tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post2975620640596173763..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Simply misinterpreting each other’s intentRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-24451354137508725542017-08-09T14:05:06.773-07:002017-08-09T14:05:06.773-07:00Pigliucci has PhD in science, as well as one in ph...Pigliucci has PhD in science, as well as one in philosophy. I believe he has a fair number of published papers in evolutionary biology. So yes, he qualifies as a scientist. No he writes more on subjects like the philosophy of what is, or is not, pseudoscience.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-36271558275453479012017-08-09T13:01:15.978-07:002017-08-09T13:01:15.978-07:00Hello Roger! MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI claims to be a sci...Hello Roger! MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI claims to be a scientist!<br /><br />https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/ He writes:<br /><br />"In addition, as a scientist and philosopher by profession, I always try to figure out more coherent ways to understand the world (science) and better choices for living my life (philosophy). I have for many years been attracted to virtue ethics — a core of Stoic philosophy — as a way to think about morality and a life worth living. I have also recently passed the half century mark, one of those arbitrary points in human life that nonetheless somehow prompt people to engage in broader reflections on who they are and what they are doing."<br /><br />Is he a scientist? What is is research area, if so?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811856497202846228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-7496726925694116142017-08-07T11:36:40.226-07:002017-08-07T11:36:40.226-07:00I agree that the title is annoying, and so is the ...I agree that the title is annoying, and so is the Dawkins endorsement. But a book review should address the actual contents of the book.<br /><br />Albert and Pigliucci are examples of philosophers who get very excited and dogmatic about silly terminological issues, and who ignore the substantive issues.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-91147438899622373262017-08-07T11:23:12.779-07:002017-08-07T11:23:12.779-07:00I was annoyed by the title of Krauss's book. ...I was annoyed by the title of Krauss's book. It is misleading. The average person thinks that when he says "nothing" he means "nothing." He doesn't.joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10462583415297392889noreply@blogger.com