For me, being involved in politics isn't about having an opinion about every issue. It is about learning both sides of each issue and being fascinated by them. There are very few political issues that I have strong opinions on. The rest I either have yet to educate myself on or I understand both sides and have yet to choose which one I agree with.

The reason I hate politics is that politics pretends to be real - real in the sense of true - when it’s really just theater, posture, and laugh track, a passing show of voracious egos straddling some genuine heart and compassion. Intelligence, too. The trouble is that emotions trump reason in matters of moral indignation.

The U.S. was never intended to be a democracy; it was designed as a Republic. The Rule of Law (the U.S. Constitution,) was crafted to "bind down from mischief" the Rule of Man. Nevertheless, two centuries later the Rule of Law has been subverted completely, the Constitution is now meaningless, and we find ourselves living in a Fascist dictatorship run chiefly (though not solely) by Wall Street. A quiet coup d'etat has taken place over the span of many years and decades, and ours is an occpied country now. Even so, American fascism will ultimately fail and collapse. It is inevitable. Too much debt, too much misery, too many structural problems, and more Black Swans waiting in the wings than AmeriKa can possibly hope to survive. It's hard to say what the next chapter will look like, but it will be Hell on wheels, I'm sure.

Lying in politics transcends political party and era. It is, in some ways, an inherent part of the profession of politicking.

But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent

Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of

Scientists at the University of Manchester have developed a new type of self-replicating computer that uses DNA to make calculations, a breakthrough that could make computing far more efficient.

was responsible for holding a number of sessions to test the validity of psychokinesis (moving objects with the mind). In these sessions, attendees were taught how to initiate their own PK events using various metal objects. Individuals were able to completely bend or contort their metal specimens with no physical force being applied whatsoever

At the same time, a second, more momentous, intellectual revolution will be needed regarding government intervention in social outcomes and economic structures. Market fundamentalism conceals a profound contradiction. Free trade, technological progress, and other forces that promote economic “efficiency” are presented as beneficial to society, even if they harm individual workers or businesses, because growing national incomes allow winners to compensate losers, ensuring that nobody is left worse off.

Moral

The subject matter of both morality and economics is human action. Economic inquiry wants to know the cause and consequences of human actions.

Dr. Alfred Marshall defines economics as "On the one side the study of wealth, and on the other and more important side a part of the study of man".

Marginal utility may decrease into negative utility, as it may become entirely unfavorable to consume another unit of any product

The anthropic principle says that the universe appears "designed" for the sake of human life

To state the principle more dramatically, a preponderance of physical evidence points to humanity as the central theme of the cosmos.

Evidence of specific preparation for human existence shows up in the characteristics of the solar system, as well

Science Can’t Prove Anything Aug.11,2011 Sir Karl Popper's foundational work, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, makes it clear that science cannot prove anything (click for credit)In one of my science textbooks, I make the statement that science cannot prove anything.1 I am always surprised at how controversial such a matter-of-fact statement is to some people. Almost every year, at least one student or parent will contact me simply aghast that I would write something like that in a science textbook. After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

. I find myself frequently repeating to students and the public that science doesn’t “prove” theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement.

Unfortunately, as long as science magazines and teachers are sloppy enough to keep using phrases like, “science has proven,” it will be hard to teach children the truth

The prevailing view within the discipline is that scholars should set aside moral values and political concerns in favour of detached enquiry into the mechanics of how the political world functions.

But I have yet to be convinced by the idea that the study of politics can be apolitical and value-neutral. Our choice of research topics will inevitably reflect our own political and moral priorities, and the way in which that research is framed and conducted is bound to reflect assumptions which – whether held consciously, semi-consciously or unconsciously – remain of a moral and political nature.

25% of American respondents answered that the sun orbits the Earth [1]. A recent AP-GFK poll found that as many as 4 in 10 American adults doubt evolution, over half aren't confident that the Big Bang took place, just under 40% don't believe that pollution is causing climate change

When teaching science, teachers have to contend with students' old ideas of how the world works, an uphill battle where the old ideas have the advantage.

Children are exposed to scientific ideas at around age eight, when they become able to understand abstract concepts. Before that age, children rely on "magical thinking" to explain how the world exists and works, so, science education faces a tough challenge right from the start

The question doctors fear most: 'Do you believe in God?

I thought of telling him politely that religion was immaterial in a secular public hospital.

Pheromones are chemical signals that have evolved for communication between members of the same species. A pheromone signal elicits a specific reaction in the receiver, for example, a stereotyped behavior

There is also evidence that deaf people cut off from language, spoken or signed, think in sophisticated ways before they have been exposed to language.

The philosopher Peter Carruthers has argued that there is a type of inner, explicitly linguistic thinking that allows us to bring our own thoughts into conscious awareness. We may be able to think without language, but language lets us know that we are thinking.

it's important to define and describe dehumanization, because it's what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.

it can be helpful to understand what it is that allows human beings "to overcome the very deep and natural inhibitions they have against treating other people like game animals or vermin or dangerous predators."

Mostly, they were seen as "soulless animals." And that dramatic dehumanization made it possible for great atrocities to take place.

the Princeton University researchers have found that the expectation that life — from bacteria to sentient beings — has or will develop on other planets as on Earth might be based more on optimism than scientific evidence.

Persuasion plays a crucial role in successful conflict resolution.  The authors explain, "negotiated settlements most typically fall apart if the parties to the settlement do not truly believe that it is in their self-interest.  For a negotiated settlement to stand the test of time, both parties have to be persuaded that the settlement is in some sense optimal."(p. 157) Negotiators will be more persuasive if they understand which type of information processing is predominates at each particular stage of negotiations, and if they formulate their persuasive appeals in light of that understanding.