I thought this essay extraordinary for the insight provided so efficiently.
It reminds me of the many times people have commented that this website has no business talking about social sciences and politics, but I would challenge any thinking person to distinguish intellectual inquiry in the social sciences or politics from studies in the hard sciences. Except, of course, for the uncertainties–they are much more prevalent in the soft sciences.
The dangers of Utilitarianism, the importance of the individual but the need for society and civility, the role of philosophy in assessing the discuoveries of science.
I am just a humble emergency physician, and a push cart professsional trader–but the inegrity of science is essential to my life–I must practice medicine with respect for scientific principles–or I am a clown–a charlatan.
I like this so much and it is so succinct and efficient, it deserves another plaudit and just a paste for the people who hate going to a link.
From a National Law Journal:
Published on The National Law Review (http://www.natlawreview.com)
Here is Paul Driessen’s kind and respectfull treatment of what I would call stupid.
Stan Young send this to me. Stan is quite familiar with the problem.
John Ioannides has demonstrated the unreliabity and unreproducibility problem many times–particularly in observational studies that make big claims about populations of people.
The impact is exhibit one for the Twain statement it is easier to fool people than prove to them they’ve been fooled.
This is a review of the book What We Can’t Not Know. that sounds the depths of traditional intellectual inquiry and understanding of the Natural Law.
I would credit Aristotle with the most authoritative seminal effort to delineate and expound on natural law concepts. Since then moral philosophy, in my book, has been footnotes to his dissertations on ethics, morality, civics, politics.
I wold not consider Plato to have made the same contributions to the discussion, but that displays my bias to empirical methods.
I think all the tortured talk about abstract ideas is ignoring the evidence–a higher order of thinking produces language and the derivative abstractions as practical and useful for communicating concepts, analysis and understanding.
Well this does repeat what we keep pounding on here at Junk Science.