Aesthetics, art, beauty and mind Defending our Civilization Logic and First Principles of right reason Philosophy Rocks have no dreams (but minds contemplate)

Thoughts on the soul

In the recent discussion on causation, I noted: KF, 72: >>As I think about cause, I am led to ponder a current discussion that echoes Plato on the self-moved, ensouled agent with genuine freedom. Without endorsing wider context, John C Wright draws out a key point that we may ponder as a nugget drawn from Read More…

Astronomy Culture Intelligent Design Philosophy Physics Science

Harvard astronomer tells us why ultra-complex physics theories come to exist

They are not principally data-driven. “In today’s fierce job market, fledgling scientists sometimes attempt to impress their senior colleagues with lengthy derivations marked by challenging mathematical complexity.” If he thinks evidence is important, that should rule out the multiverse.

Aesthetics, art, beauty and mind Darwinism Intelligent Design Philosophy

Massimo Pigliucci: Feynman was wrong about truth and beauty in science

He starts out well but notice how Darwinism, flung into the works like an old shoe, undermines the topic completely. If beauty is really “in the eye of the beholder” full stop, there is really no such thing as beauty. If the “capacity for aesthetic appreciation” evolved “possibly involving natural selection,” then it is unrelated to the object and best understood in terms of how many children artists have.

Mind Naturalism Philosophy

Consciousness: Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci skates around the main problems

It’s time to revive dualism: “And lastly, Pigliucci insists, without offering evidence, that dualism is “antiscientific.” Dualism is a logical conclusion from our circumstances; we are beings of both mind and matter. And those who would refute dualism tend to involve themselves in stranger claims, as we have seen.”

Intelligent Design Philosophy Science theism

Asked at The Scientist: “Does science describe experience or truth?”

As it happens, the loss of theism puts science in an impossible position. A traditional monotheist (and probably most deists) would assume that God creates according to logic and reason and that the scientist can indeed find out the truth by “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” But otherwise, why? Loss of the theistic perspective leads directly to the current demands that science credentials and acknowledgements be apportioned on the basis of fairness as if they were public goods of some kind.