Category Archives: Philosophy

by | February 4, 2012

Is the dismal science even possible?

A thought occurred to me. Given that money is an abstraction of an abstraction (value) of an abstraction (resources and labor) of things, and so has no standing in any ontology of society, is economics even possible as a science? … Continue reading →

Leave a Comment

Filed under Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science

by | January 31, 2012

Plantinga’s EAAN

A post now up at the Philosopher’s Carnival discusses Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN), and comment how it is like (not exactly the same) as a global skepticism argument being self-defeating. Plantinga’s argument goes like this: P1. If … Continue reading →

24 Comments

Filed under Epistemology, Evolution, Logic and philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Religion, Science

by | January 21, 2012

A philosophical apology from 1919 for not being pro-war

Leiter posted the PDF of this on his site. I can’t help but reproduce some of the choicer quotes: “DEAR FRIEND: Your letter gently but un-mistakably intimates that I am a slacker, a slacker in peace as well as in … Continue reading →

3 Comments

Filed under History, Logic and philosophy, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, Sermon, Social evolution, Truisms

by | January 18, 2012

The Shandyan dilemma

Reginald Hill, author of the Dalziel and Pascoe detective series among many others, has died. This is a partial post I started some time back, so I thought I’d post it as is. In Recalled to Life, Reginald Hill has … Continue reading →

18 Comments

Filed under Evolution, History, Philosophy, Social evolution

by | January 15, 2012

Notes on Novelty 8: Conclusion – Post evo-devo

Notes on Novelty series: 1. Introduction 2. Historical considerations – before and after evolution 3: The meaning of evolutionary novelty 4: Examples – the beetle’s horns and the turtle’s shell 5: Evolutionary radiations and individuation 6: Levels of description 7: Surprise! 8: Conclusion – Post evo-devo … Continue reading →

1 Comment

Filed under Epistemology, Evolution, General Science, Logic and philosophy, Metaphysics, Natural Classification, Philosophy, Science, Species and systematics, Truisms

by | January 14, 2012

Notes on novelty 7: Surprise!

Notes on Novelty series: 1. Introduction 2. Historical considerations – before and after evolution 3: The meaning of evolutionary novelty 4: Examples – the beetle’s horns and the turtle’s shell 5: Evolutionary radiations and individuation 6: Levels of description 7: Surprise! 8: Conclusion – Post evo-devo … Continue reading →

8 Comments

Filed under Cognition, Epistemology, Evolution, Logic and philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science

by | January 12, 2012

You can’t explain a variable with a constant

Courtesy of reader Jocelyn Stoller, comes this video, of respected philosopher of science Jim Woodward discussing whether or not religious beliefs explains things like suicide bombing and the moral right in the US. Answer: not likely. Watch part 2 at … Continue reading →

37 Comments

Filed under Philosophy, Religion, Science

by | January 8, 2012

The difference between population concepts and “population thinking”

The late Ernst Mayr is remembered for many things, but a number of his historical and philosophical claims are unravelling. The very clever and perspicacious Rutgers geneticist, Jody Hey, has published a paper in the Quarterly Review of Biology on … Continue reading →

11 Comments

Filed under Biology, Evolution, History, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science, Species concept

by | January 7, 2012

Notes on novelty 6: Levels of description

Notes on Novelty series: 1. Introduction 2. Historical considerations – before and after evolution 3: The meaning of evolutionary novelty 4: Examples – the beetle’s horns and the turtle’s shell 5: Evolutionary radiations and individuation 6: Levels of description 7: Surprise! 8: Conclusion – Post evo-devo … Continue reading →

6 Comments

Filed under Epistemology, Evolution, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science

by | January 3, 2012

Affirming the consequent and doing science and history

Here’s a conundrum for the simple minded: One of the classic fallacies is the fallacy of affirming the consequent: If P then Q, Q, therefore P It’s an obvious logical fallacy because there might be many reasons for Q. And … Continue reading →

23 Comments

Filed under Epistemology, Philosophy, Science