Academic Freedom
L&FP, 47 – i: The credibility of the concept and existence of God
I see from News, that Egnor and Dillahunty have had a debate on the reality of God. Egnor has put on the table ten arguments to God and Dillahunty has rebutted, as News reports. Some of this caught my eye and I took pause from an ongoing life crisis to comment on some things that are key. I believe these are worth headlining as addressing logic and first principles questions. First, on the general concept and credibility of God: [KF, 4] >>I see: [MD:] since I’m dealing with someone who’s a Catholic, I think we can begin with at least the qualities generally associated with the God of classical theism. We’re talking about some sort of agent that is timeless, Read More ›
Peter Boghossian has quit at “ideas go to die here” Portland U
Spare a thought for Afghanistan’s terrified scientists
At Mind Matters News: Non-materialist science is wanted — dead or alive
Apparently, some people have noticed the nonsense at Nature Communications about geology as not a safe field for persons of color
Bret Weinstein now smeared at Wikipedia?
Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne defies the transgender lobby
A panel on CV19 with a co-inventor of mRNA technology
See here: Okay, embed seems to work. If not please click the link. This is a FYI news item, no discussion. END
Readers, thinkers: Wake up and figure out what time it is
L&FP, 47: The challenge of “proof” in a world of radical doubt and hyperskepticism
“Prove it . . .” is a familiar challenge, one, often strengthened to “unless you prove it I can disregard what you claim.” However, ever since Epictetus, c. 100 AD, it has met its match: DISCOURSESCHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus’] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much Read More ›
Is a Darwinian evolutionary biologist waking up to the world in which he is living?
Haeckel’s biased, manipulative, dishonest drawings
It is strange that Haeckel has come up again, so let us first understand just how manipulative and dishonest he was in his books that popularised Evolutionism in Germany and elsewhere. As a start, here is his infamous drawing of heads of men and other primates: This was a time when photography was not ubiquitous, where trips to Zoos and Museums were relatively rare and so “heavy artillery” “facts” in drawings like this from respected scientists, scholars and publishers would have powerful impact. I just say, failed duty to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant] and fairness. Likely, though, Haeckel did not see where this sort of racist propaganda would end, in the 1930’s and 40’s. It is in this Read More ›
L&FP 46: A big questions challenge — confident objective knowledge vs grand delusion in a going-concern world
In recent weeks, we have seen again and again how the acid of hyperskepticism has reduced our civilisation’s confidence in self-awareness much less understanding of the world and its roots. Even as Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism, Officialdom and their media promoters (and censors) seek to create a dominant narrative. So, how do we attack this issue? First, let’s reduce it to a graphic: Once that is on the table, it is clear that our diverse worldviews and the extent to which any such can claim to be well warranted knowledge are at the crux of the matter. As a key aspect, as we are ourselves embedded (“apparently,” embodied with brains, senses tied to brains and self-awareness) in the going concern world, Read More ›