Some more reading 21 Jul 2009 While I compose my haiku philosophical masterpieces, read these links: Douglas Kell gives an account of the problems of reverse engineering biochemical networks in biology here. It’s not just a matter of curve fitting to data. Thinking is Real gives a fair discussion of the debate between meself and PZ Marlargl on accommodationism. The Boston Globe reports on apparent racial profiling of African American academics at Harvard. Some University of Iowa rediscover that the nature-nurture distinction is without merit. Dispersal of Darwin has an account of some leading historians of biology meeting in Cambridge. This is a series, in which Dan Dennett, among others, makes an appearance. And surprise, surprise, creationists lie in order to misrepresent historians again in another creationist propaganda piece. Biology Creationism and Intelligent Design Genetics Race and politics Religion
Biology A current list of species concepts 18 Nov 201718 Nov 2017 As part of my book, I have updated the list of species concepts. Thought you lot might like this: Species conceptions Basic Convention Taxonomic species [TSC] Diagnostic Morphospecies [MSC] Genealogy Evolutionary species [ESC] [Monophyly] Phylospecies [PSC] Gene-based Genetic species [GSC] Reproductive reach Biospecies [BSC] Ecological niche Ecospecies [EcSC] Replacement concepts… Read More
History Harry Potter, you see, is the wrong kind of magician 15 Jan 2008 In an article on the Catholic or otherwise virtues of Harry Potter (didn’t we do all this a while back), L’Osservatore Romano has an article claiming that Harry Potter is the wrong kind of hero. Why is that? Not, as you might think, because there are wizards in it –… Read More
Epistemology Why agnostics don’t have holidays 6 Aug 2010 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bp2Eqrvuis&feature=player_embedded] Courtesy of Leiter Read More
Now you’ve gone and done it. Larry has picked up on that article on accommodationism (by “fair,” I assume you meant something halfway between “good” and “bad”*) and will now cite your endorsement of it as proof that accommodationism is anti-science. * Kidding aside, did you really think that was a fair assessment of the accommodationist side of the argument?