mmoa_writes: (Default)

Well, I lol'd.

And I am very surprised that any magazine that has the audacity to call itself 'Reason' has managed to hang around for 40 years.

*

Oh look, Hitchens has said something interesting and intelligent. OK, if he writes like this for Vanity Fair, why does he seem to let himself go for UK publications? Maybe it's that thing of being able to walk around in one's underwear when at home, when you wouldn't think of doing so elsewhere. Maybe they just pay him better. Now that, I could completely understand.

*

How the Scientist Got His Ideas
; if there's one thing this got me thinking about, was just how much I despise IDers, who have transformed the debate into one purely for or against. This is stupidity incarcante because it means if someone - who is clearly an evolutionist - talks about the 'problems' of evolution (usually meaning the problem of finding an answer to ome feature of life/existence/whatever using what we know about evolution) not only are they usually snapped up by the IDers, but they are also subject to attacks from fellow evolutionists who haven't quite taken the time to read everything they were actually trying to say.

I tink it's partly due to the fallacious tecnique employed by IDers and others of their ilk wherein any little gap or problem or issue is immediately taken as a reference to the existence of God. Not only is this bad theology (which is embarrassing enough) it is bad thinking full stop. It's sad, because there are very interesting implications - maybe more from a philosophy of science perspective, admittedly - concerning the 'failures' of evolution (which have nothing to do - as ever - with God's existence or lack thereof) just as there were about quantum mechanics, which I sometimes worry won't be fully discussed about because we have entered the discussion already wired up for the 'God or Not' argument, even when we think we're being quite open minded.

But what would I know. These are just impressions. Shared impressions, however, which is a false comfort at the best of times, I know but a comfort nonetheless.
mmoa_writes: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] mmoa_writes at 09:11pm on 28/04/2009 under , , , , ,

Now what's this? A genetic cure for HIV? It could be hokum, but if it isn't there should be something on the New Scientist site/links. Wow. I wonder if they could do something about the propensity towards wisdom teeth growing in modern homo sapiens? I mean, bless their eager calcium hearts, but there isn't nearly enough space in my mouth and it's not like I'm returning to a raw diet or eating roughage anymore (I would have thought the appendix would have given them a clue).

Mood:: 'and mildly sore' and mildly sore
mmoa_writes: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] mmoa_writes at 02:18pm on 04/03/2008 under , , , , ,

Saturday I was listening to a radio programme on UCB (DO NOT ASK - I still live with my parents, 'nuff said), and was rather suprised to hear some insidious Creationist propaganda in the form of a radio show about an all American family who, well, I'm not sure what they do except for get themselves in really stupid situations where only prayer can help, and travel around town where they bump into people who ever-so conveniently are 'confused' about evolution (possibly because they haven't got round to reading any bog-standard Biology text book. Or maybe it's because of the textbook: this is the Midwest after all...).

Anyway, as I heard them twisting the law of 2nd Termodynamics upon which their entire argument was based, it occurred to me that the biggest problem in the debate is the use of language and the lacking ability for objectivity.

After all, 'better' is entirely relativistic. In the Natural world, outside the sphere of human observation, nothing is intrinsically better or worse. After all, a camel is as evolved as an emperor penguin, but it's obvious that when we say one is better than the other, we mean in terms of the environment in which it lives. Things becoming 'better' is not the same as things becoming more 'chaotic', and just because we are complex and quite like ourselves this way, does not mean that all more complex and thus chaotic things are 'better'. After all, if there's one thing we know for sure is that there is only one truly 'super-being' who can survive regardless of envrionment, and that is the bacterium.

And they're pretty damn simple (can't ennumerate on the meaning of Wittgenstinnian ethics for jack).

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5 6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31