Vote now! 3 Jun 2010 I have a couple of posts nominated (one by me – it’s time to stop being humble) at the 3quarksdaily Science competition here. I won’t win, because that torrent of good science writing, Ed Yong, is nominated, not to mention Carl Zimmer and sundry others, and the Pharynguloids will of course vote for PZ, but you should either go vote reflexively for me, or actually read some of the nominations and vote sensibly… Administrative Science Administrative
Epistemology Does philosophy generate knowledge? 2 Sep 20122 Sep 2012 So Larry has responded. Go read it. I’ll wait…. Back? Good. Let me address some of the points there. Not all of them, because most of them I have already addressed in previous posts. I’ll link them at the end of this one. But the most important ones. The first… Read More
Philosophy Evolution quotes: Theories are not the whole of science 12 May 201212 May 2012 I opened Structure of Scientific Theories asserting that the “most central or important” problem in philosophy of science is “the nature and structure of theories . . . . For theories are the vehicle of scientific knowledge and one way or another become involved in most aspects of the scientific… Read More
History The Times purveys some science myths 4 Jun 2009 This is just bad reporting and scholarship. Probably done to fill some space in a hurry or something. Hannah Devlin is claiming that there are several cases of scientific plagiarism including, you guessed, Darwin from Wallace. They claim Copernicus stole from a Persian astronomer, al-Tusi, becuase the same diagrams were… Read More
Well, I had to go back and read lots of complicated stuff with Big Words, many of which start with P. Then I chose your evolution thing. That Myzers guy will hypnotize his slavish golems, who gleefully punk anything that includes voting, so he will probably win. However, we know what he thinks of online votes: meaningless. So, even if he wins, does it matter?
Don’t forget that to “win” the voting round merely means to be in the top 25%. I actually glanced at all of the nominations, read all the promising ones, and voted sensibly. As you follow me on Twitter (GoldHoarder), you already know who I voted for. Other favourites will get blog links in due course. I left comments on a few, sometimes as Adrian Morgan, sometimes as outerhoard. Apparently I was the first person to point out (in a comment here) that two of the links were broken. This bothers me, because it implies that the vast majority of people don’t actually bother to peruse the list before voting, otherwise I never would have been first to report the error. My own view is that my vote would be illegitimate in principle if I didn’t give every candidate a fair go.