John Horgan on his book, The End of Science: “(I) thought it might be useful for me to

present a succinct summary of my

end-of-science argument as well as a

rebuttal of 10 common

counter-arguments.” An interview by John Brockman.

“I believe that this map of reality that scientists

have constructed, and this narrative of

creation, from the big bang through the

present, is essentially true. It will thus be as

viable 100 or even 1,000 years from now as it is

today. I also believe that, given how far

science has already come, and given the limits

constraining further research, science will be

hard-pressed to make any truly profound

additions to the knowledge it has already

generated. Further research may yield no more

great revelations or revolutions but only

incremental returns.”

Horgan feels that scientists have turned from true science, in which investigation converges on the truth, to what he calls ironic science, ” a speculative, non-empirical mode that… resembles

literature or philosophy or theology in that it

offers points of view, opinions, which are, at

best, ‘interesting,’ which provoke further

comment” but are no longer empirically proveable. As examples, he cites superstring theory, the Gaia hypothesis, parallel universe theories in cosmology, and almost the whole of psychology and the social sciences. “Some observers say all these untestable,

far-fetched theories are signs of science’s

vitality and boundless possibilities. I see them

as signs of science’s desperation and terminal

illness.”

[Personally, I think Horgan’s faith in empiricism and “capital-T” truth is naive.The objection to his thesis he dismisses least convincingly is the charge that it is itself ironic science. The “end of science” is not upon us, because “science” as he envisions it never really existed in the first place. I often find this shortcoming in science writers who don’t do, or haven’t done, science themselves. Having invested so much in their career choice, their faith must be unassailable to avoid painful self-doubt.] The Edge

Loch Ness webcams, both surface and underwater (although when I went to the site, the surface camera wasn’t working). Park this in the corner of your screen and do some monster spotting.

Gendercide Watch, a fascinating resource confronting historical and contemporary gender-selective mass killings around the world, whether against

women (the Nanjing massacre, female infanticide) or men (slaughters in Rwanda and Colombia).

There is no new new thing. USA Today

Hacker Site Raises GM’s Hackles. After 2600‘s recent high-profile loss in the court case brought by the MPAA over its posting of links to DeCSS (which defeats the copy-protection scheme on DVD’s), it is again courting legal danger by registering unflattering domain names referring to large corporations. General Motors demands that the magazine turn over the rights to fuckGeneralMotors.com on trademark infringement grounds. 2600 defends its actions on free speech grounds. It has also registered FuckNBC.com and VerizonReallySucks.com. Interestingly, Verizon, which has recently been going after unauthorized uses of its name on the web, decided that the 2600-registered domain did not violate fair use principles. I’m not a lawyer but it’s hard to see how GM or anyone else could make a case that these infringe on their trademark rights, any more than, say, a book about a company that uses that company’s name in its title. Wired

The rule of opinion and the fate of ideas: “What are the prospects of science in a society that is steeped in a democratic

ethos, professes to admire science, and expects great things of scientists,

but which, notwithstanding a massive educational system, comprehends

science rather poorly?”

The news, as I see it, is bad. To put it plainly, despite

three centuries of co-evolution, despite frequent episodes of mutual

encouragement and support, the culture of modern democracy and that of

modern science are in many ways incongruent. Orthodox history of science

regards certain developments as the most sweeping and fateful of triumphs:

the Copernican Revolution that culminated in Newton’s synthesis, the

Darwinian revelation that humanity is an adventitious consequence of the

convolution of biology and history, the relentless explication of biological

process, including those of the human organism, in terms of chemistry and

physics.

The depressing, though often unspoken, truth is that these are regarded as

sovereign insights only within the relatively tiny community of the scientifically

well-educated. In the larger society, even Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and

Newton are more accepted than understood. It is hardly necessary to remark

that Darwin, as a historical figure and as the symbol of an idea, is widely

reviled. The ongoing revolution in genetics and molecular biology, while

doubtless deserving of intelligent ethical scrutiny, has often been received with

what amounts to superstitious terror.

Annals of the Age of Depravity: Woman Suspected of Flushing Infant Down Toilet Reuters

Ignore the undecided — “Voters who haven’t made

up their minds yet are a

little like the O.J. jury —

they’re clearly not paying

attention and shouldn’t be

trusted with an important

decision.” It’s inconceivable to me, and to this columnist, that those who remain undecided until the last minute are intelligently deliberating about differences between the candidates. Instead, the campaign is shaped by and the candidates held hostage to the least discerning of voters, drawing the candidates to migrate their position toward the middle rather than play to their differences. Salon