What if scientists had Twitter earlier on?
George Ellis on philosophy in science (or lack thereof):
The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.
It’s very ironic when [Lawrence Krauss] says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy...
If [Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson] really believe [that philosopy is a waste of time,] they should stop indulging in low-grade philosophy in their own writings. You cannot do physics or cosmology without an assumed philosophical basis. You can choose not to think about that basis: it will still be there as an unexamined foundation of what you do. The fact you are unwilling to examine the philosophical foundations of what you do does not mean those foundations are not there; it just means they are unexamined.
As always, Carolyn nails it on boundaries:
There’s nothing wrong with your boundaries... you just need to accept that people won’t always respect them, receive them warmly or allow you to set them without consequences. That’s just part of the deal with boundaries, and the boundary-crossing people who inspire them.Raise kinder kids.
I have little to add to the responses to Lauren of Apples; I'd like to echo/elaborate on two aspects of the response I've linked to: I wish for her to love her body and also to know that her marriage is stronger than other women's mammary glands. And that the insecurity that is causing the problems is internally driven and can't be helped by anything on the outside. It's just self-defeating to be threatened by women.
Ooh, Jonathan Yardley reviews Alan Connor's new book on crosswords.