This video summarises a direct, molten salt based electro-reduction process for metals, especially Titanium: (Titanium, of course, is a rather abundant but hard to win “super-metal.” See Wiki here for a more detailed summary. The process extends to other metals and of course turns on having abundant electrical energy.) It’s time to start thinking about […]
As I have mentioned before, an “aglet” is that little plastic sheath at the end of a shoestring. And here at UD, our budget is so small we say we get by on an “aglet budget.” We would have to have a lot more money to say we are getting by on a shoestring budget. […]
Ever since the new atheists declined (or whatever), discussions of Darwinism and evolution have become much more open-minded. For example, researchers seem to talk more openly about work that points in a direction other than Darwinism. Perhaps they don’t worry so much about 20,000 semi-literate trolls writing their Dean of Science to get them fired just for saying that their research points in another direction.
In the post-science world, people can presumably define success according to their own frames of reference, in relation to their own facts and their own truths.
Of course, neither Wolchover nor Hossenfelder would be allowed to notice that design in nature is obvious but not inevitable.
Why the sea is boiling hot: It’s not just that Darwinian evolution is not being demonstrated to any degree but that a lot of NON-Darwinian evolution IS being demonstrated.
We didn’t know that Suzan Mazur, author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, had interviewed Richard Dawkins in Manhattan (2008) let alone that Dawkins is now headed for the Mekong.
As we continue to ponder the core of responsible rationality, it is helpful to ponder a summary of what we have won: I recall, way back, being taught how the seventeen first equations of Boolean Algebra [which can all be verified as equivalence relations through truth tables] were of equally axiomatic status. But then, I […]
Yes, of course they do. But imagine anyone asking such a question years ago for any purpose except to show that it ain’t so: Stamp OUT Darwin Doubt!! was the permitted approach. But now we read doubt about Darwinian speciation in typical think mags.
All the Cool people believe in it, which is just so much better than evidence.
Remember when DNA was Certain? When people were executed or spent life in prison on account of DNA evidence? “Your DNA is on it” was like Holy Writ. DNA was the guarantor of the Darwinian selfish gene.
And now… The worst thing that ever happened to Darwinism was DNA mapping.
It’s controversial because it is sometimes used to support the idea of a multiverse. Otherwise, it should be common sense to assume that a venue in which we exist must feature conditions that allow for that. But the multiverse does not need logic, evidence, or science.
In reality, it is mixed. For example, consider eugenics. The Catholic Church always opposed that dreadful scourge of people armed with strong opinions passing laws compelling some of their neighbors to be sterilized. When they did so, these eugenicists were acting explicitly as the priests of science. That was their idea of a vocation and Protestant churches largely supported it.
Oddly, even distressing near-death experiences have had positive effects, say researchers. But anyway, remember when all this was supposed to be easily explained away?
Would you give up your right arm for a robotic device that performs better? Think about it.