Facts are too scrutable! 23 Sep 2010 I love the mouseover. Go there and check it out… it’s objectively true. Epistemology Metaphysics Philosophy Science
Humor I should stand for Parliament perhaps 7 May 2010 It’s the going thing in the UK. H/T Leiter. Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design Consequences of theistic evolution 3 Jul 201022 Jun 2018 So in parts one and two I proposed a problem and solution to the reconciliation of a limited theism with science, and in particular evolution. The aim was to preserve a complete scientific explanation, with no constraints or hedging or intervention, and to see if it could be made consistent… Read More
History The Golden Age of Islam 12 Oct 2009 3 Quarks Daily has a series by Namit Arora on the high period of Islamic culture to which we owe our knowledge of classical science and literature, not to mention a host of scientific developments. Part 1 is here and part 2 is here. Keep an eye on this one. Read More
I don’t get a mouseover, either on your site or the original. Is *that* the mouseover – have I been had?
he he he he he (I didn’t get the mouseover either – and I tried). still… he he he he he – maybe i’ll throw this at my therapist students….
Maybe someone can explain the second panel for me: why is “post-modern” contrasted with “skeptic”? They both seem rather similar to me. Here are my thoughts: 1) Post-modernism is new, whereas skepticism is old (ancient Greeks, I believe) 2) Post-modern aligns politically with “leftism” (anti-colonialism, anti-Westernism) whereas skepticism, as portrayed, aligns politically with “rightism” (anti-evolution, anti-greenhouse gas). I would have had an easier time if post-modernism were contrasted with traditionalism or authoritarianism…but still a good cartoon.
The Sokal hoax has always annoyed me. Sokal managed to get mumbo jumbo published in a non-peer-reviewed journal. So what?
From Wikipedia: The Sokal Affair compelled Social Text magazine to establish an article peer review process. In 1996, the magazine did not peer review because the editors believed that an editorial open policy would stimulate more original, less conventional research. The editors argued that, in that context, Sokal’s article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, was a fraudulent betrayal of their trust. Moreover, they further argued that scientific peer review does not necessarily detect intellectual fraud, viz. the later Schön scandal (2002), the Bogdanov Affair (2002), and other instances of published poor science. I left in the comments about Schön et al, though off topic, because they do illustrate that pranks like this are close to worthless (wrt to a field, if not a particular journal) even when peer review exists.