- What if Einstein is Wrong? | Dr. Kaku’s Universe | Big Think
Every Wednesday, Michio Kaku will be answering reader questions about physics and futuristic science. If you have a question for Dr. Kaku, just post it in the comments section below and check back on Wednesdays to see if he answers it.
Today, Dr. Kaku addresses the question What if Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong?
- 400-Year-Old Star Explosion Mystery Finally Solved | Supernovas & White Dwarf Stars | Star Mysteries & 219th American Astronomical Society Meeting | Space.com
- Amazing Astronomy Illustrations From the 1800s Resurface Online | E.L. Trouvelot Images & Drawings | Space, Sun & Planets | LiveScience
- Crowded cosmos: In Milky Way, planets more plentiful than stars, even in unexpected places – The Washington Post
- Sir Karl Popper’s “Science as Falsification” – YouTube
- ‘Doomsday Clock’ moved forward. What has scientists worried? – CSMonitor.com
Climate & Climate Politics
- Doomsday Clock Moves to Five Minutes to Midnight — Thanks in Part to Inaction on Climate Change | ThinkProgress
- Friedrich Hayek on the Conservative Denial of Science–50 Years Ago
Here’s something that the evolution skeptic and Hayek admirer Ron Paul ought to pay attention to.
What is astonishing about the quotation below, from Hayek’s “Why I Am Not a Conservative” essay, is just how much it seems to stand outside of time, as if it could have been written now, rather than when it was written, in 1960:
Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it – or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.
Source here. Hat tip to Robert Joshi who sent me the quote on Twitter.
- The Dangerous Blurring of News and Opinion Online | Risk: Reason and Reality | Big Think
- Fox News Guest Accidentally Describes How Biased Fox Is – YouTube
- Why Doesn’t PolitiFact Cover Falsehoods About Evolution?
Politics — Mitt Romney
- The Truth About Romney’s ‘Fire’ Comment: Insurers Have The Right To Fire You | ThinkProgress
- The Immoral Minority: Mitt Romney shrugs off questions about cruel and inhumane treatment of his dog Seamus during a 12 hour family trip in 1983.
- The NonSequitur » Brace yourselves (lets not take what Romney said about firing people out of context)
Politics — Ron Paul
- How Much Does File Sharing Resemble Stealing–And Does it Matter? – Megan McArdle – Business – The Atlantic
Economic & The Economy
- The Crisis We Should Have Had By Matthew Yglesias (via Brad DeLong: Matthew Yglesias: The Crisis We Should Have Had)
- TPC Tax Topics | Analyzing GOP Tax Plans
- On The Virtues of Political Correctness (And Of Related Godless Pieties) | Camels With Hammers (the emphasis is mine)
Last month Ian had a terrific post which highlighted that being what is derisively termed “politically correct” is not a matter of lying in response to bogus left-wing political pressure and thought police but rather of a matter of moral and conceptual rigor which is willing to actively resist the bigotries and falsehoods encoded into our less circumspect everyday language and culture by unjustly privileged groups: [read on…]