Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Year

2020

Scientific American doubles down on all politics, all the time

Mme Justice Ginsberg was eighty-seven years of age and suffered with pancreatic cancer. It is remarkable and commendable that she lived as long as she did; not at all a surprise that she died. Why is her death a “terrible blow” as opposed to a foreseen near-term event? Read More ›

Eric Holloway: Evolution and artificial intelligence face the same basic problem

Eric Holloway looks at the discussions at the Wistar Institute—which fell down the memory hole in 1967—and recovers Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger (1920–1996)’s main point, that you can't actually get there from here. Read More ›

J. R. Miller vid faces YouTube restrictions

In a world where Netflix is streaming a show about underage sexpots, it’s hard to imagine what the Valley’s problem with this stuff could be. But a friend suggests that at roughly the 7-minute mark, the discussion turns to anti-Christian bias in Google search and recommends—whoops!— alternative services. Okay, so LIKE the vid and find a non-Google search service. Read More ›

Does a cosmopsychist believe in life after death?

Bernardo Kastrup: I certainly believe in consciousness after death. I believe that our core subjectivity, that implicit, innate sense of “I”-ness, remains undifferentiated. That’s the reason you still think you are the same person you were when you were five years old even though everything about you has changed. Read More ›

Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne contemplates the idea that Darwin might be Canceled

But here’s the really interesting part: Coyne points to a medallion struck by Darwin’s wife’s family, the Wedgwood (who were abolitionists). But the medallion fits creationism far better than Darwinism. Read More ›

Why “statistical significance” is corrupting science

Smith: When I was a young assistant professor at Yale, one of my senior colleagues, Nobel Laureate James Tobin, wryly observed that the bad old days when researchers had to do calculations by hand were actually a blessing. The effort was so great that people thought hard before calculating. They put theory before data. Today, with terabytes of data and lightning-fast computers, it is too easy to calculate first, think later. Read More ›

Why is there no consensus on evolution?

The main reason there isn’t a consensus is surely that anything like a consensus would create the risk of falsification. The vaguer a theory is, the less falsifiable it is.A theory like Darwinism is grand and leads to all kinds of dramatic arts and culture stuff but remains too vague to be proven wrong or proven much of anything. Read More ›

Were the Nazis on the Right or on the Left? Does it Matter?

The issue of whether the Nazis were on the left or the right comes up most often in discussions of economics.  Some argue the Nazis called themselves socialists, and therefore they should be classified on the left.  The problem with that argument is that in spite of the fact that the formal name of the Nazi party translates to the “National German Socialist Workers Party,” they were not socialists.  The Nazis did not advocate for or impose the central tenet of socialism – the ownership of the means of production by the state.1  Yes, Hitler employed socialist sounding propaganda when it furthered his political aims (thus the name of the party), especially in attracting disenfranchised German workers.  But in actual Read More ›

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies

The following is President Trump’s statement: Today, our Nation mourns the loss of a titan of the law. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg served more than 27 years as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States—notably just the second woman to be appointed to the Court. She was a loving wife to her late husband, Martin, and a dedicated mother to her two children. Renowned for her brilliant mind and her powerful dissents at the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg demonstrated that one can disagree without being disagreeable toward one’s colleagues or different points of view. Her opinions, including well-known decisions regarding the legal equality of women and the disabled, have inspired all Americans, and generations of great Read More ›

Rob Sheldon on the latest effort to pretend that nothing is wrong in cosmology

Sheldon: This dashes yet another attempt to find something that the standard model could not explain. Surprisingly, this is what depresses particle theorists, who have yet to find anything new in the last 40 years, despite thousands of publications. Read More ›

The irony! Scientific American is holding forth on an algorithm that might solve “political paralysis”

Why should we now believe that SciAm’s account of Brett Hennig’s “alternative democracy” ideas is presented to us for any reason other than to sell SciAm’s chosen political candidate for US prez? The thing about sudden partisanship is that you can buy it but you can’t sell it. It’s almost like the folk at Scientific American don’t really get that. Read More ›