Leopold II of Belgium: The Biggest Coverup In European History
28 Sep 2018 Leave a comment
in defence economics, development economics, economic history, economics of bureaucracy, economics of crime, growth disasters, International law, law and economics, Public Choice, war and peace Tags: economics of colonialism
Scientific Authority and Political Myth
28 Sep 2018 Leave a comment
Why were the Mongols so effective?
27 Sep 2018 Leave a comment
in defence economics, economic history
The Waterboys – The Whole Of The Moon (1985)
27 Sep 2018 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, Music
David Friedman – A Consequentialist Theory of Anarcho-Capitalism – PorcFest X
26 Sep 2018 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, David Friedman, defence economics, economics of crime, law and economics, property rights
The BBC changed the religion/science accommodationism question on its evolution quiz
26 Sep 2018 Leave a comment
As reader Eric astutely pointed out, the BBC has now changed question #7—the “accommodationism” question—in the evolution quiz I described this morning. It previously read this way:
Now it reads this way:
I’m fairly sure, but not positive, that calling attention to this question by myself or others has led to the change. It’s an improvement for sure, but I emphasize again that this question has no place in a quiz about evolution. It’s a theological or philosophical question that doesn’t test anybody’s knowledge about evolution. What gives, Beeb? You in bed with Templeton?
Further, the “right” answer depends on what you mean by “incompatible”. If you construe “compatibility” as “some people can be both scientists and religious,” then of course they’re compatible. But if you construe it as “compatible in using comparable methods to ascertain what’s true”, then it’s false. My whole book Faith Versus Fact
View original post 54 more words
BBC climate change ‘facts’ are fiction
26 Sep 2018 Leave a comment
Earth and climate – an ongoing controversy
‘Move along please, nothing to see here, science is settled’. Is that the BBC’s climate reporting policy? Does controversy have to be swept under the carpet, for fear of upsetting the ‘greenblob’? What happened to their charter duty of impartiality?
H/T The GWPF
In order to avoid giving ‘false balance’ to the climate alarmists at the BBC, I thought it would be a good idea to fact-check their new internal guidance on climate change, writes Harry Wilkinson.
This is their totalitarian memorandum aimed at stamping out free scientific discourse, on the basis that certain facts are established beyond dispute.
The problem is that these ones aren’t, and the BBC is guilty of repeatedly failing to describe accurately the nuances of climate science and the degree to which certain claims are disputed.
View original post 264 more words
Recent Comments