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
Evolution Butler’s word games 11 Sep 2009 Gary Nelson recently sent me a paper from G. G. Simpson, published back around 1961: Simpson, GG. 1961. Lamarck, Darwin and Butler, three approaches to evolution. The American Scholar 30 (2):239-249. Unfortunately, this is not online, even through JSTOR, but it’s a wonderful essay, in which Simpson excoriates Samuel Butler’s… Read More
History On Grayling on the Jesuits 23 Aug 2009 A long time ago I would debate the local Jesuits over scotch, when I was still a Christian theology student. I learned two things: 1. those guys could really hold their liquor (I drank much more sparingly); and 2. Jesuits are really really smart. But as a theolog, I also… Read More
Philosophy My Absent Career 6: Blogging or blagging? 15 Dec 20221 Jan 2023 Another result of my meanderings on the interwebs was my blogging career, the tail end of which you are now reading. P. Z. Myers, whose name I routinely misspelled for about ten years until I ran out of alternatives, was active in the talk.origins group. He was early into science… 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.