This is both funny and apt, and it makes in pithier form one of the points Michael Weisberg and I made last fall in The Nation. Meanwhile, while I was travelling 'down under,' Nagel wrote a short (and basically fair) summary of his book for a New York Times blog. It was, unfortunately, prefaced with the utterly disingenous claim that Mind and Cosmos "has attracted a good deal of critical attention, which is not surprising, given the entrenchment of the world view that it attacks." This implies, falsely, that the critical reaction was due to the "entrenchment of the world view" the book attacks as opposed to the extraordinarily poor quality of the book's arguments and knowledge of the relevant science. Surely even Nagel realizes that were he, a formerly reputable philosopher, not the author of Mind and Cosmos, it never would have been published by OUP or any serious academic press.