L&FP, 48: [Former?] New Atheist Stefan Molyneaux and his “Universally Preferable Behavior” (2007) illustrate inescapably binding, intelligible and identifiable first duties of reason
I ran across this work, and find an interesting discussion, starting with a fairly roundabout way to show what a first, undeniable principle or truth — branch on which we all must sit stuff — is like:: Given that every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action, arguing that preferences do not exist requires a preference for arguing that preferences do not exist, which is a self-contradictory statement. [p. 33] So, next, we have another roundabout way of summarising duties/oughts as universally prefer-ABLE behaviour: The proposition before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e. universal? When I say that some preferences may be objective, I do not mean Read More ›
Computer engineers look at design tradeoffs in the human body
Canadian journal pleads: Make science skepticism great again
Jonathan Bartlett: Are Sokal hoaxes really helping reform science?
Why is the omicron COVID-19 virus so weird?
At Mind Matters News: Evolutionary psychology: When we looked in, no one was there…
Woke atheist rejects the New Atheists — not Woke enough
At Mind Matters News: Iron law of complexity: Complexity adds but its problems multiply
FYI: In quantum mechanics, time may flow differently
At Mind Matters News: Would cognition in bacteria “dethrone” humans?
Science journal editor warns, humans are going extinct
Eric Holloway: Frog stem cells are NOT self-reproducing robots
More on Dr Kojonen’s Darwinist evolution is an expression of deeper design thesis,
as, it is worthy of further consideration (which is not the same as an endorsement). I headline a comment: [[Kojonen develops his case further: I will . . . argue in this book that the teleological order of biological organisms can still, in a rationally permissible way, be understood as a sign of the divine reality, even in an evolutionary cosmos. [ –> a if not necessarily the main thesis] . . . . According to [American Botanist, Asa] Gray (1860), evolution actually “leaves the question of design just where it was before,” because the biological design argument does not in any way depend on whether God created living organisms directly, through miracles, or through a secondary cause such as Read More ›