Amuse yourself greatly with David Berlinksi

I don’t have anything to say today, or this year, better than what David Berlinski said two years ago in a speech introducing The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. The wit, the precision, and the audacity is amazing. “Most of science is not falsifiable. I never understood Karl Popper“. Wow! Disputing Karl Popper?!! Listen to the impassioned young man arguing against him during the Q and A. Berlinski  says falisifiability is”simply too simple a concept to treat of the delicacy and interconnectredness  or the articulation of a scientific theory”. Is the young man right? Is Berlinksi playing Artful Dodger? Is he being serious?

Amuse yourself. Listen and discuss.

 

I worry about Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson is the most important public intellectual today. His only rival for pertinence and importance is Douglas Murray. By chance I was listening to Dr. Peterson’s podcast this afternoon in the car for quite a while and I had to turn him off. The ostensible subject was a Jungian interpretation of Disney’s the Lion King. But the tone of voice, the breathlessness, the apparent shouting (though he was not raising his voice): it was all wrong. It was all wrong for an enclosed space. It might have been effective in the presence of the large audience he was addressing, yet as a podcast, he entirely violated the basic rule of the radio: that you are talking into someone’s living room, that you are talking into someone’s ear.

My wife said he sounded extremely anxious. We spoke about his health problems. He seems to be a candle burning at both ends.

Just think about how Jeremy Irons would narrate a story.

Peterson, by contrast, is exhasuting to listen to.  He is like a man juggling chainsaws trying to recite the Iliad. All you hear is the ragged voice reciting the Iliad, and you cannot see him juggling the invisible chainsaws, but you can hear the effort. Jordan, please breathe deeply and do some enthogenic drugs and come to grips with your demons in a safe space. I wish you all the best and I do not want you to flame out. See Blade Runner for guidance.

 

Macron is in trouble with all the right people

It appears that President Macron is no longer favoured by the likes of the Washington Post and the New York Times. A good thing too. Here is Aris Roussinos in Unherd, a periodical I would recommend to your attention on the subject of Macron’s newly found resistance to Islam, right-wing  reaction, and intellectual obscurantism.

 

“Yet it is surely in his vision of Europe as a commonwealth, a continent where we share a sense of belonging and ineffable political values despite our division into discrete nation-states, that we see Macron’s evolution most clearly: the defender of the French Revolution’s values has become an unexpected Burkean. It is not just that his horror at the tyranny and fanaticism of what became of the Arab Spring shapes his worldview, as the French Revolution did Burke’s, with his drift to the right deriving from a similar claimed desire to save liberalism from its own worst excesses.

Macron also echoes Burke’s conception of Europe as a political unit, an orderly and pacific civilisation of its own, and a commonwealth of shared values to be defended against internal and external challengers. Whatever divides us Europeans, he asserts, in a quote which could be lifted directly from Burke’s 1796 Letters on a Regicide Peace, “something unites us. We know that we are European when we are outside of Europe. We feel our differences when we are among Europeans, but we feel nostalgia when we leave Europe.”

 

Revolution in Military Affairs

From RT, this report on fighting wars by drones. Armenia just got clobbered by Turkey’s drone tactics in the recent set-to with Azerbaijan. The machine gun of the modern age has been invented, and it is the coordinated use of drones. $1 worth of drones takes out $5 worth of tanks, artillery and command posts. In the same fashion a few hundred thousands worth of WW2 fighter-bombers took out $100 million battleships.

The tank has been rendered obsolete by the drone.

 

The origin of Life

Watch this man, Dr. James Tour. The origin of life: we haven’t a clue. We have no idea how to build the simplest bacterium. So all the stories you have hear about early experiments putting an electric charge through simple chemicals in a flask are total bullshit (the Miller-Urey experiement in 1952) in that nothing further has flowed from those experiments. And there exists a collaboration between bullshit science and the media that leads other scientists who do not know what they are talking about to assume that “science” has answered the question of the origin of life when it has not.

 

From Wikipedia:

Tour has written extensively on his viewpoint that all scientific studies to date are wholly inadequate to account for life. In multiple essays in the Inference: International Review of Science, Tour argues from a chemical perspective that the molecules needed for life – nucleotides, carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids – are too complex to have been formed by probabilistic chance and the methods to assemble those structures into a cell are unknown. Ultimately, he believes that on matters of life’s origin, which is the genesis for all evolution, that scientists are “utterly clueless”.[62][63][64][65] Though he remains open to the possibility that future research will afford an explanation.[58]