Banner
Suicide For Birthday Best Present Ever

     Today is my 43rd birthday. When I was 34 years old, I walked along a...

Asperger Depressing Double Edged Sword

    Many high IQ Asperger sufferers think that their rationality is ultimately superior...

Asperger Good Yet Discriminated Against

Pathological thought can be helpful, especially the Asperger’s variety. Ludwig Wittgenstein became...

Asperger Love: Loveless Or Unloved Lovers

In time for Autistic Pride Day 18 June:     Why do people congratulate somebody...

User picture.
picture for Robert H Olleypicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Thor Russellpicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Michael Martinezpicture for Samuel Kenyon
Sascha VongehrRSS Feed of this column.

Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙] studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory) at Sussex University, UK, and subsequently researched... Read More »

Blogroll

Design, according to some, needs a designer. However, famous biologists and neo-Darwinists such as D. Dennett say that evolution “designs” by natural selection. If we accept that usage of the term, “design” does not by definition imply an intentional act (much like “the hand evolved in order to grasp” does not imply that evolution desires to achieve anything). If there are “blind watchmakers” who do “design”, then the following question is scientific:


Can we possibly, for example by investigating the designed “creation”, distinguish an intelligent designer, one that did have intentions, from an aimless design process like algorithmic evolution?

And once again I am amazed at the shortsighted, self-righteous moralizing of those who pretend to be all progressive, hip cyber age people.

As pointed out recently, a new type of creationism has entered popular discourse through the backdoor. That was mostly about computer geeks and physicists trying to outperform "old atheists" in fashionable, gadgety ways, thus unwittingly bringing God back in. But there is another form of implicit denial of evolution worth mentioning, and it is similar in that it is again mostly done by “progressives”, atheists and humanists who claim to defend science, especially evolution!

Science based creationism has arrived and is fashionable: Established academics and NASA scientists claim that evolution is merely a deception, the fossil record planted; darlings of “new-atheists” get away with basically saying that the universe is made for humans; arXiv is not above promoting considerations of we-are-in-a-simulation scenarios that are hidden variable realities blatantly inconsistent with quantum mechanics.

Small Is Ugly

Small Is Ugly

Oct 08 2012 | 8 comment(s)

A topic that should get more attention in science outreach is the weirdness of the small. And no – I do not mean the ad nauseam covered ‘quantum weirdness’, which is not* about small stuff anyway. The classical (non-quantum) behavior of the small is counterintuitive enough. Many misconceptions could be avoided with some awareness about how the surfaces of objects, even smooth looking metal surfaces, look like at small scales (think mountainous battle fields).

If you believe in scientism, you trust such tales as that, for example, the criticizing of a scientific paper is published in the same journal as the criticized article. Science writers, say people like T. Dorigo right here on Science2.0, eagerly help to disseminate such falsehoods about the peer-review system. How far do these cheerleaders themselves buy into such convenient rationalizations of the power structures that feed them? In truth, critical papers are outright rejected, whistleblowers blacklisted. “Criticism” in academic culture is a show-dance that increases established players’ citation counts. True criticism is silenced; it can be happy to land in a ‘dump-journal’ that is listed on the scientific citation index (SCI) at all.