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 Catholic ethics, and the Australian Museum 20 Apr 2010 Read this piece about how the Catholic Church is sponsoring a “science ethics” prize through the Australian Museum. Read More
Epistemology The nature of philosophy and its role in modern society 6 Feb 2011 Those who spend their days obsessively noting every little change in blog designs will note that I have added a big red “P” at the bottom left. This links to the Philosophy Campaign – an attempt to make philosophy more relevant to modern society. So I got to thinking… what… Read More
Biology Aware is finished. Now for something different 14 May 202414 May 2024 So I finished presenting the book Aware on my substack, which will now ferment in my bottom drawer (metaphorically) until it ripens. While that is happening I am preparing to edit some nineteenth century sources for discussions of classification, taxonomy, species, higher and lower taxa, and many other subjects. Does… 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.