look at him go. Here from Reason TV is the catalogue:
HT to Veronique de Rugy
here is a life plan from Julie Neidlinger.
My plan is somewhere lost in abstracts, or a decommissioned dimension. It doesn’t buy groceries or dentist visits or thinks past age 40. It seems real and concrete somewhere between midnight and 1 a.m., or when I’m laughing with my friend and tomorrow doesn’t exist. Five minutes from now catches me off guard, or the brief bit of conversation that turns everything upside down.
seriously, how weird am I?
I have been watching the dialogue between Mark Krikorian, Wesley Smith and Jonah Goldberg in The Corner with great interest. They are talking about vegans and vegetarians, morality and whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat etc. Really good stuff and very interesting.
Anyway, today Jonah posts this email correcting a philosophical point that Jonah made about the persuasiveness of one of Wesley’s points.
Paragraphs like these two just tickle my brain and make me happy. The last sentence especially just makes me want to jump up and click my heels together:
Here’s an example of a valid moral conclusion drawn from a factual premise: “Putting arsenic in a dog’s food will poison him [scientific fact]. It is wrong to poison dogs [moral premise]. Therefore, it is wrong to put arsenic in a dog’s food [moral conclusion].” Whether or not you agree that it’s wrong to poison dogs, there’s nothing invalid or fallacious about the argument.
So I don’t think Wesley Smith committed a mistake in moral reasoning. He just left implicit a key assumption: that the normal operations of our bodies reveal what it is morally permissible for us to do. Although that’s a controversial statement, it captures a bedrock principle of the influential school of moral philosophy known as natural law (members include Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Pope Benedict). It isn’t at all fallacious. Smith’s argument would defeat the arguments of the vegetarians if the burden of proof is on them, but it would require quite a bit more dialectical work if the burden of proof is on him.
so, how weird does that make me?
Jonah Golberg has been the lone voice crying in the wilderness on behalf of proper funding levels for research into airborne-laser volcano lancing.
from New Scientist here is more on the possibly impending threat.
If the structure beneath the three volcanoes is indeed a vast bubble of partially molten rock, it would be comparable in size to the biggest magma chambers ever discovered, such as the one below Yellowstone National Park.
Every few hundred thousand years, such chambers can erupt as so-called supervolcanoes – the Yellowstone one did so about 640,000 years ago. These enormous eruptions can spew enough sunlight-blocking ash into the atmosphere to cool the climate by several degrees Celsius.
Could Mount St Helens erupt like this? “A really big, big eruption is possible if it is one of those big systems like Yellowstone,” Hill says. “I don’t think it will be tomorrow, but I couldn’t try to predict when it would happen.”
On the health front, Joe Thorn reminds us that coffee is good, which is a good thing, because I love coffee.
I saw in the Men’s Health e-newsletter (I am not fit enough or cool enough to read the actual magazine) that those ubersmart euro-scientists are finding a link between coffee consumption and brain health.
Go check out the findings at Joe’s place as well as a very helpful instructional video.
my brain feels better already.
Men, it is now Christmas Eve and time to panic if you have not yet completed your appointed rounds for your brides. In my never ending quest to assist my fellow men, I have scoured the internet and discovered these ten gift ideas from a couple of guys that really seem to know their stuff.