Where does one draw the boundary between science and politics? Here in Dear Old Blighty
, our Home Secretary has just sacked his chief drugs adviser over this very issue. If you care to read the article, Cannabis row drugs adviser sacked
, please let me know what you think.
Just over a year ago, the Daresbury synchrotron closed down (Is The Ring Destined For The Cracks Of Doom?) and I was contemplating the prospect of travelling to THE Continent (OK, the European mainland) in order to continue our Small-angle X-ray scattering work.
Recent correspondence directed me to the fact that there is a Philosophy section in Scientific Blogging. This is something I have kept away from, since my view of the subject follows the Pooh-Goethe paradigm . However, I have just read In The Beginning - A Rough Guide To A Physicalist View Of Everything which introduced the subject of metaphysics. Now it may be customary to think that metaphysics is “that which lies beyond physics”, so the more we get our physics right, the better the metaphysics. But then Darwin had a different perspective. In his Notebook M (1838) he wrote
A friend on a newsgroup went recently to see the "Creation" fim / movie. He'd like to know what the folks on Scientific Blogging think of it (I presume it's being shown across the pond, also.) He writes:
Went to see the film the other night. Not quite what I expected and to some extent disappointed as it was very much an interpretation of Darwin (and Huxley), which didn't always fit in with the biographies of Darwin I've read.
Huxley had a walk on part and the actor who played him made him look like a dwarf and a stooge to Hooker.
With what words he did say, I'm not sure whether many people would be able to differentiate between his anti-clericalism and an anti God stance.
Recent events in the Chrematosphere* have brought the following to mind. It is from Fred Hoyle’s Frontiers of Astronomy, concerning the collapse of a giant star before it explodes as a supernova.