Recently, we here at UD saw that global trend lines are curving over from exponential growth in new Covid-19 cases. Likewise, health authorities have been talking of the US and the UK peaking in perhaps ten days. Where I am, we are still growing: one, two, five, nine total. (And no, Black the Ripper is not credibly a Covid-19 case.) Here’s a graphic that gives pause, with labelled phases — recall, the crest of new infections is the inflexion point on the growing arm of the S-curve of cumulative cases: But, the further consideration is, onward waves triggered by fresh outbreaks or new strains once lock-downs . . . which cannot be long sustained . . . are relaxed: These Read More ›

This article makes a tremendous amount of sense. Academic credentials are important, if only because they provide a useful heuristic to learn more about a topic. Since you have to start somewhere, it makes sense to listen first to the people who are paid to teach and research that topic. Ultimately, however, the validity of scientific claims depends on the arguments and evidence in their favor. Thus, if someone makes a claim he can’t substantiate with good arguments and evidence, his credentials should not matter. Conversely, even if someone has no credentials, without evidence of substantive incompetence, this is not a reason to reject his claims.

Jerry and I are having a constructive exchange on the problem of evil.  My argument starts when Jerry asks me to define “good.” Jerry, the issue is not how one would define “good” in any particular situation.  The issue is whether it is possible to define good in a way that is not grounded in subjective preferences.  The only way to do that is if there is some objective standard of good.  Such an objective standard would necessarily stand over and above all men’s subjective preferences.  The character of God is advanced as the source of that objective standard.  The argument goes like this: The good is that which is consistent with the objective transcendent standard grounded in the character Read More ›

. . . and, they expect a secondary wave. Sermo is a global Doctors’ forum site, which allows building of a global consensus of Physicians. As a part of its efforts, it has had a “statistically significant” survey of over 6,000 doctors, regarding Covid-19. Excerpting the just linked report: Largest Statistically Significant Study by 6,200 Multi-Country Physicians on COVID-19 Uncovers Treatment Patterns and Puts Pandemic in Context April 2, 2020 Sermo Reports on Hydroxychloroquine Efficacy, Rise in Prophylaxis Use; Over 80% Expect 2nd Outbreak New York, New York – April 2, 2020 – Widespread confusion, conflicting reports, inconsistent testing, and off-indication use of existing and experimental drugs has resulted in no single source of information from the frontlines. To create a Read More ›

VB sums his chain of reasoning below. And very nicely done reasoning it is too. And then comes this: The problem of evil is more of a problem for the atheist than for the theist. He is right of course. But can anyone tell me why his is right. EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS VB’S: I am somewhat of an obsessive compulsive after a few months I started to ask uncomfortable questions. I know what I experienced but the mind is a funny thing and I recognized hey you are basing your life on this belief which is a serious commitment maybe I am deceiving myself “Am I sure?” and of course I was not sure I needed more.One of my Read More ›

Here is a panel discussion for a rapidly organised conference: We need to hear this, where 44 million donated tablets are already in hand. END

A recent study done by an international collaboration of five scientists, and published in the scientific journal nature medicine, has concluded that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (also known as HCoV-19), responsible for the current global pandemic, originated naturalistically rather than via laboratory manipulation. Here I review their methods and compare their research with the claims made. (read more …)

A scientific test should identify precisely what humans can do that computers cannot, avoiding subjective opinion: The “broken checkerboard” is not the ultimate scientific test for intelligence that we need. But it is a truly scientific test in the sense that it is capable of falsifying the theory that the mind is reducible to computation. Eric Holloway, “A scientific test for true intelligence” at Mind Matters News See also: Current artificial intelligence research is unscientific. The assumption that the human mind can be reduced to a computer program has never really been tested. Because AI research is based on a fundamental assumption that has not been scientifically tested—that the human mind can be reduced to a computer—then the research itself cannot be Read More ›