I need to get back to O'Connell's book, The Oxford Conspirators.

I finished the article last night and was very dissappointed. The article discussed Newman's distinction between inference and assent in respect to the issue of certainty and concludes that Newman's distincition does not work. Inference is an enduring acceptance of a proposisiton on the basis of its antecedent propositions, inference does not rise to the level of certaintly and assent is the certain adherence to a proposition in itself without dependence on antecedent propositions. Newman says that there are not degrees of certainty, those no degrees of assent. Assent can' t be added to or subtracted from.

Eric Steinberg then uses Buffalo nickels!!! as an illustration to show that this is a flawed understanding. Needless to say, i am not convinced by his article. One thing I noticed is that he does not deal carefully with the distinction between certainty and certitude. There is a huge difference and blurring the two can lead to a wrong analysis.

Another problem I think Dr. Steinberg has and many other do, is viewing Newman through the wrong lense. I noticed that Eric Steinberg has done much writing on the British philosophical tradition, Hume, etc and so he seems to approach Newman from that vantage point. I think there is merit to that approach but it provides an incomplete picture or view of Newman.