Here is the next video from the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference. In this video, Jonathan Bartlett describes how, at least in principle, one can model non-naturalistic causes mathematically.
Read More ›
No, really. From Emma Young at New Scientist: HUMILITY. Empathy. Selflessness. These are qualities most of us associate with being a “nice person”. But being nice doesn’t often help you in the fierce competition to get that job, win a project or secure a promotion. No one likes an egocentric big-head but if, as they say, “you are your own brand”, perhaps in this modern world it pays to be a bit narcissistic. More. You’d have to pay to read much more. From O’Leary for News: I am beginning to like New Scientist. I used to trash them, but that was before serious people started wondering about things like rethinking evolution and the impact of the war on falsifiability. And Read More ›
In the next video from the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference, Jonathan Bartlett describes the philosophical underpinnings of methodological naturalism and why they fall short. For more information about the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism (AM-Nat) conference series, see the website. We have two more conferences coming in the next year!
In this presentation from the AM-Nat conference, Mario Lopez points out the possibility that design itself may be able to serve as a neutral descriptor of what counts as science, where here “design” serves as a general description, not necessarily Intelligent Design.
In this presentation, Tom Gilson describes regularism, intended to be a metaphysically neutral philosophy of science to replace methodological naturalism. Regularism is intended to focus on the things that the scientific methodology needs to operate properly rather than assumptions about what it will discover. Find out more information about the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference.
If you’ve time on your hands. Here’s a classic: “Why bad ideas refuse to die” by science writer Steven Poole at the Guardian: And what happens when the world of ideas really does operate as a marketplace? It happens to be the case that many prominent climate sceptics have been secretly funded by oil companies. The idea that there is some scientific controversy over whether burning fossil fuels has contributed in large part to the present global warming (there isn’t) is an idea that has been literally bought and sold, and remains extraordinarily successful. That, of course, is just a particularly dramatic example of the way all western democracies have been captured by industry lobbying and party donations, in which Read More ›
Take a good look. Now be grateful for the neighbours we do have, none of whom would be staring at us, grinning, from behind a laptop. Question: How do people who think they are smarter than the rest of us manage to look so dumb?
From an obituary for William Provine (1942-2015), a naturalist atheist who hung out with ID types, by Anya Plutynski: Life may have no ultimate meaning, but I sure think it can have lots of proximate meaning. Free will is not hard to give up, because it’s a horribly destructive idea to our society. Free will is what we use as an excuse to treat people like pieces of crap when they do something wrong in our society. We say to the person, “you did something wrong out of your free will, and therefore we have the justification for revenge all over your behind.” We put people in prison, turning them into lousier individuals than they ever were. This horrible system Read More ›
From Twitter: Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence — Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) June 29, 2016 But the whole point of the theory he espouses (the universe is a computer sim) is to escape the weight of the demand for evidence. See also the war on falsifiability and non-evidence-based science. People who need publicity to stay afloat can say what they like. We might have predicted Rationalia – but we were busy. It’s just more progressivism infesting science. See also: Neil deGrasse Tyson on why he thinks ID must be wrong Follow UD News at Twitter!
In this next installment from the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism (AM-Nat) conference, Salvador Cordova gives us his perspective on epistemology, which he calls “Gambler’s Epistemology,” which intends to be a metaphysically neutral way of analyzing claims based on their costs and payoff possibilities. Cordova shows that naturalism does not have a history of high payoffs, and that the ENCODE and similar projects by the NIH are good gambling bets but have caused consternation for those metaphysically committed to naturalism, which has historically been shown to be impractical.
Here is a press release via phys.org. They applied “biological evolution” to the history of cars and car makers in order to predict the future of electric car technology. It sort of makes you chuckle. “Cars are exceptionally diverse but also have a detailed history of changes, making them a model system for investigating the evolution of technology,” Gjesfjeld said. The team drew data from 3,575 car models made by 172 different manufacturers, noting the first and last year each was manufactured. “This is similar to when a paleontologist first dates a particular fossil and last sees a particular fossil,” Gjesfjeld said. And a little bit more: Alfaro said applying an evolutionary biology approach worked so well because the automotive Read More ›
An anti-ID commenter who goes by MatSpirit has been active in these pages for well over a year, during which time he has posted scores of comments in the comboxes of dozens of OPs. This particular statement in one of his comments caught my eye: If I understand correctly, the ID story is that some unidentified, undetectable supernatural agent acting at a time and place unknown arranged matter into patterns that are living creatures. *palm forehead* It is just staggering to me that someone can spend so much time and effort debating ID and still not have the first idea about the fundamentals of the theory. I understand what is going on here, of course. Like many of our opponents Read More ›
In the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference, Paul Nelson gave a great talk on Design Triangulation – the inference from system-level functional necessity.
Read More ›
Another self-referential piece from New Yorker: Science is not a major or a career. It is a commitment to a systematic way of thinking, an allegiance to a way of building knowledge and explaining the universe through testing and factual observation. The thing is, that isn’t a normal way of thinking. It is unnatural and counterintuitive. It has to be learned. Scientific explanation stands in contrast to the wisdom of divinity and experience and common sense. Common sense once told us that the sun moves across the sky and that being out in the cold produced colds. But a scientific mind recognized that these intuitions were only hypotheses. They had to be tested. (Atul Gawande) Rubbish. Science is a normal Read More ›
From Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong: String theory continues to make progress. Today the news is from Megan Fox: “Sometimes I just know things,” she explains. “I accidentally tap into stuff sometimes. I used to do it as a kid, and I do it as an adult. I crossed over and saw a future string.” String, as in string theory. Fox is into stuff like that. She’s also spiritual. On her Instagram profile, she describes herself thusly: “Child of the Cherokee Tribe … forest nymph … Lunar Leo mother goddess to 2 bohemian revolutionaries-my kamikaze free spirit & my peaceful warrior.” A few months ago it was Jaden Smith moving the subject forward: More. Do these people have a Read More ›