which, as I explained in Chapter 1,
we can all trivially subscribe to. If I understand Horgan's point, it
is that Templeton's money corrupts science. I am sure Freeman
Dyson is way above being corrupted. But his acceptance speech is
still unfortunate if it seems to set an example to others. The
Templeton Prize is two orders of magnitude larger than the induce-
ments offered to the journalists at Cambridge, having been
explicitly set up to be larger than the Nobel Prize. In Faustian vein,
my friend the philosopher Daniel Dennett once joked to me,
'Richard, if ever you fall on hard times . . .'
Context:
Dyson could easily refute the implication of these quotations
from his Templeton acceptance speech, if only he would explain
clearly what evidence he finds to believe in God, in something more
than just the Einsteinian sense which, as I explained in Chapter 1,
we can all trivially subscribe to. If I understand Horgan's point, it
is that Templeton's money corrupts science. I am sure Freeman
Dyson is way above being corrupted. But his acceptance speech is
still unfortunate if it seems to set an example to others. The
Templeton Prize is two orders of magnitude larger than the induce-
ments offered to the journalists at Cambridge, having been
explicitly set up to be larger than the Nobel Prize. In Faustian vein,
my friend the philosopher Daniel Dennett once joked to me,
'Richard, if ever you fall on hard times . . .'
Top answer
Hello Nl888. I don't think you've quite found the force of trivially here, in your suggested interpretation. We can all trivially subscribe to means, for me, here, that the fact that we can subscribe is trivial - insignificant, immaterial, inconsequential.
- Hello Nl888.
- I don't think you've quite found the force of trivially here, in your suggested interpretation.
- We can all trivially subscribe to means, for me, here, that the fact that we can subscribe is trivial - insignificant, immaterial, inconsequential.
- This is not the same thing as saying that it's easy for us to subscribe.
- For me, it's saying that the fact that we can subscribe in the Einsteinian sense is unimportant - no significant conclusion can be drawn from it.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
Hello Nl888.
I don't think you've quite found the force of trivially here, in your suggested interpretation.
We can all trivially subscribe to means, for me, here, that the fact that we can subscribe is trivial - insignificant, immaterial, inconsequential. This is not the same thing as saying
I don't think you've quite found the force of trivially here, in your suggested interpretation.
We can all trivially subscribe to means, for me, here, that the fact that we can subscribe is trivial - insignificant, immaterial, inconsequential. This is not the same thing as saying
00
The problem for the understanding is that Dawkins (Oxford professor) thinks Dyson is
one of the world's most distinguished physicists. Do you think the foundation on which Dyson converted, from a renowned scientist, to a Christian is trivial? His conversion set a stunning example in Academia where 'greater" scientist almost all reject ***. That is not trivial.
one of the world's most distinguished physicists. Do you think the foundation on which Dyson converted, from a renowned scientist, to a Christian is trivial? His conversion set a stunning example in Academia where 'greater" scientist almost all reject ***. That is not trivial.
00
0
NL888 The problem for the understanding is that Dawkins (Oxford professor) thinks Dyson isone of the world's most distinguished physicists. Do you think the foundation on which Dyson converted, from a renowned scientist, to a Christian is trivial? His conversion set a stunning example in Academia where 'greater" scientist almost all reject ***. That is not trivial.
00
Thanks.
Now it is clear that grammatically what we can all trivially subscribe to is the Einsteinian sense or Einstein's definition of ***, not otherwise.
But again here is a new question:
Can Einstein's definition of *** be trivial? We all know how seriously Einstein dealt with the question of ***. For he once said: *** does not play dice (with the universe)"
Now it is clear that grammatically what we can all trivially subscribe to is the Einsteinian sense or Einstein's definition of ***, not otherwise.
But again here is a new question:
Can Einstein's definition of *** be trivial? We all know how seriously Einstein dealt with the question of ***. For he once said: *** does not play dice (with the universe)"
00
Hello NL888.
You must forgive me. I'm really only qualified to answer linguistic questions on this matter. I'm reluctant to speculate about it.
You must forgive me. I'm really only qualified to answer linguistic questions on this matter. I'm reluctant to speculate about it.
0
Related Questions