January 2016

Recently, a sociologist who has studied ID for some years, without being an advocate, went on record saying that he thought it will become part of mainstream science inquiry We hope that isn’t the ruin of it. Critical thinking about first principles is much easier when one is not part of a grand official huff-ology. That is also the reason, as Malcolm Muggeridge pointed out, why proportionately far more great literature has been written in prisons than on government grants. But enough about us. As noted earlier, the Royal Society seems serious (for now) about seeing past Darwin. I mean, how much more of this kind of stuff do they really want? (Were the mares also playing the stock market?) Read More ›

Because “ Graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths. ” For last night’s party theme, the news desk chose EMS Crying Towel!: Liberals attacking social sciences. If it weren’t for the misunderstandings and mistrust that social scientists have inflicted by widely publicized fake data, one would almost feel sorry for people so friendless. But then the frog pitied the scorpion too, and … Anyway, from the Inbox: How a rebellious scientist uncovered the surprising truth about stereotypes … Left-wing bias, he said, was undermining his field. Graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths. Because of this, he said, the field was riddled Read More ›