1080ish, I forgot as soon as I closed the tab. I'm on and off with activity around here, it usually comes in spurts. The place has changed quite a bit since I joined and I haven't kept up with all the new features and what have you, so I feel even more lost.

Starting college has been nice. It is great to finally be studying something I really enjoy, and all of the new people I have met have been great. I enjoyed high school, but people aren't joking when they say college is so much better.

If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms—little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.

These lectures are fantastic. I just took a course in Mechanics, so now I am going through Feynman's treatment of the subject, and everything seems to make more sense.

By the way, I love these posts. I always end up adding a couple of books to my "To Read" just based on these quotes.

I've seen some very interesting and in depth discussion generated by this article on the web.

Overall I agree with Ellis and Silk - empiricism is vital to the scientific method and progress, and these notions of "post-empiricism" seem, to me at least, to be a dangerous path to go down.

I think what it comes down to is the degree to which we are willing to investigate hypotheses which have not been confirmed. I have not read the criticisms mentioned in the article, such as Smolin's or Woit's books, so I do not know exactly what they are advocating. If they are saying we should completely halt research on string theory and focus our efforts elsewhere, then Dawid's post can be seen as appropriately reactionary. I don't think string theory is without use, even though it has not (and likely will not be) experimentally confirmed, and research should continue. However, if the message in this criticisms is much more modest, then I don't see the use in Dawid's arguments. What do we gain by treating String theory as confirmed that we do not by treating it as unconfirmed? I guess I just don't see the point in Dawid's arguments, unless they are to argue for continued research in String Theory, which is already happening.

An excellent quote that I point to when discussing many endeavors of little apparent worth. So many people seem to think that the only efforts worth undertaking are those that bear useful or immediate fruits. Whatever happened to doing things just because?

Also, Kennedy references the "Because it's there" line in his "We choose to go to the Moon" speech. That is another good one.

As with any fusion announcement, I am skeptical until there is an actual working prototype.

It is exciting, however, to see such a big name behind the announcement this time. It does lend it some credibility.

What would you say the best essay in Baseball's history is? I love reading these types of things.

Definitely not too encouraging to be reading as someone going into the sciences. I suppose that it has always been a struggle, though.

Thanks for the link.

I only managed to get about 12 minutes in, however. There was a lot of pseudoscience stuff by that point, and I felt comfortable dismissing it without having to watch the next 45 minutes.

Oh wow, I opened this link having never wanted to buy an island, but now I certainly do.

In any case, I need to get out in nature more.

Uh, what makes you think that?

Eh, the fact is not all lies are created equal. It is far more detrimental to a child'd development to lie to them about history (i.e. Lord of the Rings actually happening) than to let them believe in Santa as a child. It's a cultural tradition, really, especially if you are in America (not sure what Christmas traditions are elsewhere). I don't see any harm from it, and I can't think of a single instance where this lie undermines the adult's authority in the eyes of the child. It certainly didn't for me.

Once again, great podcast.

With regards to the question of whether or not spirituality is innate, I would say it is not. What is innate, however, is the human desire to understand the world around us and our place in it. How we go about satisfying this desire is what defines our spirituality, I think. Some believe in a higher power, some rely on human reason, but the goal for all is the same.

As for future suggestions, I am still a fan of my idea here.

Doesn't this result mean that humans are contributing, not driving? I totally believe in climate change and everything, but this headline does seem somewhat misleading.

Would you mind going into a little more detail about the process? I've always been interested in submitting some opinion pieces but I am not quite sure what it would entail.

In any case, congratulations!

And here is the point I have reached: I might as well live in such a way as to maximize my pleasure and minimize my pain. Accordingly, I try to eat delicious food, to support my family, to create beautiful things, and to help those less fortunate than myself because those activities bring me pleasure. Likewise, I try to avoid leading a dull life, to avoid personal anarchy, and to avoid hurting others because those activities bring me pain. That is how I should live.

