An informative potpourri today, O Faithful Reader.
1. Darwin Catholic reports on Slate's denigration of women and its desire that they be more like men, which is the only truly worthy aspiration. Motherhood, it seems, detracts from productivity in business, a cog in which machine is or should be the goal of all. The delight, as Brandon points out in the comments, is to see Slate acting as a shill for corporate interests.
2. Meanwhile, Wired lets us know that those people should not be allowed to "breed." One supposes that "everything old is new again" and the search for the superman continues. Why are they called "progressives" if they simply repeat century-old tropes? What judgment Darwin would make of this!!
3. An intriguing new blog in which issues of climate science are debated among professionals. Each "issue" starts with a statement of the problem followed by three to five "guest blogs" by scientists on one side or another. Best of all, the comments are in two buckets: one for scientists and the other for everyone else. That way the loonies can more easily be ignored. The linked issue regards the possible imminent occurrence of a new Maunder minimum.
4. James Bowman comments on the continuing vandalism of works of art by the barbarians of the New Age. Artists of the past must and will be brought into line with current goodthink.
5. The estimable John C. Wright points us to a video in which a woman walks along the streets of NYC and is accosted by all the usual suspects.This is a parody of another video by feminists which triggered an internecine battle between those wishing to expose the harassment of women and those concerned that all of the harassers shown were POCs.
6. Atheist John Gray on "The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins." Gray's point is that Dawkins is not a very scientifical fellow and approaches atheism with the unfortunate pulpit-pounding of a religious zealot. Of course, that Dawkins is a Calvinist preacher has long been obvious. What is genetic determinism but predestination in a lab coat.
7. Our old buddy Aristotle comes in for some kudos from unlikely sources. Despite getting many facts wrong -- supposing our translations are accurate as to the meanings of the terms then in use -- his methodology was sound, and is used to this day. So, he should get a retro-Nobel Prize; or at least a reappraisal of his physics. Aristotelian physics, the author contends "is a correct and non-intuitive approximation
of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain (motion in fluids), in the same
technical sense in which Newton theory is an approximation of Einstein's
theory."
8. Speaking of which, Hassing once gave a lecture examining the revolutionary nature of classical physics versus both the Aristotelian physics that preceded it and the quantum physics that supplanted it. He discusses the various shaky foundations that underlie the Newtonian world-view.
9. In line with which is a paper by Nancy Cartwright on How the Laws of Physics Lie.
The OFloinn's random thoughts on science fiction, philosophy, statistical analysis, sundry miscellany, and the Untergang des Abendlandes
Reviews
A beautifully told story with colorful characters out of epic tradition, a tight and complex plot, and solid pacing. -- Booklist, starred review of On the Razor's Edge
Great writing, vivid scenarios, and thoughtful commentary ... the stories will linger after the last page is turned. -- Publisher's Weekly, on Captive Dreams
Great writing, vivid scenarios, and thoughtful commentary ... the stories will linger after the last page is turned. -- Publisher's Weekly, on Captive Dreams
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whoa, What's This?
adam
amateur theology
anthropology
aphorisms
Aquinas
argument from motion
Aristotelianism
art
atheism
autumn of the modern ages
books
brains
breaking news
captive dreams
cartoon
charts
chieftain
clannafhloinn
comix
commentary
counterattack
crusades
culcha
dogheads
easton stuff
economics
eifelheim
evolution
factoids on parade
fake news
fallen angels
Feeders
fir trees in lungs
firestar
flicks
floods
flynncestry
flynnstuff
forecasts
forest of time
fun facts
gandersauce
gimlet eye
global warming
glvwg
headlines
henchmen
high frontier
history
home front
how to lie with statistics
humor
Hunters Moon
hush-hush
hypatia
in the house of submission
irish
Iron Shirts
irrationalism
january dancer
jihad
journeyman
kabuki
kool
letter
lion's mouth
lunacon
maps
mayerling
medieval
metrology
miscellany
modern mythology
moose zombies
music
new years
nexus
odds
odds and ends
paleofuture
passing of the modern age
philosophy
philosophy math
poetry
politics
potpourri
psyched out!
