Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(377)
-
▼
November
(12)
- At the risk of angering a commenter again, I want ...
- Conservatives give more to charity than liberals, ...
- You think of technology these days as super high-t...
- This week's wrong definition of faith comes from S...
- Jeeves and W. The funniest thing I've read in a w...
- Emily Oster has what she thinks are three earth-sh...
- Another article about autism, this one offering th...
- Slate is doing a series on philanthropy. So far m...
- I hate roundabouts, but, well, this counterintuiti...
- This sort-of vaccine-like approach to fighting AID...
- Bjorn Lomborg argues that global warming is not ou...
- Dan Gilbert talks about why we're not afraid of gl...
-
▼
November
(12)
News/Analysis
Science
Et cetera
All content on this blog is released under a Creative Commons license.
3 comments:
so have you written a letter to the Crimson objecting to Pinker's definition?
Someone has beaten me to it.
I read Pinker's article, thanks to you. The letter to the editor you also helpfully cited said what I was thinking better and certainly more concisely than I would have. As something of a scientist or at least as one who daily deals in the principles of scientific studies and their claims, it is embarrassing to see scientists make truth and value claims that are not scientifically based. These hide behind words like "inherent" and many others. This op-ed by Pinker is full of examples as the respondent makes very clear. Pinker's best line is how science "cruelly" falsifies cherished beliefs. His glee at this is poorly hidden. So much for dispassionate science.
Post a Comment