The idea of philosophers having a carnival, literally a celebration of the flesh, is somehow fitting and faintly disturbing, but this time they had the good taste to refer to a post of mine. But thats not [entirely] why I mention it. The Uncredible Halq has an Introduction to Philosophy, which is well worth reading even if you know what philosophy is, which you don't. Oh, and my definition? "Philosophy is what you argue about when facts don't fix the conclusion."
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Prompted by my discussion of Medawar and recalling that once in the past I called him a gadfly (although obviously I meant it in the good way), Bill Hooker drops another Medawar quotation on me and asks if I'll bite:
If the purpose of scientific methodology is to prescribe or expound a system of…
There's another paper out debunking the ENCODE consortium's absurd interpretation of their data. ENCODE, you may recall, published a rather controversial paper in which they claimed to have found that 80% of the human genome was 'functional' — for an extraordinarily loose definition of function —…
Philosophers are still grumbling about Lawrence Krauss, who openly dissed philosophy (word to the philosophers reading this: he recanted, so you can put down the thumbscrews and hot irons for now). This is one of those areas where I'm very much a middle-of-the-road person: I am not a philosopher,…
Well.
It was a strange event. Kittywhumpus and Greg Laden have good detailed breakdowns of the debate, so you can always read those for the audience perspective. As for me, I've learned that you can never prepare for a debate.
I tried. I had a focus — the topic, chosen by Bergman, was "Should…
Can philosophy of science also include when the facts dont fix the problem...yet?
Berkeley wouldnt have written the Dialogues, I think, if he know what we do now.