Michael Egnor: Determinism at the quantum level is not true. Nature is not deterministic.
Philosophy
Researchers: Double down on theory like “natural selection” to solve replication crisis
At Nature Human Behaviour, we are told that the replication crisis is due to lack of rigid adherence to such a theory: Science, he explains, is about accumulating sets of observations that occur reliably—the Sun appears at different places in the sky depending on the season and time of day; finches have different shaped beaks […]
Are philosophical proofs for God better than science ones?
From a philosophy prof and chaplain: Let’s now look at an example of a scientific proof and contrast it with an argument from philosophy. An argument from natural science goes something like this (there are even some philosophical moves here, such as the move from effect to cause): “Everything that has a beginning has a […]
Are black holes partly a philosophy question?
The black hole has always occupied a sort of space in the middle, between science and philosophy. It’s good to see that acknowledged. From ScienceDaily: Erik Curiel studied Philosophy as well as Theoretical Physics at Harvard University and the University of Chicago, and the primary aim of his current DFG-funded research project is to develop […]
John Lennox vs Peter Atkins: Can science explain everything?
From Unbelievable?: Can we answer all life’s questions using the scientific method? Unbelievable? presenter Justin Brierley chairs a live dialogue between Oxford professors John LennoxJohn Lennox and Peter Atkins followed by audience Q&A. See also: Where Did The Laws Of Nature Come From?: Astrophysicist Hugh Ross vs Chemist Peter Atkins (2018) and Mathematician John Lennox […]
What would a multiverse really be like?
The multiverse is not a logical deduction from the state of our universe. It is an attempt to short circuit discussion of apparent fine-tuning by appealing to the idea that no conclusions can be drawn because there is an infinite series we do not know about.
Why neither weak nor strong scientism can ground ethics
Paul Copan: Science has built-in limitations, but some moderns have placed a burden on science that it cannot—and was never meant to—bear. Theology, philosophy, and other sources of knowledge not only help supplement what science can show, but they can also enrich our study of science.
How can a naturalist atheist believe in the existence of evidence?
A naturalist atheist’s problems are not just with religion but also with philosophy. we can’t believe that our brain is shaped for fitness, not truth, and still expect to have a chance at discovering truth.
Michael Shermer’s Case for Scientific Naturalism
Shermer’s piece, in which he is looking back on his years as a Scientific American columnist, feels like an elegy. The reality today is that, however people may universally seek freedom, China is dedicated to using the high tech born of science to stamp it out and enlisting many other natures to do the same. And science, as opposed to technology, is coming under serious assault from those who demand that nature itself do their social justice bidding.
Theoretical physicist takes on panpsychism. Bam! Pow!
It’s the basic problem of the coffee mug. If naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” is true, either you and the mug are both conscious or neither of you is. The comments at BackRe(Action) illustrate the difficulty many have grasping that that is a serious problem.
Getting at what we MEAN by “truth”
Yeah, truth. In an age when fishwraps claim to be telling us “The Truth” even while books are written about post-truth (Oxford’s Word of the Year 2016), a look at the different things people can mean does not come amiss.
Feser (and Ross) on the immateriality of the mind
Edward Feser has presented a lecture on the immateriality of the mind, which is worth listening to: The papers here and here will flesh out details. The core logic of the argument pivots on the principle of distinct identity, turned to how distinguishable entities are inherently different. Syllogistically: 1: Formal thought processes can have an […]
Human extinction as collateral damage
Recently, Clemson U philosopher Todd May whistled through the system on the pros and cons of human extinction: May’s reasoning is fascinatingly nihilistic. He argues that human extinction would be tragic because we have a tragic flaw – our shortsighted use of the environment – which would be recitified by our extinction. “Humanity,” he says, […]
Does Dr. Sutter claim to have no beliefs that guide his search for truth?
It would be helpful if we knew more about what Dr. Sutter means by “cheap validation.”
Ending universalism in science: What will it mean?
Wait till IPBES hears from the past lives people, demanding respect for their perspective. The term “We were all one-celled creatures once” could take on an entirely new meaning.