Dominic Patten writes: Days into the controversy over whether or not he was in a helicopter that took enemy fire in Iraq in 2003, as he has claimed over the years, the NBC Nightly News anchor today told staff in a memo that he is temporarily stepping away from the anchor desk. Jaw dropping, just draw dropping. Even someone who is supposed to be a trained observer can write a gobsmackingly stupid lede. And did this person have no editor?
I despise Henry Kissinger. He is an evil man. I am currently reading his On China (2011), and I was reminded of just how evil he is when I read his apology for Zhou Enlai (pp. 241-43). For those who do not remember, as premier of the PPR during the tumultuous 60s and 70s, Zhou was Mao’s chief henchman. The world will never know how many people Mao killed. Estimates range from 40 to 80 million, and Zhou was at his side implementing his policies every step of the way. Of this henchman to a genocidal maniac Kissinger writes: Surely Zhou’s methods of political survival involved lending his administrative skill to the execution of policies that he may well have Read More ›
Here. HT: BA77
Here’s a thought experiment for our materialist friends. Suppose you have a table, and on that table you place three cylinders, one each of oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. Beside these cylinders you place a lump of carbon, a lump of calcium, and a jar of phosphorus. These chemicals make up over 98% of the human body by mass. Suppose further that you place on the table containers of each of the trace chemicals found in the human body so that at the end you have on your table all of the chemicals found in the human body in the same amount by mass and in the same proportion as those chemicals occur in the human body. Now ask yourself some Read More ›
According to Wikipedia “Scientism” is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. In other words, science has all of the answers, or at least all of the answers worth having. Let’s put this to a test: Consider the minimum wage. There is almost universal agreement among “scientists” (i.e., economists) that minimum wage laws price lower end workers out of the job market and lead to higher unemployment in that group. But minimum wage laws are not all bad news. There are certain “goods” at stake as well, which must be evaluated in Read More ›
Over at Vox they are covering a story about a tenured mediocrity at Berkeley named M. Steven Fish. File this one under “some things are just so stupid, it takes a lot of education to believe them.” Fish’s thesis is that contrary to conventional wisdom, Muslim’s are less violent than other religious adherents. *Sigh* At The Federalist David Harsanyi demolishes Fish’s thesis with a smattering of common sense. The last paragraph caught my eye especially: But if you truly believe all the world’s great religions are equally violent (“intrinsically” speaking) there is social experiment one could undertake to find out. A Vox reporter could walk around Washington DC or Dallas or Atlanta holding a sign that says “Jesus is a myth” Read More ›
Reported here.
Those who doubt global warming alarmism sometimes point to the global cooling alarmism of the 70s. The idea is that alarmists will latch onto whatever happens to be at hand to clang their bell, cooling then, warming in the 90s; explaining away the plateau now. Mark Frank has made the risible assertion that “the global cooling thing was a non-event” in the 70s. StephenB has offered Mark a service by setting him straight:* 1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970) 1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970) 1970 – New Ice Age May Descend Read More ›
This post is NOT about global warming. It is about the credulity of some religious fanatics who, ironically, pose as paragons of scientific skepticism. Global warming alarmists often call skeptics of global warming alarmism “science deniers.” The idea seems to be that the alarmists are the sober-minded champions of dispassionate science, and the skeptics are benighted opponents of scientific endeavor. The reality is, of course, oftentimes just the opposite, as a recent exchange with wd400 illustrates. In a previous post I noted how the recent “2014 Warmest Year on Record” headlines were almost certainly false. The alleged record consisted of a .02C increase when the margin of error of the measurement was 0.1C. In other words, the alleged increase was Read More ›
A couple of months ago I quoted from Lesli Orgel’s 1973 book on the origins of life. L. E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New York, 1973). I argued that on page 189 of that book Orgel used the term “specified complexity” in a way almost indistinguishable from the way Bill Dembski has used the term in his work. Many of my Darwinian interlocutors demurred. They argued the quotation was taken out of context and that Orgel meant something completely different from Dembski. I decided to order the book and find out who was right. Below, I have reproduced the entire section in which the original quotation appeared. I will Read More ›
Those of us who argue that morality is grounded in a transcendent, objective standard often use extreme cases to demonstrate our point. We argue, for example, that in no conceivable universe would torturing an infant for personal pleasure be considered anything other than an unmitigated evil. Since there is at least one self-evidently moral truth that transcends all places, times, circumstances and contexts, the objectivity of morality is demonstrated. The other day frequent commenter Learned Hand stated that “[Subjectiviests are] very much like [objectivists], in that we have moral beliefs that are as powerful for us as they are for you.” The objectivist response to LH is two-fold. On the one hand, we say that it is entirely obvious and Read More ›
How do you know when global warming alarmists are lying? Well, there is no hard and fast rule here, but a good rule of thumb is “when their lips are moving.” On January 16 NASA issued a much heralded press release claiming that 2014 was the warmest year since temperature records have been maintained. Given the 17-year long pause in global warming, when I saw that headline my immediate response: “That’s probably not true; in a few days investigative journalists will sort the lies out.” I was right. Britain’s Daily Mail reports: the NASA press release failed to mention…that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree—or 0.02C. The Read More ›
The following is from William J. Murray: The problem inherent in arguments for subjective morality is often that those arguing for subjectivism employ terminology that is unavailable to their argument, such as X “is wrong” or “is immoral”. That phrasing obfuscates what the subjectivist must mean as opposed to what an objectivist means when they say the same thing. Normally, especially in a debate like this, one would use terms and phrasings that distinguish between personal preference and an implied reference to an objective ruling/measurement. In regular conversation, there would be a situational understanding, like: “No, that’s the wrong color shoes to go with your outfit.” where the term “wrong” would be understood as a strong expression of personal aesthetics. Read More ›
Sometimes it is useful to highlight some of the more aggressively stupid things that materialists say: Stephen B: How do you decide if the government has over-stepped its authority? Aurelio Smith: In a democracy, you can assert it and see if anyone agrees.
I am broken. I am not alone though. You are broken too. In fact, the whole world and everyone in it is broken. We recognize that there is the way things are and there is the way things should be and the two are not the same. What shall we make of this universal awareness of our own brokenness in particular and the world’s brokenness in general? Denying the awareness exists does no good. It is there. It is glaring. It stares each of us in the face every day. Denying it is foolish because such a denial is not only false; it is obviously false and convinces no one. So there it is; our awareness of our and the Read More ›