public service
quality
quiet sun
quote of the day
razor's edge
redefinition of marriage
religio
reviews
river of stars
scandal
science
science marches on
scientism
scrivening
shipwrecks of time
shroud
skiffy
skiffy in the news
skools
slipping masks
some people will believe anything
stats
stories
stranger things
the auld curmudgeon
the madness continues
the new fascism
the russians are coming
the spiral arm
the writing life
thomism
thought for the day
thread o' years
tofspot
topology
untergang des abendlandes
untergang des morgenlandes
up jim river
video clips
vignettes
war on science
we get letters
we're all gonna die
whimsy
words at play
wuv
xmas
you can't make this stuff up
I really wish #2 startled me.
ReplyDeleteI can't even get up a decent case of "shocked" for the Catholic doctors in Liberia that figured out they'd been given vaccine laced with stuff to make the immune system identify pregnancy as an infection, and attack it accordingly.
Wasn't it Kenya? The Kenyan bishops put a statement out, I thought.
DeleteHere is a good article looking at the claims made by the Kenyan bishops. It appears they were mistaken about the lab results.
Deletehttp://rationalcatholicblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/does-the-kenyan-unicef-tetanus-vaccine-contain-hcg-and-make-women-infertile/
It was Kenya indeed (latest bishop statement: http://www.kccb.or.ke/home/news-2/press-statement-by-the-kenya-conference-of-catholic-bishops/ ), but RCB only offers ways it could be mistaken, and in fact made a major mistake that was corrected in the comments.
DeleteAlso does not account for the thing that made the doctors and Bishops look hard at the vaccine in the first place-- the way that it was being administered like the prior sterilization drug, instead of like tetanus, and is very ready to assume bad testing practices while assuming that no pressure will be applied to the labs that did the testing.
I've long thought that the "necessity" of contraception and abortion was an economic one, and Slate helpfully confirms this. Weird things happens when we view humans as meant to serve the economy instead of the other way around.
ReplyDeleteon #5: one thing to note is that a lot of this is cultural... my family is from Venezuela, and my dad talked about wolf whistles and the like as if it were a normal thing for guys to do (and he is no misogynist). Women in those areas often do what sensible people would do, either ignore it or on occasion back sass something stupid a guy might have said (and often the guy expects it)... in either case the act is not taken seriously, neither by the girl nor the guy. Now if a woman is ethnically different, and walking in (more run down) neighborhoods, she is bound to attract more attention. This happened to me when I, who am rather pale was in the slums of DR, largely full of really dark (pretty much black) people, everything from stares to marriage proposals. But it also happened to darker skinned friends of mine in Europe. To it all I say lolz. Boys are pretty stupid sometimes... why give things like this any emotional power?
ReplyDeleteReading through the linked stuff in 7 - 9. Interesting. I had not come across Cartwright before, and am not through reading her essays yet, but the idea seems to be that a sort of inverse relationship exists between explanations that account for phenomena, which are validated by the behavior of the phenomena but make no general claims, and purely theoretical explanations which claim to be more universal but, because they are not backed up by specific experimental results, have no claim to be true. Someone needs to introduce Dr. Cartwright to the concept of metaphysics. Unfortunately, as an analytic philosopher, she's probably immune.
ReplyDeleteI'd only add that .this approach not only deals nicely with the weird and logically impossible claim that certain sub-atomic phenomena are *known* to be uncaused because the current phenomenological explanations are probabilistic, which is nice, but also with any broader claims of analytic philosophy in general: clearly, such general claims that the material world is all that exists is merely assumed in phenomenological explanations; it is without content when generalized to a world view. If I say: the material world is all that there is, I can fool myself into thinking that scientific observation confirms this as a phenomenological explanation, but, on Cartwright's view, I can't assert it as true in general, divorced from the individual scientific observations. The possibility that philosophy can be any more than a thorough laying out of what science explains on a phenomenological level is thereby killed off - which may be fine with the analytic philosophy crowd, but is pretty thin gruel.
But maybe that's just me.