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
Philosophy Sokal on philosophers of science 5 Nov 2009 Julian Baggani has an interview up at The Philosophers’ Magazine with Alan Sokal, famous for the hoax that bears his name. In it Sokal says things about philosophy of science that he seems to think are dismissive, but which I would say are themselves philosophy of science claims that can… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design Consequences of theistic evolution 3 Jul 201022 Jun 2018 So in parts one and two I proposed a problem and solution to the reconciliation of a limited theism with science, and in particular evolution. The aim was to preserve a complete scientific explanation, with no constraints or hedging or intervention, and to see if it could be made consistent… Read More
Epistemology On birds, and ornithologists, and mutual respect 31 Jul 20124 Oct 2017 Some time back I had dinner with Pete Richerson, a well known ornithologist and biological theorist. He told me and the rest of the table an anecdote about hooded crows. It seems that in order to capture one to band, the ornithologists must sneak in the dead of night to… 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.