I really wanted to enjoy this book review, but I could not penetrate the philosophical jargon and labyrinthine paragraph structure. I suspect it is for audiences more familiar with the relevant literature.
>such as our inclination to deny that someone knows that p in the face of a salient alternative, q
Here is a small gripe with philosophical tradition that I'm sure many of us share: they easily could have phrased this without symbols[0], but ended up using them anyway. The only reason science and math papers use letters in body text is because they are about to be used in equations! After they are introduced at the expense of using "professional" grammar, p and q never show up again.
[0] "such as our inclination to deny that someone knows something in the face of a salient alternative."
That’s an odd gripe. It was philosophers who first used logical form going all the way back to Aristotle.
Also, equations are not only reason symbols/letters are used in math and science. When speaking of logic, their usage is built on philosophical foundations. Math also didn’t always use symbols as it does today. Symbolic math took root sometime in the 14th century.
There isn't a single reason to use symbols except that they save space. They aren't a magical spice that turns sentences into true proofs - the best they can do is let you write text that is already a proof in less space. Logical form is only worthwhile if you're doing so much logic that you can't print the word therefore that many times!
It's funny that you should mention this, because I see a close correspondence to a tendency here, on Hacker News, to use the C language's logical symbols like !, !=, and == instead of the plain English not, not equal, and equal. I know that a lot of people here are not programmers, and of those that are, some are surely not programmers of C or its descendants.
I think that, in philosophical literature at least, using symbols is a way of signalling that something is meant precisely, whereas using everyday words is perhaps less so.
The reviewer may have been making the same comment in the 2nd and 3rd sentences with "[...] in more sophisticated detail than any other work in print," and, "The book will be of interest [...] to anyone interested in understanding what a [work of this kind] can look like." And in the 2nd-to-last paragraph as well, "Gerken takes great care -- perhaps a bit too much care at times".
Bounded rationality is very interesting and easy to understand if you have intuitions about computational complexity.
Breifly, it's the idea that being perfectly rational, is, in practice too resource intensive for us to do all the time - so the /actually/ rational thing for us to do is to use heuristics and folk-concepts in our day to day lives, rather than totally philosophically sound methods of reasoning.
