Today is the 46th anniversary of the first human visit to the surface of our moon. There is a ceremony that can be downloaded to commemorate it here, and two of the authors (I and Bill Simon) will be discussing it on The Space Show this afternoon at 5-6:30 Eastern, 2-3:30 Pacific.
Category Archives: Philosophy
Back To LA
Conference is over, heading back to what I hope is still a rainy Los Angeles.
Remember, Monday is Evoloterra day, and I’ll be on The Space Show that afternoon to discuss it.
Science
Is it ever “settled”?
As things stand today, Darwin’s notion of evolution, especially when we extend it with the things we’ve learned in the intervening 160 or so years, has stood up very well to attempts to falsify it.
That’s what science as a process really is: that process of observing, proposing explanations, and then trying to knock those explanations down. Eventually, you have only a few explanations left standing: our best explanations for what we observe in the real world. It’s that collection of best explanations that we call “science.”
What isn’t science is (e.g.) climate models, particularly when they can’t even hindcast.
“Settled science” is a newspeak phrase that the Left has come up with to impose their policy preferences on us.
[Update a few minutes later]
Why biology students have misconceptions about science.
I think there’s more of a crisis in science education (as with all education) than most people realize.
How Republics Die
My thoughts on the most recent judicial atrocities, over at PJMedia.
[Update later afternoon]
Some thoughts from Randy Barnett on “judicial restraint” and Republican judicial appointments.
I know it sounds crazy, but I want judges to follow the Constitution, not the tyrannical majority. I also want them to overturn crap decisions. Stare decisis my ass.
[Update a little while later]
Should we make Justices accountable to the voters?
It seems like a bad idea to me. I agree with Cruz’s diagnosis of the problem, but not his remedy. I think that one of the reasons that impeachment is so toothless is the original wording: “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The Founders had a very clear view of what that meant, but most people today do not, as we discovered during the Clinton impeachment trial. The only successful impeachments and removals I can think of occurred in the context of gross and blatant corruption (Alcee Hastings, who was later re-elected), or actual criminality. The other part of the problem is that, while they were adamantly opposed to political parties and made no Constitutional provision for them whatsoever, they perhaps didn’t anticipate how difficult they would make impeachment (even though court appointments are in theory non-partisan).
I think a better solution might be to amend the Constitution to simply modernize the grounds for impeachment. For instance, “…or, in violation of their oath of office, persistent indifference to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Who could argue with that? It would be quite entertaining to watch Democrats attempt to argue that office holders shouldn’t have to uphold their oath of office. And if it passed, it would force impeachment trials to actual discuss those arcane concepts.
[Update a few minutes later]
This is sort of similar to proposals to rein in the government by adding the words “and this time we really mean it” to the 9th and 10th amendments against encroachments by the flawed interpretations of the Commerce Clause. It would be a “this time we really mean it” to simply following the Constitution and the rule of law.
The Era Of Big Progressivism
…is over.
As I’ve often noted, these people are neither liberal, or progressive. They don’t believe in freedom of expression, they don’t believe in freedom of contract, they don’t believe in freedom of conscience, they don’t believe in liberty, period. They are racist fascist leftists, as they’ve always been, and I will continue to fight to take back the language.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s a great example: “Shut up,” he explained.
Liberal Pieties
…that only the “Right” believes any more.
I continue to wage war on the Left’s assault on the language. They are not liberal (or, for that matter, progressive), and never have been.
The Most Radical $10 Bill Candidate
That would be a cold day in Hell with this gang.
The Pope’s Climate Encyclical
Trying to get through it in order to critique it, but it’s long and turgid. Really needs editing.
[Update a while later]
Anyway, the editors at National Review waded through it.
The Airbag Recall
News you can use: Everything you need to know, including affected vehicles. Including our 2000 323i. Actually, the driver airbag in the car hasn’t worked for years, because the seat sensor is broken. I guess its possible that if we take it in for the recall, they’ll fix that as part of the job, but I don’t want to pay to do it. I’ve never been a big airbag fan.
There are two approaches to safety: Preventing accidents, and mitigating the harm from them. Airbags are primarily for people who don’t use seat belts. I’ve never liked the idea of having ordnance in my dashboard. If I could order a car without them, I would.
“Skeptics”
Why they hate climate skeptics:
As described above there were a number of factors and incidents that brought the skeptics movement to where it is today. Under different circumstance skeptical heroes might have included Freeman Dyson, Michael Crichton, Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg, and Michael Fumento instead of Carl Sagan, Michael Mann, Bill Nye, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
The forces for group cohesion can be powerful. Within the skeptic community voices that dissented in any way (or even just said “I don’t know”) tended to become more and more marginalized. Those who might dissent now have for the most part left, shut up or deferred to “science” and their places have been taken by those who believe. I once asked on a skeptical forum, why the group responded so harshly to any statements challenging climate fears, but no one ever commented or challenged any statements no matter how ridiculous exaggerating climate fears. I was told that false statements against the climate understandings represented real threats, but little harm could come from overstatements of climatic risk. No one on that forum took issue with that position and that’s when I figured I could not learn much more there. This is a group on a mission that is not accepting of distractions.
I subscribed to the Skeptical Inquirer back in the eighties, but I quit when Schermer took over, it started to veer left, and to a dogmatic atheism.