Can formal reasoning capture this?

In 2000, Eekels published a paper [1] that among other things discussed a type of inference called innoduction, which is supposed to capture some aspects of design creativity.  I don’t think it’s necessary to develop a whole new style of inference, and that the usual inference styles – particularly abduction – can do the job admirably.

Continue reading “Innoduction?”

New Rule (#38)

I’ve added Rule 38 to my Rules page: There are no slippery slopes, only slippery people.

That is to say, slippery slopes are fallacious reasoning, and I believe one uses a slippery slope argument only because one has ulterior motives for arguing against a claim.  Far better, I say, to be clear and honest about those motives.

Postmodernism is evil

This is your brain on postmodernism.

Tom Chivers has a good post excoriating the fetid creationist nouveau Virginia Heffernan, who thinks that science and religion can be treated as social “text.”

I cannot think of an insult too low for that intellectual whore and her creationist bullshit.  But, in the words of Leslie Nielsen, that’s not important right now.

Instead, I wanted to use Heffernan’s tripe and Chivers sage rebuttal to highlight just how vacuous postmodernism is. Postmodernism is a reductionist (which they call “deconstructionist”) perspective on – well, pretty much everything – but seen through the lens of the arts rather than the sciences.  It’s just the kind of semantics-free babble you get when some well-educated artists get science-envy and create their own, utterly baseless perspective of the universe.

Continue reading “Postmodernism is evil”