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
Philosophy In which I upset PZ, again, by not knowing 29 Jun 2010 Ron Rosenbaum has written a piece in Slate on agnosticism, in which he generously quotes an Australian “scientist”, that is, me. Oh dear. This is going to set the cat among the pigeons. And indeed one such cat, my friend and sparring partner PZ Myers, has already responded. Read and… Read More
Evolution No, it’s not an ancestor either (probably) 19 May 200918 Sep 2017 In addition to the “missing link” trope that is being dished out about the new primate fossil, is another one, more subtle and insidious: it’s the ancestor of all primates. How do they know that? Consider a biologically realistic scenario: at the time there were probably hundreds of species of… Read More
Evolution Did humans lose dominance? 13 May 2011 An extensive critical review has just been published online in advance of publication for Biology and Philosophy. The title is “Evolution and the loss of hierarchies: Dubreuil’s Human evolution and the origin of hierarchies: the state of nature” by Catherine Driscoll. I haven’t read Benoit Dubreuil’s book. It looks from… 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.