We had a little storm here yesterday. It left my brother's flat wet inside and out, destroying their mattresses, and giving my motorcycle a jet blast clean. It's clean for the first time since I bought it four years ago. I was, not to put too fine a point on it, very scared. Two minutes before I arrived at my brother's place, I was on the road on my bike. Then this happened. Hailstones the size of a small orange, winds up to 130km/h (and I am sure that was what I saw when I took this pic), tree branches down and water just pouring into the flat.
Anyway, that to one side, here are some random links.
SciGuy points us to an absolutely marvellous blog by NASA space shuttle manager Wayne Hale. It's chatty, honest and well written.
Bora in another forum pointed out a comment column by Chris Hedges at truthdig, bemoaning the illiteracy of ordinary Americans and the dumbing down of political discourse. The issue is that folks seem to think they actually live in the narrative illusion of the media.
Also from Bora is this: Five Physics Lessons for Obama, by physicist Richard Muller, in which we learn that nuclear bombs are not the main terrorist threat, that there really isn't any alternative to petroleum energy, apart from not using energy at the rate we do, that nuclear energy waste is a solved problem, that humans in space retards science, not advances it, and that the US isn't the problem with global warming, so much. That last I think may be open to misreading.
And here, given the way that creationists like Alvin Plantinga and the ID crowd whine about methodological naturalism, is Thomas Aquinas (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, II.4), from Suppl(e)mental:
Human philosophy considers creatures as they are in themselves: hence we find different divisions of philosophy according to the different classes of things. But Christian faith considers them, not in themselves, but inasmuch as they represent the majesty of God, and in one way or another are directed to God...
Therefore the philosopher* and the faithful Christian (fidelis) consider different points about creatures: the philosopher considers what attaches to them in their proper nature: the faithful Christian considers about creatures only what attaches to them in their relation to God, as that they are created by God, subject to God, and the like. Hence it is not to be put down as an imperfection in the doctrine of faith, if it passes unnoticed many properties of things, as the configuration of the heavens, or the laws of motion.
And again such points as are considered by philosopher and faithful Christian alike, are treated on different principles: for the philosopher takes his stand on the proper and immediate causes of things; but the faithful Christian argues from the First Cause, showing that so the matter is divinely revealed, or that this makes for the glory of God, or that God's power is infinite.
Looks like methodological naturalism is "Augustinian", Alvin.
* "Philosopher" includes what we now call a scientist, for the latter term was not introduced until the 1830s.
- Log in to post comments
I heard about this on the World Service (um, not the Aquinas bit). It's good to hear you're OK, and I'm sure the bike will recover.
The Beast's former servant lives in Brisbane too. I'll have to check that she's OK.
Homonym heaven! Here in the US we are told that large hail is a sign of nearby tornadic activity. And Hale's nifty blog is now in my sidebar.
When the Rapture happens, does it hail Marys?
When the Rapture happens, does it hail Marys?
Yes, bloody marys with double measures of vodka!
Is it just me, or does that list by Richard Muller seem more like lessons in economics as it pertains to energy and science, rather than physics?
You took a more discouraging lesson from Richard Muller's remarks about hydrogen -- "there really isn't any alternative to petroleum energy" -- than was actually there. Hydrogen is a bulky and awkward energy carrier, it is true, but it is not the only conceivable one.
Glad that you and yours just lost stuff, not lives. Locally, it has finally stopped snowing ash. Due to local weather patterns, a lot of the smoke and ash from various So Cal fires ended up here in Long Beach.
Was it really necessary to be out and about on your bike on such a lovely day?
Hey, I'm from Melbourne, the Seattle of the southern hemisphere. If you ride a bike in Melbourne, getting wet is an occupational hazard. At the time it looked like a little rain. By the fifteenth lightning strike, I might have made an obvious inference, but hey, as I said, I'm from Melbourne...
Glad you weren't injured. Sorry about your brother's place. I actually live due east of there, but the storm cells had lost most of their puff by the time they came to Windsor. I was surprised when I heard of the damage the next morning. It certainly looked like it could have been tornado damage, but we semiregularly get intense storms with cyclonic-strength wind bursts go through the Brisbane River Valley. This one seems to have been worse than usual though.
Isn't that Thomasian, not Augustinian? And to two "fine" points. First, am I right in remembering that this philosophy/theology separation goes back to Ockham or thereabouts? Second, would you see a distinction between the scientific methodological and a philosophical naturalism? (To be further distinguished from some theological form.)
having seen pictures of the storm damage I can now say to you brave souls of Brisbane, you make me puke.
You fatuous, whiny, hot house ninnies. You timorous, quavering, fluttering butterflies. You collective vomitous mass.
You bitch and moan about all the uprooted trees that crashed through your roofs. Oh piss me a sewer. You've still got houses. Hell, you've still got trees. Real storm damage is when houses, trees, and even the streets are gone. When you can walk through an industrial park and hear other people describe it as pristine wilderness, that's when you've had storm damage.
Brisbane went through nothing worse than getting her hair tousled. Wait till you've had your head shaved bald.
Alan, what the fuck justifies that rant? I guess if someone dies from a disease, their family has no reason to piss and moan since others die from being murdered?
And you call yourself a Python fan. :grin:
It was a bit raw. We are still having storms and flooding.
Besides, this is Humour, not Abuse.
Ah, what? You say something? Sorry, I was doing something else. You did pay for this session. You did, didn't you?
Aquinas says:
"the philosopher takes his stand on the proper and immediate causes of things"
You interpret this to mean:
"Looks like methodological naturalism is 'Augustinian'."
I don't think Aquinas is saying that. Methodological naturalism is, I take it, the view that the proper way to do science is to proceed as if God is not given (which isn't to say that we should proceed as if not-God is given).
Aquinas is saying that the philosopher/scientist is concerned with the "proper and immediate causes of things." Whatever that means, it's quite a leap to assume that Aquinas is endorsing methodological naturalism. It sounds like he's just saying that the philosopher/scientist is (or perhaps should be) concerned with finding the actual, proximate causes of things. This is perfectly compatible with the philosopher/scientist proceeding as if God is given, i.e. it's perfectly compatible with rejecting methodological naturalism.
So I think you're reading a lot into Aquinas here.