So I should probably post about my recent trip to India.
I could give a ‘what we got up to’ report of the work our team did (some still over – some still yet to go) on the new Freeset T-shirts building. But we didn’t only go as labourers – we went to observe as well. [...]
There’s a nice parallel between Dawkins’ less-than-informed rant against theism in The God Delusion (God would have to be very, very complex, because I, Richard Dawkins, zoologist, say so) and the recent apparently less-than-informed ‘refutation’ of evolutionary theory by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini in What Darwin Got Wrong.
Will the people defending Dawkins (a la ‘Must he [...]
One way to explain a clock is to talk about how its physical parts (sprockets, springs, wood, metal, etc.) function, etc. This will involve telling a story of how the design came about.
Another way to explain a clock is to talk about what its parts are composed of. This will involve telling a story about [...]
A popular response to the idea of a God as the ultimate final explanation for all things is to ask, “Who made God, then?” It’s always hard to know how seriously the question is being put forward.
Always looking for a more compact/clear way to say things, here’s a current version of what I take to be the only logical possibilities (in no particular order!) for the origin of ‘all things’/’universe’/’multi-verse’/’everything’ (A.T.U.M.E.), with my comments in parentheses.
A.T.U.M.E. has no origin, because A.T.U.M.E. is an illusion (Thanks to Descartes for his observation — [...]
Have you ever thought about what it means to say that you own something?
‘Negative’ and ‘Positive’ are opposite terms, just as ‘negate’ and ‘posit’ are.
I remember the first time I heard someone use the words ‘posit’ (a statement seeking to suggest/describe what the nature of a thing/idea/etc. is) and ‘negate’ (a statement seeking to suggest/describe what the nature of a thing/idea/etc. is not).
Often referred to as the via [...]
I wanted to hopefully bring a touch of clarity (call me the arrogant, self-appointed clarifier guy) which was discussed at Ken’s blog here – which was responding (among other things) to a post by Thinking Matters here.
I have never quite understood what some are on about when they point to the vast size of the universe as some kind of evidence that we are insignificant, and that any notion of human significance is ‘anthropocentric’ (human-centred).
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
