As a researcher in the fields of exact science and philosophy, I am obsessed with “truth”, which is a label of approval we assign to concepts that we judge to be consistent in a certain sense (Example 1 below). How we do that is thus important for the progress of these disciplines.

Those who know the meaning of ‘third culture’, know that since the days when it was lamented that the members of the intellectual elite would not even know the second law of thermodynamics, the land grab of science has been astounding and is indeed an ongoing coming to power by science. 

Globally existential threats due to ‘overpopulation momentum’ together with the top-heavy age structure leave by now no alternative to radical technological adaptation for anything that wants to survive 'long term'.  It is strictly too late to ‘go green’ except via a novel take on what constitutes ‘green’, including synthetic biology.  Hyped for a long time, nanoscience is still largely in its pioneering phase.  However, it matures as we speak and soon, as it becomes true nanotechnology, it will leave the hype far behind.

Thomas Nagel wrote one lucky paper back almost half a century ago, titled “What Is it Like to Be a Bat?”.  That title went down so well, he has basically made a living from this alone ever since.  Recently, he went fully down the path trodden by many a noble prize winner: Pseudoscience!  I did also not believe this initially, but do read outtakes (e.g.

The title should be: Reformulating the Postmodern Core Insight versus Consistency as Absolute Meta-Truth:  Last Bastion against New Totalitarianism - or some such, however, the software does not support the length.  Anyway, let us start:

Can anything fundamental be described and what is the, potentially undesired, outcome if we should succeed?

 

Damon Linker at theweek.com laments yet another new atheist manifesto, this time by British “philosopher” Grayling with his forthcoming book “The God Argument”.  Damon is looking for me it seems, the title of his article asking:  Where are the honest atheists?

 

Damon’s article hits on many big names to get attention and fill volume; the gist is: