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
Ethics and Moral Philosophy Aware: Free Will 21 Dec 202330 May 2024 Physics and neurons, basically Are freewill and determinism incompatible? Is there even a conflict?See my Substack for further information Read More
Biology Travel Diary 4 7 Oct 2009 I am in Göttingen now, talking to primatologists at the DPZ (Deutsches Primatenzentrum) conference on hybridisation. Neither I nor any of the said primatologists are in the picture above. This is an appropriate place to give a talk on species concepts, because in the 18th century, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach worked… Read More
Epistemology The Philosophers' Menu 4 May 2010 The Philosophers’ Menu Presuppositions. Kantelope Assorted carnaps Pareto soup Hart-boyled eggs with a rescher of bacon Major Premises Jugged hare, with milled popper Skinnered peacocke, with nashed paretos Plato’ the Day Humeburger, with gibbard gravy Frankfurts and schauer kraut Bass van frassen [sic] Nagels and lockes Frege legs with russell… 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.