‘Biology is an autonomous science and should not be mixed up with physics.’… Read the rest
All entries by this author
In Biology Everyone Stands in Mayr’s Shadow
Jul 7th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia Benson‘Mayr’s life defies the myth that elderly scientists are incapable of changing their minds.’… Read the rest
The Nuances of That Word
Jul 7th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonYou? Yourself? Or off? Hitchens suggests off is best.… Read the rest
There Are Limits, After All
Jul 6th, 2004 11:21 pm | By Ophelia BensonOkay, that does it. I’m going to have to put my foot down. (Ooh, scary.) I’m going to have to get all authoritarian and domineering – all prescriptive instead of descriptive. There’s no help for it.
There was a discussion on Crooked Timber the other day about the odd usage whereby ‘argue that’ means the opposite of what it means. The example that caught Harry’s attention was this one: ‘Though few would argue that children should be protected from exposure to Internet pornography, COPA, the law designed to protect them has been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.’ You see the problem? It’s confusing, and stupidly confusing – you realize (from the context) when you get to the end … Read the rest
Judy, Judy, Judy
Jul 6th, 2004 8:17 pm | By Ophelia BensonHere we go again. What is it about Judith Butler that makes people come over all delusional? That causes them 1) to exaggerate her fame and celebrity and stardom and name-recognition in an utterly grotesque manner and 2) causes them to overestimate her real as opposed to apparent or fame-related importance, interest, originality, ‘insight’, profundity, originality, and brilliance?
Well, I suppose one answer is, shall we say, a certain lack of nous. At least on the evidence of this article in Salon that seems to be one answer. [Note: you have to click through a brief advert to read article.] For instance there is the sentence ‘Butler even made headlines in the New York Times when she won an … Read the rest
Open Democracy on Multiculturalism
Jul 6th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonDoes multiculturalism lead to cultural relativism? What about the universal standards of human rights?… Read the rest
Sucking Up to Judith Butler
Jul 6th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonSuperstar, classic, defining work, platinum album, seminal work, provocative, immense success, etc.… Read the rest
The Fahrenheit 9/11 Files
Jul 6th, 2004 2:30 am | By Ophelia BensonAnd now to be serious again. Or maybe not so much serious as slightly less egomaniacal. The discussion of Michael Moore’s new movie rages on. Or not really rages, perhaps, but several people are talking about it. Todd Gitlin, for example, who has some reservations –
… Read the restBut now a pause for a moment of conscience. Let intellect have its due. Moore cuts plenty of corners, so how good can that be? Compelling? Useful? Moore specializes in hodgepodge. He jokes his way past the rough edges. He’s neither journalist nor documentarian, for he doesn’t set out to discover what he doesn’t already know. To patronize Michael Moore by calling him useful is to give him a pass for shoddy work, sloppy
Moore Could be Better and Still Be Moore
Jul 5th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia Benson‘He could show us that war kills and Bush is appalling, and yet be more scrupulous.’… Read the rest
Arab News Media and the ‘Blood of Martyrs’
Jul 5th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia Benson‘al Qaeda has become mainstream and being part of the movement is “cool” in the eyes of young people.’… Read the rest
The ‘No Ectoplasm Clause’
Jul 5th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonMassimo Pigliucci on the neurobiology of regret.… Read the rest
Tupac Shakur not Some Sort of Byron
Jul 5th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonJohn McWhorter says rap teaches ‘recreational outrage.’… Read the rest
High Art v Low is a False Dichotomy
Jul 5th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia Benson‘In America, even the intellectuals are anti-intellectual.’… Read the rest
The Hubble’s Last Years?
Jul 5th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonNASA has canceled missions to service telescope.… Read the rest
Machiavellian Monkeys
Jul 5th, 2004 | By Carl ZimmerOur brains are huge, particularly if you take into consideration the relative size of our bodies. Generally, the proportion of brain to body is pretty tight among mammals. But the human brain is seven times bigger than what you’d predict from the size of our body. Six million years ago, hominid brains were about a third the size they are today, comparable to a chimp’s. So what accounts for the big boom? It would be flattering ourselves to say that the cause was something we are proud of–our ability to talk, or our gifts with tools. Certainly, our brains show signs of being adapted for these sorts of things (consider the language gene FOXP2). But those adaptations probably were … Read the rest
John Sutherland Deplores Soggy Platitudes
Jul 4th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonNo one reading this blah-ridden document would guess how serious the crisis in arts funding is.… Read the rest
Louis Menand is a Tosser, Publisher Says
Jul 4th, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonHelps to have a sense of humour, to get point of Eats, Shoots & Leaves.… Read the rest
Sudden Doubling of Known Planet Population
Jul 3rd, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonHubble telescope has found nearly 100 new planets.… Read the rest
Skull Fuels Homo erectus Debate
Jul 3rd, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonSmall skull could show diversity within species, or different species.… Read the rest
Carl Zimmer on a New Hominid Find
Jul 3rd, 2004 | Filed by Ophelia BensonIs human development straight or branching? How important were long legs and big brains?… Read the rest