Holy Epicurus Batman! It is interesting how Mr. Lightman has come to the same conclusion that was reached by Epicurus centuries ago, yet followed very different lines of thought. I am always fascinated by using different paths to reach the same answer.

As always, a quality article from Nautilus. I am beginning to consider subscribing to their print quarterly.

I'd highly recommend Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, it is one of my favorite books.

In what way do you see them as independent? I concede that they can breath on their own, but there's not much else a newborn can do on its own. A baby right out of the womb certainly can't provide for itself and will likely die if left alone. How is it more independent now than before?

With regards to the umbilical cord, would you consider killing a baby who is out of the womb yet still attached via this cord as morally the same as taking the morning after pill?

Well, for the sake of discussion we can continue.

Why don't you agree with the above? We can agree that someone is alive once they are born. What has changed about them through the process of exiting the womb that differentiates them from how they were an hour before, as a fetus. The only thing I can think of is physical location, changing from in to out of the womb.

Not sure, tbh. I was just arguing that fundamental Christians can still see 'innocent life' in the sense that they do not deserve whatever has happened to them, while still acknowledging that none are worthy of entering Heaven by themselves.

Hm, I have always found this position hard to understand, which is why I am curious.

In fact, it is because of this 'thought experiment' that I define life to start at conception. To me, aborting a fetus a day before it is due is much much worse than doing so early on. A day before the due date, the fetus is completely viable, so to me there is little difference between this and murdering a newborn. We could think of the even more absurd scenario in which you kill the fetus once labor has actually started (after all, it can be a long process). What about two days before? Three days? This thought process always reminds me of Sorites Paradox

I agree that defining life to begin at some arbitrary point in the pregnancy makes very little sense, but I go in the opposite direction than you and say it begins with conception rather than birth.

Anyway, I don't mean to challenge your beliefs so don't take the above the wrong way or anything. Just explaining why I (and probably other pro-lifers) see conception as the logical starting point.

Most fundamental Christians believe that the guilt of original sin bars them from entering Heaven, not that it warrants their death. They believe that it is only through the grace of God that sinners (i.e. everyone) can enter Heaven. This is why you don't see them going around murdering people.

I agree. I'm just saying that such a viewpoint is, theoretically, consistent. In practice it is not however, which limits its credibility.

Hey, I'm from right around Naperville! I have to say, the Pacific Northwest has always been appealing to me, but I have never been to Portland (excluding an excursion from Seattle for one day). I have been to Seattle multiple times though.

What made you pick Portland?

Just out of curiosity, do you feel differently about abortions very early on in the pregnancy (e.g. the morning after pill) than those that occur late. That is, if someone were to theoretically (and I know in many places this is prevented by law) abort their pregnancy the day before they were due, would you still argue the fetus is not alive?

1. Going slightly against the grain here - philosophically I am pro-life, but I recognize that outlawing abortion creates a host of new problems arguably worse than abortion itself. Conception seems to be the most logical 'marker' for the beginning of life for me, but I know many others here will argue that it is birth.

2. I am anti capital punishment, as I think it is far too easy for us to make mistakes when it comes to condemning people. There's the saying "It is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man be killed", and I agree with that.

With regards to your anecdote, I think the contradiction diminishes if you consider him to value only innocent life. If the convict has been condemned, barring error on part of the justice system, then he is not innocent.

No, not at all.

I'm just saying, knowing what ALS stands for, especially when the words are somewhat technical, is not the metric by which you should be judging people's knowledge of the disease.

Knowing the name of something != Knowing what the things is.

Even if they learn that it is a motor neuron disease, they are more aware of it than they were before.

Have you read One Hundred Years of Solitude? It is one of my favorite books, and is a book that profits from multiple readings.

How is One Summer, America 1927? I've never read anything by Bill Bryson, but that one certainly looks interesting.

Nice article, thanks for posting.

I recently picked up the book Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences, briefly mentioned in the article. I haven't read it yet, but reaing this article made me move it up on the list.